U.S. SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FISCAL YEAR 2019

ANNUAL 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM 

STATUS REPORT

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715
Some information referenced in this report has been redacted to protect privacy. 

Please contact the Director of the SEC’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity 

at 202-551-6040 or OEEO@sec.gov to request access to non-public information.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | i

CONTENTS

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION INFORMATION (PARTS A, B, C, D) . . . 1

Part A: Department or Agency Identifying Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part B: Total Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part C: Agency Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part D: Subordinate Components and Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PART E). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

SEC’s EEO Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Commission’s Annual Self-Assessment Against MD-715 Essential Elements . . . . . . . . . . 9

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Commission Leadership. . . . . . . 9

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Commission’s Strategic Mission . . . . . 19

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination. . . . . . . . . . . 34

Essential Element E: Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Summary of EEO Plan Objectives Planned to Eliminate Identified Barriers 

or Correct Program Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

CERTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTINUING 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS (PART F). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

AGENCY EEO PLAN TO ATTAIN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A 

MODEL EEO PROGRAM (PART H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Section I: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

AGENCY EEO PLAN TO ELIMINATE IDENTIFIED BARRIER (PART I). . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Section I: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Section II: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Section III: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Section IV: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

Section V: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

Prepared by

THE OFFICE OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
ii | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, ADVANCEMENT, 

AND RETENTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (PART J). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117

Section II: Model Disability Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program. . . . . . . . 121

Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations . . . . . . . . . . 126

Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities . . . .131

Advancement Program Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131

Career Development Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Voluntary and Involuntary Separations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

Accessibility of Technology and Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152

Reasonable Accommodation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the Workplace . . . . 157

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

EEO Complaint Data Involving Harassment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158

EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

ATTACHMENT 1. SEC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171

ATTACHMENT 2. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY. . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

ATTACHMENT 3. SEC STRATEGIC PLAN FY 2018—FY 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

ATTACHMENT 4. POLICY ON PREVENTING HARASSMENT (PPH). . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

ATTACHMENT 5. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND PERSONAL 

ASSISTANCE SERVICES PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

ATTACHMENT 6. SEC’S ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CONFLICT 

TO RESOLUTION PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

ATTACHMENT 7. POLICY MEMORANDUM: STANDARDS FOR EEO, 

WORKFORCE DIVERSITY, AND WORKPLACE INCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

ATTACHMENT 8. WORKFORCE DATA TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 1

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION INFORMATION 

(PARTS A, B, C, D)

Part A: Department or Agency Identifying Information

Agency

Second 

Level 

Component

Address City State

Zip 

Code 

(xxxxx)

Agency 

Code 

(xxxx)

FIPS 

Code

(xxxx)

U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission

N/A 100 F Street, NE Washington DC 20549 SE00 11001

Part B: Total Employment

Total Employment Permanent Workforce Temporary Workforce Total Workforce

Number of Employees 4,266 99 4,365

Part C: Agency Leadership

Section I: Head of Agency and Head of Agency Designee

Agency Leadership Name Title

Head of Agency Jay Clayton Chairman

Agency Head Designee Peter J. Henry Director, Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity

Section II: Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s) 

EEO 

Program 

Staff

Name Title

Occupational 

Series 

(xxxx)

Pay Plan 

and Grade 

(xx-xx)

Phone 

Number

(xxx-xxx-xxxx)

Email 

Address

Principal EEO 

Director/Official

Peter J. 

Henry

Director, 

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

0905 SO 202-551-7001 henryp@sec.gov

Affirmative 

Employment 

Program 

Manager

Peter J. 

Henry

Director, 

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

0905 SO 202-551-7001 henryp@sec.gov

Complaint 

Processing 

Program 

Manager

M. Stacey 

Bach

Deputy Director, 

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

0905 SK-17 202-551-8599 bachm@sec.gov

Diversity & 

Inclusion Officer

Pamela 

Gibbs

Director, Office 

of Minority and 

Women Inclusion

0340 SO 202-551-6503 gibbsp@sec.gov

Hispanic 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Pamela 

Gibbs

Director, Office 

of Minority and 

Women Inclusion

0340 SO 202-551-6503 gibbsp@sec.gov

I I I I I I I I I 
2 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEO 

Program 

Staff

Name Title

Occupational 

Series 

(xxxx)

Pay Plan 

and Grade 

(xx-xx)

Phone 

Number

(xxx-xxx-xxxx)

Email 

Address

Women's 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Pamela 

Gibbs

Director, Office 

of Minority and 

Women Inclusion

0340 SO 202-551-6503 gibbsp@sec.gov

Disability 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)1

Pamela 

Gibbs

Director, Office 

of Minority and 

Women Inclusion 

0340 SO 202-551-6503 gibbsp@sec.gov

Special 

Placement 

Program 

Coordinator 

(Individuals with 

Disabilities)

Kai Petty Team Lead, 

Office of Human 

Resources

0201 SK-14 202-551-6344 pettyka@sec.gov

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

Program 

Manager

Dia 

Gonsalves

Branch Chief, 

Office of Human 

Resources

0343 SK-15 202-551-3166 gonsalvesd@sec.gov

AntiHarassment 

Program 

Manager2

Ilene Citrin Attorney, 

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

0905 SK-14 202-551-6025 citrini@sec.gov

ADR Program 

Manager

M. Stacey 

Bach

Deputy Director, 

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

0905 SK-17 202-551-8599 bachm@sec.gov

Compliance 

Manager

M. Stacey 

Bach

Deputy Director, 

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

0905 SK-17 202-551-8599 bachm@sec.gov

Principal 

MD-715 

Preparer

Martha E. 

Hennen

Personnel 

Psychologist, 

Office of Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity

0343 SK-16 202-551-8885 hennenm@sec.gov

1 Special Emphasis Program Management (SEPM) for persons with disabilities is coordinated across the Office of Human 

Resources (OHR) and the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI). The Director of OMWI is listed here to 

reflect responsibility for the Employee Affinity Group supporting SEC employees with disabilities. Other relevant program 

management is described in Part J, infra. 2 The harassment prevention program is a management responsibility and many SEC offices coordinate responsibilities. The 

OEEO subject matter expert is identified here due to her leadership in the SEC’s proactive harassment prevention dialogues 

and for providing educational outreach to managers and employees on preventing harassment in the workplace.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 3

Part D: Subordinate Components and Documents

Section I: List of Subordinate Components Covered in this Report

Please identify the subordinate components within the Agency (e.g., bureaus, regions, etc.).

X If the Agency does not have any subordinate components, please check the box.

Section II: 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

Personal Assistance Services Procedures Yes

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 No

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) Report No

Operational Plan for Increasing Employment of Individuals with Disabilities 

under Executive Order 13548 No

Diversity and Inclusion Plan under Executive Order 13583 No

Diversity Policy Statement No

Human Capital Strategic Plan No

EEO Strategic Plan No

Results from most recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or Annual 

Employee Survey No

□ 
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

(PART E)

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART E

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission For period covering October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019

This Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program Status Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 

is prepared and submitted under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) 

Management Directive 715 (MD-715) and accompanying instructions and guidance. According to 

the EEOC, “[t]he overriding objective of [MD-715] 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.”3 Consistent with 

this objective, MD-715 requires federal agencies to conduct a self-assessment on at least an annual 

basis to evaluate the effectiveness of their overall Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program, 

using EEOC-prescribed compliance indicators and measures. MD- 715 also requires agencies to 

identify any institutional, structural, attitudinal, and/or physical barriers that may operate to exclude 

certain groups, and to develop strategic plans to eliminate identified barriers.

This report highlights accomplishments by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, 

Commission, or Agency) in advancing EEO. This report also identifies additional actions the SEC 

began in FY 2019 and will continue to take, to enhance its overall EEO Program.

MISSION OF THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The SEC’s mission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate 

capital formation.

The SEC oversees approximately $93 trillion in securities trading annually on U.S. equity markets 

and the activities of over 28,000 registered market participants, including investment advisers, 

mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, broker-dealers, municipal advisors, and transfer agents.

The Agency also oversees 24 national securities exchanges, nine credit rating agencies, seven active 

registered clearing agencies, as well as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), 

the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 

(MSRB), the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), and the Financial Accounting 

Standards Board (FASB).

3 MD-715, at Intro. page 5. Protected EEO bases under Federal law also include age (40 and older), genetic information, 

and parental status among others under varying statutes and Executive Orders.

I 
6 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

The SEC is an independent federal agency established pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934. The SEC’s core values are integrity, excellence, accountability, teamwork, fairness, and 

effectiveness. The SEC consists of five presidentially-appointed Commissioners, with staggered 

five-year terms. One of them is designated by the President as Chairman of the Commission who 

is responsible for the executive and administrative functions of the Commission. On May 4, 2017, 

Jay Clayton was sworn in as the 32nd Chairman of the SEC.

The SEC is organized into five divisions (Corporation Finance, Enforcement, Economic and 

Risk Analysis, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets) and 25 offices. The SEC’s 

Headquarters is located in Washington, D.C. (Headquarters or Home Office). The Agency also has 

11 Regional Offices located throughout the country. As of September 30, 2019, the SEC had a total 

workforce of 4,365 employees, including 4,266 permanent employees and 99 temporary employees.

4

 

See Table A1.

SEC’s EEO Program

The accomplishments and developments highlighted in this report stem from collaboration among 

various offices responsible for aspects of the Agency’s EEO Program. Three SEC Offices—the Office 

of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO), the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI), 

and the Office of Human Resources (OHR)—have specific and interrelated responsibilities to foster 

equal employment opportunity and to focus on equal opportunity and diversity-related efforts in the 

Agency’s workforce.

Table 1: Mission, Vision, and Values of SEC’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

SEC’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

Mission To create and apply best practices to achieve equal employment opportunity 

(EEO) in the workplace and to support compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

Vision The SEC serves as an employer-of-choice that fosters an inclusive workplace 

dedicated to the SEC’s mission.

How OEEO works With independence, integrity, collaboration, and a commitment to excellence.

OEEO safeguards employment-related civil rights at the SEC. It champions SEC efforts to foster a 

fair and equitable workplace—one where employment decisions are based on individual merit, and 

where everyone has an equal chance to succeed as far as their talents will take them. It works to 

integrate EEO into the SEC’s everyday business by:

n Contributing subject-matter expertise to aid the SEC with realistic strategic thinking, problemsolving, and policy development toward achieving a model workplace; 

n Analyzing data to identify concrete ways of removing potential impediments to equity in 

employment; 

4 Data for this report was pulled on November 12, 2019, from DataMart, the SEC’s Human Resource Information System 

(HRIS), for pay period 21 of 2019.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 7

n Proactively engaging with internal and external stakeholders, such as SEC leadership, OMWI, 

OHR, the National Employees’ Treasury Union (NTEU), the Diversity Council, and employee 

affinity groups; 

n Educating the workforce about EEO laws and about behaviors that could be perceived as 

unwelcome at work;

n De-escalating workplace conflicts through robust harassment prevention and alternative dispute 

resolution programs;

n Providing a neutral forum (outside the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), NTEU, or OHR) for 

addressing EEO concerns; and

n Independently investigating and assessing EEO concerns and remedying violations of employment 

discrimination laws.

Through these efforts, OEEO helps to engage, energize, and empower employees to contribute fully 

to the SEC’s mission.

OEEO’s Director is a Senior Officer (the equivalent of a member of the Senior Executive Service), 

who, consistent with 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (hereinafter, Part 1614),5 reports to the SEC Chairman.

The OEEO Director leads a neutral office comprised of a small team of diverse professionals. This 

team has significant expertise in legal and social science analysis, proactive prevention, conflict 

management, investigative techniques, federal sector EEO rules and processes, and program 

management.

To comply with Part 1614 and MD-715 requirements, OEEO remains impartial and safeguards 

its organizational autonomy. This helps to prevent institutional conflicts of interest that otherwise 

could arise, and to instill confidence in the integrity of the Agency’s EEO Program. For example, 

OEEO’s Director exercises authority to carry out Part 1614 functions without interference from any 

office, including the Office of the General Counsel. OGC, which defends the SEC in EEO matters, 

is firewalled from activities within OEEO; OGC participates during adversarial portions of the EEO 

process (hearings and appeals), during settlement negotiations (to include discussions occurring as 

a result of a request for mediation made through OEEO’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

Program), and/or to provide appropriate legal advice or assistance when a manager or supervisor 

requests it during the course of an EEO investigation (consistent with EEOC guidance and recent 

case law setting forth parameters for Agency counsel involvement and professional responsibility 

rules governing attorney conduct). Other SEC offices (such as OHR) are similarly firewalled and kept 

separate as necessary and appropriate to avoid conflicting or competing interests.

5 Part 1614 are the EEOC regulations governing federal sector EEO Programs.
8 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Legal resources within OEEO make this possible.

6

 OEEO staff conduct legal-sufficiency reviews of 

EEO matters, which include, for example, preparing and issuing “Accept/Dismiss” determinations 

addressing jurisdiction over, and scope of, claims set forth in formal complaints; conducting an 

impartial and appropriate investigation of accepted formal complaints; conducting substantive 

reviews of the Reports of Investigations (ROIs) to ensure compliance with laws and regulations; and 

drafting of Final Agency Decisions (FADs) and Final Agency Orders (FAOs) (as required by 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.110).

At the same time, while OEEO maintains the primary responsibility for many aspects of the Agency’s 

overall EEO Program, it collaborates as appropriate with the OHR and OMWI7 as well as the 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) and OGC to ensure fairness and equality under the law for all 

employees and applicants for employment. For instance, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act, the OMWI Director (who also reports directly to the SEC Chairman) 

must develop certain standards for EEO and diversity at the SEC,8 which OHR incorporates into 

its human resources management strategy and operations. OEEO, OMWI, and OHR monitor 

the impacts and results of these standards, cultivate successful policies and practices to reinforce 

them, and develop enhancement strategies to strengthen all EEO and diversity and inclusion (D&I) 

programs agency-wide. In addition, OEEO seeks to coordinate on a general basis with OMWI 

and OHR on (among other topics) the diversity recruitment and/or disability accommodation 

programs they administer. OEEO collaborates as appropriate with OGC and OIG, which trains and 

advises managers and supervisors on merit system principles, prohibited personnel practices, and 

whistleblower protections under applicable civil services laws. Finally, OEEO coordinates extensively 

with management, OHR, OGC, OIG, and other offices, as needed, to implement the SEC’s 

harassment-prevention program under the Faragher-Ellerth9 line of cases.

In addition, OEEO is available to provide technical assistance to senior leadership, management, the 

Diversity Council, employee affinity groups, and NTEU to help carry out leadership priorities and 

implement the EEO and D&I aspects of the SEC’s Strategic Plan FY 2018–2022, the Diversity and 

Inclusion Strategic Plan FY 2020–2022, OHR’s Human Capital Strategic Plan FY 2020–2022, and 

OHR Recruitment Strategy 2020–2022. The collective work of these offices provides the strategic 

framework for driving the SEC’s approach to EEO, affirmative employment, and D&I.

6 SEC has adopted the EEOC’s recommended best practice to have sufficient internal legal resources in the EEO office.

See MD-110, Chapter 1, Section IV.D., available at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/

management-directive-110.

7 OMWI was established pursuant to Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 

2010 (Dodd-Frank Act).

8 12 U.S.C. § 5452(b)(2)(A)(f). These standards were promulgated in September 2016 and are available at Attachment 7.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, OMWI’s responsibilities do not include “enforcement of statutes, regulations, or executive 

orders pertaining to civil rights, except [that] each [OMWI] Director shall coordinate with the agency administrator, or the 

designee of the agency administrator, regarding the design and implementation of any remedies resulting from violations 

of such statutes, regulations, or executive orders.” 12 U.S.C. § 5452(a)(3). Additional information about the SEC and its 

diversity efforts can be found at https://www.sec.gov/page/omwi-section-landing.

9 An employer should promptly and thoroughly investigate complaints of perceived discrimination, harassment, or 

retaliation. An employer may avoid liability for harassment that does not involve an adverse employment action if the 

employer can demonstrate: (1) it took reasonable steps to prevent and promptly correct harassment; and (2) the employee 

unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer’s preventive or corrective measures. This principle is referred to 

as the “Faragher-Ellerth” defense, which is a reference to two 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in which the Court 

established the principle.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 9

COMMISSION’S ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT AGAINST MD-715 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

OEEO, in partnership with and through necessary stakeholders, adheres to and promotes the Six 

Elements identified by EEOC and MD-715 as essential for a Model EEO Program under Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, and Section 501 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 (as well as the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-325)). During FY 2019, 

OEEO again performed an annual EEO Program self-assessment. This Executive Summary recaps 

the SEC’s FY 2019 self-assessment findings and action items, organized by each Essential Element 

and related compliance indicators.

Essential Element A:

Demonstrated Commitment from Commission Leadership

Management Directive 715 requires Agency heads and other senior management officials to 

demonstrate a firm commitment to equality of opportunity for employees and applicants for 

employment. During FY 2019, SEC leadership again demonstrated commitment to ensuring 

that the SEC’s talented and diverse staff have equal employment opportunities and are treated 

fairly and with respect.

The SEC’s Strategic Plan FY 2018 – FY 2022,

10 issued in March 2019, underscores this approach.

The five-year Strategic Plan contains three goals. SEC Goal 3 is to “[e]levate the SEC’s performance 

by enhancing our analytical capabilities and human capital development.” SEC Goal 3 will be 

accomplished through the following strategic initiative:

3.1: Focus on the SEC’s workforce to increase our capabilities, leverage our shared commitment to 

investors, and promote diversity, inclusion, and equality of opportunity among the agency’s staff.

As explained in the Strategic Plan, the SEC recognizes its success is dependent on an effective, 

highly-skilled workforce. Accordingly, the Commission focuses on recruiting, retaining, and 

training staff with the right mix of skills and expertise. It also promotes diversity, awareness, 

inclusion, and mutual respect within the workforce so that every staff member has an equal 

opportunity to contribute and succeed.

The SEC also finalized its first Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, FY 2020–2022, further 

exemplifying leadership commitment. To support the SEC’s commitment to its workforce, the SEC 

also developed a two-year (FY 2020 – FY 2022) Human Capital Strategic Plan with input from 

OHR, OEEO, and Division and Office Senior Leadership. The Human Capital Strategic Plan and 

related Recruitment Strategy emphasize attracting diverse talented staff to the Agency, developing 

leaders who manage effectively and engage staff, increasing professional growth opportunities and 

development for staff. OEEO’s on-going planning aligns with and supports these overall strategic 

goals and initiatives.

10 The plan is available at https://www.sec.gov/strategic-plan.
10 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Compliance Indicator A.1—The Agency issues an effective, up-to-date 

EEO policy statement.

The SEC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity is highlighted in its Equal Employment 

Opportunity Policy and Policy on Preventing Harassment (see Attachments 2 and 4). The SEC 

maintains an EEO Policy, which advises employees of the SEC’s commitment to complying with EEO 

laws and provides information on how to participate in the EEO complaint process. In addition, the 

SEC’s Policy on Preventing Harassment (PPH) expresses the SEC’s commitment to a harassment-free 

work environment. The PPH was designed to identify and stop behavior that might be offensive 

on a legally protected basis before it escalates. These documents affirm that the SEC Chairman, 

Commissioners, managers, and first-line supervisors will enforce EEO principles. These policies 

contain all content specified in MD-715 instructions and guidance, including:

n A commitment to EEO for all employees and applicants for employment, regardless of, inter alia, 

their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, transgender status, and 

gender identity), national origin, age, disability, genetic information, and prior protected EEOrelated activity.

n A commitment that all employees and applicants will have the freedom to compete on a fair and 

level playing field.

n A guarantee that EEO encompasses all personnel/employment programs, management practices, 

and decisions, including, but not limited to, recruitment/hiring, merit promotion, transfer, 

reassignments, training and career development, benefits, and separation.

n A guarantee that workplace harassment will not be tolerated, and that the Agency will correct the 

harassing conduct before it becomes severe or pervasive.

n A guarantee that reprisal against anyone who engaged in protected activity will not be tolerated, 

and that the Agency supports the rights of all employees to exercise their rights under the civil 

rights statutes.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 11

On February 22, 2019, the SEC Chairman issued these statements via email directly to all employees 

with a message emphasizing the strategic importance of EEO compliance: 

At the SEC, we hold ourselves to the highest standards of professional conduct. 

Our success in achieving our mission depends on each of us doing our work in 

accordance with the SEC’s core values of integrity, excellence, accountability, 

teamwork, fairness, and effectiveness. Embracing these values brings us together 

as a team to focus us on the strategic initiatives that drive our mission. This also 

forms a critical foundation that helps create and sustain a talented, diverse, and 

engaged workforce.

In support of Goal 3.1 of our new Strategic Plan, we are re-issuing two policies—the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Policy on Preventing Harassment—that 

communicate our shared commitment to a work environment that is respectful, 

inclusive, and allows each of you to perform in support of the SEC’s mission. I 

encourage you to take the time to read each policy.

There is no place at the SEC for discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation 

of federal laws or SEC policies. Such conduct undermines our core values and is 

detrimental to the Agency’s ability to execute its mission and strategic priorities and 

will not be tolerated.

If you believe that either of these policies has been violated, or ever have questions 

about the right thing to do, I ask you to speak up—I encourage you to talk with your 

manager, any member of the SEC’s management team, or the SEC’s Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity at 202-551-6040 or (880) 877-8339 for TTY users.

Thank you for being a part of the SEC and for upholding our values.

These policy documents are readily available on OEEO’s intranet page. Both documents also have 

been provided throughout the year directly to new employees on or around their first day of work 

during employee orientation, and to all new supervisors and managers as they are promoted or join 

the SEC. Large posters with this information have been placed near the OEEO suite and in a display 

stand in the lobby of SEC Headquarters, in other common areas and in regional offices. OEEO 

is assessing its communication strategy in light of EEOC’s Report, Preserving Access to the Legal 

System: A Practical Guide to Providing Employees with Adequate Information About Their Rights 

Under Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws and Regulations (September 2, 2014),11

and will work toward incorporating additional means to relay information in upcoming fiscal years.

11 Available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/preserving-access-legal-system-practical-guide-providingemployees-adequate, accessed on July 27, 2020.
12 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Compliance Indicator A.2—The Agency has communicated EEO policies 

and procedures to all employees.

In addition to the publication of the policies noted above, the SEC has promulgated various other 

regulations and procedures to advance its EEO Program, all of which are readily accessible on the 

SEC’s intranet to all employees. The table below contains a list of policies communicating EEOrelated content.

Table 2: SEC EEO and Affirmative Employment-Related Regulations and Procedures

SEC Regulations and Procedures

Acceptable Use of SEC Information Technology Resources (SECR 24-4.3)

Administrative Grievance Procedure (SECR 6-25)

Affirmative Action Plan for Individuals with Disabilities and Targeted Disabilities

Delegated Examining (SECR 6-6)

Diversity Partnerships (SECR 28-2)

Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking in the Workplace (SECR 6-48)

Domestic Partner Benefits Program (SECR 6-75)

Employee Affinity Groups and Special Observances (SECR 28-3)

Equal Employment Opportunity Dispute Resolution Policy Statement

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Section 508/Accessibility Program (SECR 24-10)

Merit Promotion Program (SECR 6-23, SECR 6-24)

Religious Compensatory Time (for bargaining unit employees) (SECR 6-22)

Policy on Preventing Harassment & Procedures to Implement the SEC’s Policy on Preventing Harassment 

(SECOP 27-1)

Standards for Equal Employment Opportunity, Workforce Diversity, and Workplace Inclusion 

(OMWI – September 8, 2016)

The SEC publishes information about the EEO complaint process and the roles and responsibilities of 

OEEO. Information is placed in high-traffic areas in SEC buildings and offices to provide employees 

and applicants for employment with notice of their EEO rights and to highlight the 45-calendar day 

time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor or OEEO if they believe they have been discriminated 

against on an EEO basis and wish to enter the administrative complaint process. The OEEO intranet 

page contains contact and location information for OEEO, ensuring that employees can easily seek 

OEEO’s assistance—including EEO counseling—in person or virtually. OEEO began a review of

content on its intranet page in FY 2019 and will continue to expand information available in
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 13

upcoming fiscal years. The SEC also provides OEEO contact information to members of the public 

on SEC.gov as well as general information about EEO protections. In FY 2019, the Agency provided 

new employees with copies of important policies and procedures (including the EEO Policy, Policy 

on Preventing Harassment, and EEO Dispute Resolution Policy Statement) during orientation and 

relays additional information about the federal-sector EEO complaint process through a taped 

presentation. All employees also must complete a web-based No FEAR Act12 training upon hire and 

every two years thereafter, which discusses rights and responsibilities, the federal sector complaint 

process, ADR, harassment prevention and reporting, and reasonable accommodation. OHR shares 

information about the SEC’s accommodation program for disability, including providing access to 

relevant policies and procedures and how to make requests, at new employee orientation. OEEO 

has also deployed an in-person, scenario-based harassment prevention training designed to raise 

awareness of the types of words and conduct that could offend others regardless of intent; OEEO 

trained over 1,000 employees in FY 2019.

In mid-FY 2019, OEEO launched a new initiative to conduct in-person outreach to newly hired 

or promoted supervisors and managers within their first few weeks in the position—and prior to 

more formal training opportunities—to give them immediate information and tools to comply 

with EEO laws and best practices. In FY 2019, OEEO staff met with 63 individuals. As part of this 

outreach, OEEO shares written materials and a briefing that provide practical guidance on avoiding 

common EEO pitfalls, including access to additional electronic resources and policies that may be 

useful. This briefing provides a foundation for subsequent, manager-specific training on ADR, merit 

principles and prohibited personnel practices, and managing in compliance with EEO laws. OEEO 

also creates, conducts, collaborates in presenting, and/or sponsors other trainings on EEO-related 

topics, as well, including, for example, harassment prevention dialogues and on-demand learning, 

retaliation awareness under various legal schemes, ADR in the EEO process, contractors and EEO 

issues, live and on-demand new supervisor training regarding EEO, reasonable accommodation, and 

whistleblowing, and on-demand training related to transgender rights in the workplace.

12 The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002.
14 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Further, the No FEAR Act requires each federal agency to develop a plan to train all employees 

(including managers and supervisors) about the rights and remedies available under the 

Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws applicable to them. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) regulations require agencies to include No FEAR Act training plans in the 

annual No FEAR Act Report.

13 The SEC obtained certification from the U.S. Office of Special 

Counsel (OSC) through its 5 U.S.C. § 2302(c) program14 in December 2016; this certification expired 

December 2019, and OSC recertified the SEC in March 2020. As part of these efforts, the Agency 

accomplished the following in FY 2019:

n OSC provided training on prohibited personnel practices and merit system principles to 730 SEC 

managers and supervisors in person and to another 240 managers online.

n OGC routinely advises new employees of whistleblower rights during orientation.

n OGC and the Chairman’s Office provided notification to all employees of the right to be free from 

reprisal via an Agency-wide email.

n SEC launched a new intranet page providing information to employees about OSC, Prohibited 

Personnel Practices (PPP), and whistleblower rights.

n SEC updated its website to link directly to OSC’s website enabling individuals to learn about their 

rights and get instructions on where and how to file PPP and whistleblower-related claims.

n SEC placed updated posters from OSC throughout headquarters and regional office space.

n OGC offered training in headquarters and in each regional office addressing how managers should 

address retaliation, harassment, and discrimination.

n OEEO coordinated a training on retaliation with stakeholders in OGC, OHR, OIG, and the 

Office of Support Operations (OSO).

Collectively, these efforts apprise employees of SEC’s commitment to EEO across all its programs, 

policies, and activities.

13 5 C.F.R. § 724.302(a)(9).

14 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(c), agency heads must ensure, in consultation with the Special Counsel and the Inspector 

General of the agency, that employees of the agency are informed of the rights and remedies available to them under 

the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act (WPEA), and related laws. OSC’s section 2302(c) Certification Program allows federal agencies 

to meet these statutory obligations.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 15

Compliance Indicator A.3—The Agency assesses and ensures EEO principles 

are part of its culture.

Senior SEC leaders have made a sustained and visible commitment to fostering a positive 

organizational culture and to integrating EEO compliance, diversity, and inclusion into SEC actions 

and decisions. The Chairman, Commissioners, and Senior Officers actively sponsor one or more of 

the nine Employee Affinity Groups (EAG) enumerated in the following table.

Table 3: Employee Affinity Groups Active at SEC in FY 2019

Employee Affinity Groups Active in FY 2019

African American Council

American Indian Heritage Committee

Asian American and Pacific Islander Committee

Caribbean American Heritage Committee

Disability Interests Advisory Committee

Hispanic and Latino Opportunity, Leadership, and Advocacy Committee

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Committee

Veterans Committee

Women’s Committee

EAGs have been instrumental in helping to cultivate a workplace culture that attracts diverse talent 

and encourages employee engagement and retention. EAGs foster a supportive, inclusive, and fair 

work environment through their programs and activities, including programs to commemorate 

special observances. OMWI provides guidance, resources, and management support to the EAGs, 

and SEC’s senior leadership supports the EAGs and encourages employees to participate in EAG 

events and activities held throughout the year. Senior leaders spoke at or attended major diversity 

events this past fiscal year. A list of some events held is included in the following table:

Table 4: FY 2019 Programs for Special Observances

Month Program Location Program and Speaker(s)

October 2018 National Disability 

Employment 

Awareness Month 

(NDEAM)

Washington, DC HQ Guest Speaker: Leslie Long, Vice President for Adult 

Services for Autism Speaks

November 

2018

Veterans Day 

Commemoration 

Washington, DC HQ Panel Discussion, moderated by Chairman Jay Clayton: 

Brigadier General David Blackledge, U.S. Army 

(retired); Executive Vice President of Melwood 

Veterans Services LLC; 

Ronald Spector, Vietnam veteran; and Professor 

at George Washington University Elliott School of 

International Affairs 

November 

2018

Native American 

Heritage Month 

Washington, DC HQ Guest Speaker: V Heather Sibbison, Native American 

Law and Policy Practitioner
16 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Month Program Location Program and Speaker(s)

February 2019 African American 

History Month 

Multiple Locations; HQ 

and Regional Offices

Guest Speaker: Mark C Alexander, Dean and Professor 

of Law at Villanova University Charles Widger School of 

Law (Philadelphia)

Panel Program: Black Migration and Urban Realities

with Guest Speakers: 

Christy Garrison, Instructor at Atlanta Metropolitan 

State College; 

Deryl Bailey, Professor at University of Georgia, 

College of Education; and 

Samuel T Livingston, Associate Professor at 

Morehouse College (Atlanta)

Guest Speaker: E Patrick Johnson, Professor at 

Northwestern University (Chicago) 

Guest Speaker and screening of documentary “The 

African Americans – Many Rivers to Cross”: Dr. Henry 

Louis Gates, Jr., Harvard Scholar and Emmy Awardwinning Filmmaker (HQ)

Guest Speaker: Robert Fields, President and Executive 

Director at Weeksville Heritage Center (New York)

March 2019 Women’s History 

Month

Washington, DC HQ Coffee Networking Event featuring Commissioner 

Hester Peirce

May 2019 Asian American 

Pacific Islander 

Month

Multiple locations; 

Regional Offices

Guest Speaker: Joon H. Kim, Partner at Cleary, Gottlieb, 

Steen & Hamilton LLP (New York)

Guest Speaker: Nelson S T Thayer, Jr., Assistant 

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(Philadelphia)

June 2019 Caribbean 

American Heritage 

Month

Multiple Locations; 

HQ and Regional 

Offices

Guest Speaker: Venroy July, Partner at Miles 

& Stockbridge PC (HQ)

Guest Speakers: Christopher Chaplin, Honorary Consul 

for the Jamaican Consulate in Pennsylvania; and 

Michel Francois, Electrophysics/Electrical/Biosensor 

Engineer (Philadelphia)

June 2019 Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual and 

Transgender 

(LGBT) Pride 

Month

Multiple Locations; 

HQ and New York 

Regional Office 

TED Talk Presentation and Discussion: “Love No Matter 

What” by Andrew Solomon (HQ)

Guest Speaker: Stacey Friedman, General Counsel at 

JPMorgan Chase (New York)

September 

15–October 

15, 2019

Hispanic Heritage 

Month

Multiple Locations; 

HQ and New York 

Regional Office

Guest Speaker: The Honorable Dora L Irizarry, Chief 

U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York 

(New York)

Panel Discussion moderated by Chairman Jay Clayton, 

featuring former SEC Commissioners Troy Paredes and 

Roel Campos (HQ)
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 17

Month Program Location Program and Speaker(s)

October 2019 LGBT History 

Month Event

Philadelphia Regional 

Office

Guest Speaker and talk entitled, “Does Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibit Employment 

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender 

Identity?”: Leonore F Carpenter, Associate Professor 

of Law at Temple University, Beasley School of Law 

(Philadelphia)

The SEC has an active Diversity Council comprised of members of the EAGs, management, NTEU, 

and representatives from Headquarters and Regional Offices. The SEC’s Diversity Council is engaged 

in working collaboratively on a range of issues to foster diversity and inclusion at the Commission.

In FY 2019, the SEC Chairman began serving as chair for the Diversity Council, underscoring his 

support of equity, diversity, and inclusion at the Agency.

In FY 2019, the SEC hosted an Agency-wide Human Capital and Diversity Town Hall led by the 

Chairman with involvement from the SEC’s CHCO, OMWI, and OEEO Directors. In addition, 

the Chairman presents the Isaac C. Hunt Award for Diversity and Inclusion each year at a public 

ceremony to member(s) of the SEC staff to show the Commission’s special appreciation for 

employees who contribute significantly to the advancement of diversity efforts at the SEC or in 

their communities.

Significantly, in FY 2019, the SEC’s Chairman actively supported the launch of a cross-Agency 

effort, led by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Civil Rights, supporting First Generation 

Professionals (FGP) in federal service. For the summit launching the FGP initiative, held on 

September 12, 2019, the Chairman arranged for and hosted a fireside chat with the event’s keynote 

speaker, Jovita Carranza, 26th Administrator of the Small Business Administration. The FGP 

initiative has been so successful that OPM established it as a new government-wide employee 

resource group under the auspices of its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. OEEO, along with SEC’s 

own FGP members, continues its active support for and participation in FGP programming.

SEC’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey FY 2019 Results

The Partnership for Public Service annually publishes rankings for the Best Places to Work in 

the Federal Government, which are based on the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

administered by OPM. FEVS measures employee engagement and satisfaction, and provides insight 

on employee perceptions about fairness and equality broken down by certain EEO demographic 

groups. In FY 2019, the SEC’s survey response rate was 75 percent. This compares favorably to the 

overall government-wide response rate of 43 percent.

15 The SEC ranked fifth among 25 mid-size 

agencies in 2019, dropping two places from the previous year. The Agency’s overall FEVS average 

score, measured as the percentage of positive responses or percent positive, decreased slightly from 74 

percent positive in 2018 to 72 percent positive in 2019.

15 https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/ (Jan. 2, 2020).
18 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

The scores on three indices related to engagement and satisfaction also decreased compared to prior 

year data: Global Satisfaction was 75 percent positive (down 7 percentage points), New Inclusion 

Quotient Index (the New IQ) was 69 percent positive (down 2 percentage points), and Employee 

Engagement was 76 percent positive (down 2 percentage points).

The New IQ in FEVS empirically measures enabling conditions that lead to an inclusive workplace.

The New IQ is made up of 20 FEVS questions grouped into the following “5 Habits of Inclusion”:

Fair: Are all employees treated equitably?

Open: Does management support diversity in all ways?

Cooperative: Does management encourage communication and collaboration?

Supportive: Do supervisors value employees?

Empowering: Do employees have the resources and support needed to excel?

The New IQ score reflects the percentage of positive responses to the questions corresponding to 

each “habit” of inclusion. The SEC’s overall New IQ for 2019 was 69 percent positive, which was 

2 percentage points lower than the Agency’s overall New IQ for 2018, but still 9 percentage points 

higher than 2015. The SEC’s scores on each Habit of Inclusion decreased: Fair (down 4 percentage 

points), Open (down 2 percentage points), Cooperative (down 2 percentage points), Supportive 

(down 3 percentage points), and Empowering (down 4 percentage points). The decrease seen in the 

New IQ was consistent with the decreases in the percent of positive scores seen in items across the 

FEVS in 2019.

In addition to the New IQ, the SEC tracks the percentage of positive responses (i.e., percent positive) 

to three diversity related FEVS questions, as shown in the table below. Although the percent positive 

scores on each question decreased by one percentage point between 2018 and 2019, all three scores 

have increased since 2015. These results suggest that support for the Agency’s D&I efforts continues.

Table 5: SEC Scores on Select Diversity Related FEVS Questions

FEVS Question 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Q34 – Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace 

(for example, recruiting minorities and women, training in 

awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).

62% 65% 67% 67% 66%

Q45 – My supervisor is committed to a workforce representative 

of all segments of society. 73% 76% 80% 82% 81%

Q55 – Supervisors work well with employees of different 

backgrounds. 64% 68% 77% 78% 77%

Source: OPM’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 2019, retrieved on February 10, 2020.

The SEC also publishes internally the FEVS results by demographic group, in a Diversity Dashboard.

One explanation for the observed declines in 2019 FEVS scores can be offered. FEVS data collection 

opened on May 22, 2019, for the SEC. This timing closely followed changes to performance-based 

pay and related merit increases announced to all staff in April. Compared to prior years and to 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 19

pay raises received at other federal agencies, performance-based pay increases at the SEC were 

smaller in 2019; some of the decline in FEVS results overall and for specific employee groups may 

be attributable to the timing of these events and reaction to FY 2019 compensation. Across all 71 

core FEVS items, the item with the largest drop in 2019 was item 71 (satisfaction with pay), which 

dropped 14 percentage points. The suggestion that compensation was the main driver of decreased 

scores in 2019 is further strengthened by noting that most items that dealt with compensation and 

rewards had decreases larger than 5% points. Out of the 11 items with decreases of 5% points or 

larger, seven (64%, items 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 65, and 71) dealt with compensation/rewards.

Despite the decreases, the SEC scores remain higher than government-wide averages and the averages 

for mid-size agencies on all three indices. These data suggest that the SEC remains an employerof-choice within the federal government. Opportunities for improving employee satisfaction and 

engagement exist, and SEC managers, staff, and Union representatives—along with OMWI, OHR, 

and OEEO—are working to make those improvements.

OEEO and agency partners continue to monitor FEVS and action plans.

Essential Element B:

Integration of EEO into the Commission’s Strategic Mission

Management Directive 715 recognizes that equality of opportunity is essential to attracting, 

developing, and retaining the most qualified workforce to support an agency’s achievement of 

its strategic mission. This element requires that the EEO Programs are structured to maintain a 

workplace that is free from discrimination and support that strategic mission.

Compliance Indicator 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.

During FY 2019, the SEC’s reporting structure allowed the OEEO Director (as well as the OMWI 

Director) to have direct and regular access to the Chairman, Commissioners, and other senior-level 

management officials. As described above, the OEEO Director reports directly to the Chairman, and 

the SEC’s organizational chart clearly defines this reporting structure. See Attachment 1.

This structure allows OEEO to coordinate the Agency’s overall EEO Program activities efficiently 

and effectively and with the autonomy and authority needed to carry out a successful EEO Program.

Throughout FY 2019, the OEEO Director met with the Chairman and each Commissioner regularly 

and also frequently communicated with Senior Leadership, including the OMWI Director, the Chief 

Operating Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), and other office leads to provide 

updates on the EEO Program. On March 25, 2019, the OEEO Director provided the SEC Chairman 

with the FY 2018 MD-715 report for his review and approval. Further, the OEEO Director is a 

regular participant in the Operations Steering Committee (OSC), which is a vetting and decisionmaking body related to major SEC internal operations and policies, and the Diversity Council.
20 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Compliance Indicator B.2—The EEO Director controls all aspects of the 

EEO Program.

The OEEO Director exercises authority to conduct all aspects of the Agency’s EEO Program required 

by 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, MD-715, and MD-110, including the responsibilities assigned to EEO

Directors of Executive agencies outlined in the EEOC’s regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(c).

OEEO staff worked to formalize this authority by drafting SEC’s first designation of authority from 

the Chairman to the OEEO Director. OEEO expects the designation to be finalized in 2020.

Compliance Indicator B.3—The EEO Director and other EEO professional staff are 

involved in, and consulted on, management/personnel actions.

In general, the OEEO Director and designated staff participate in major meetings and initiatives 

regarding workforce changes that might implicate EEO issues or negatively impact any protected 

EEO group. For example, in FY 2019:

n OEEO contributed its subject matter expertise to the SEC’s first Diversity & Inclusion 

Strategic Plan.

n OEEO led a series of meetings with stakeholders related to female applicants seeking 

employment with the SEC and the distribution of discretionary cash and time-off awards.

n OEEO identified a need for educational materials related to Disability Etiquette and spearheaded 

a collaborative effort to create and deploy a resource toolkit.

n OEEO convened stakeholders to discuss the SEC’s compliance with Sections 504 and 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act and led efforts to create additional procedures related to complaints filed under 

Sections 504 and 508 and the Architectural Barriers Act.

n OEEO, in collaboration with OHR and OMWI, worked together to create a series of four videos 

related to transgender issues in the workplace.

n OEEO continued to collaborate with OHR to enhance supervisory and employee training 

offered by OHR to ensure that EEO concepts are addressed in new employee orientation, LD 

307 as well as trainings on the No FEAR Act and harassment prevention. OEEO staff served as 

trainers in LD 307.

n OEEO encouraged and supported the SEC in seeking re-certification from the Office of Special 

Counsel for its training and outreach efforts related to Anti-Discrimination and Whistleblowing 

laws and Prohibited Personnel Practices.

n OEEO contributed EEO expertise on several Administrative Regulations and SEC Operating 

Procedure reviews including: Schedule A Hiring For Individuals With Disabilities Policy, Excepted 

Service Hiring Authority (ESHA) Policy, and Alcoholic Beverage Use Policy.

n OEEO provided counsel to OMWI and OHR related to procedures and the designation of a 

Transition Coordinator to assist persons transitioning gender in the workplace.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 21

As noted above, both the SEC Strategic Plan and the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan

reference EEO and D&I principles, committing the Agency to full compliance with all federal 

laws, Executive Orders, management directives, and policies related to equality of opportunity and 

affirmative employment. To achieve these objectives, OEEO’s input related to major management 

decisions affecting the SEC workforce is critical. Accordingly, the OEEO Director will continue to 

work through OSC regarding personnel, budget, technology, and other issues to provide an EEO 

perspective proactively and prior to final decisions being made. Further, OEEO will continue to 

seek partnership from OHR and OMWI in report and policy development and review so that an 

EEO perspective and OEEO subject matter expertise can be contributed early in the drafting and 

coordination process.

Compliance Indicator B.4—The Agency has sufficient budget and staffing to support 

the success of its EEO Program.

In FY 2019 (as in previous years), OEEO had a standalone budget. During FY 2019, the SEC 

allocated funding and qualified staffing to successfully implement the EEO Program. The SEC also 

authorized OEEO to fill two full-time equivalent (FTE) positions—demonstrating tangible support of 

the SEC’s overall EEO Program.

OEEO is a small team of diverse professionals with significant expertise. The duties and responsibilities 

of EEO officials are defined in position descriptions, annual performance plans, EEOC guidance, and 

in related standard operating procedures OEEO has developed. The staff includes:

n The Director (an attorney with extensive labor and employment compliance expertise);

n A Deputy Director (an attorney with extensive labor and employment compliance expertise from 

multiple sectors);

n An EEO Compliance and Resolutions Branch Manager (a former EEOC Administrative Judge, 

and attorney with extensive labor and employment compliance expertise);

n Six Attorney Advisors with EEO experience;

n An EEO Specialist;

n A Management and Program Analyst; and

n An Industrial/Organizational Psychologist.

In addition, resources (through three contractors) are available to assist OEEO in identifying and 

working to eliminate identified barriers to employment for all protected groups. OEEO also has 

resources available through contract counselors, ADR professionals, and investigators. Consistent 

with EEOC guidance, personnel assisting with EEO counseling do not work on formal complaint 

processing.
22 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In FY 2019, all counselors and investigators satisfied the 32 hours of training and/or eight hours 

of refresher training required by MD-110. Likewise, in FY 2019, OEEO staff received training to 

maintain and enhance competencies necessary for carrying out the EEO Program. For instance, staff 

members typically attend either the annual Examining Conflicts in Employment Law (EXCEL) or 

the Federal Dispute Resolution (FDR) conference. OEEO will work on leveraging additional training 

opportunities and enhancing skills and cross-training for all staff in future fiscal years.

In coordinating the SEC’s overall EEO activities, the OEEO Director also leverages the efforts of staff 

in other offices with primary responsibility for aspects of the EEO Program not controlled by OEEO.

OEEO seeks to collaborate with OMWI on workforce D&I issues, including affirmative employment 

efforts led by OEEO (e.g., barrier analyses) as well as special emphasis programs. OEEO works with 

OHR to implement the Agency’s affirmative action plan for people with disabilities and targeted 

disabilities. OEEO consults with OGC to ensure compliance with OEEO and EEOC decisions 

and orders. OEEO coordinates with OIG and OGC to encourage sufficient workforce training on 

whistleblower protections and prohibited personnel practices under federal civil service laws.

OEEO also works with management, OHR, OGC, and OIG related to the SEC’s anti-harassment 

policy and program. In June 2019, the SEC issued agency-wide anti-harassment procedures setting 

forth roles and responsibilities for various stakeholders. Management, in conjunction with OHR and/

or OIG, are responsible for conducting investigations related to harassment.

Working together, as appropriate, staff from these (and sometimes other) offices and teams 

collectively enabled the SEC during FY 2019 to:

n Conduct the annual MD-715 Agency self-assessment to identify possible EEO Program 

deficiencies;

n Conduct analyses of the workforce;

n Thoroughly, and fairly process EEO complaints, including conducting EEO counseling, 

overseeing fact-gathering investigations, issuing final Agency decisions assessing whether or not 

discrimination occurred, and conducting legal-sufficiency reviews;

n Provide supervisors and employees with training on the EEO Program (including on retaliation, 

harassment, disability accommodations, the EEO complaint process, and EEO-related ADR);

n Maintain accurate data collection and tracking systems for, e.g., EEO and harassment complaints, 

workforce demographics, and applicant flow data;

n Administer required special emphasis programs (such as the Federal Women’s Program, Hispanic 

Employment Program, and People with Disabilities program);

n Manage the SEC’s anti-harassment and reasonable accommodation/personal assistance services 

(PAS) programs; and

n Ensure timely and complete compliance with EEOC orders.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 23

Compliance Indicator B.5—The Agency recruits, hires, develops, and retains 

supervisors and managers who have effective managerial, communications, and 

interpersonal skills.

The SEC focuses on recruiting, hiring, developing, and retaining supervisors and managers with 

the managerial, communication, and interpersonal skills needed to supervise effectively in a diverse 

workplace. The Commission’s strategic plans, described above, emphasize this business imperative.

OHR develops recruitment plans to attract and retain Senior Officers based on pre-determined 

skillsets needed for the role. OHR often leverages LinkedIn to source highly qualified candidates as a 

part of the recruitment plan.

In addition to substantive EEO training and outreach offered by OEEO described in this report, in 

FY 2019, OMWI offered various online and live classes, including unconscious bias, and in-person 

training for supervisors and staff in regional offices. Similarly, the SEC University (SECU) College of 

Leadership Development (CLD) offerings are designed to promote leadership behaviors that support 

the Agency’s vision to promote respect, honor the dignity of all people, develop others and cultivate 

the creativity, growth and diversity of thought and experience for leaders at all organizational levels.

Information on leadership development by grade levels is below:

Senior Officers (SOs)

In FY 2019, SECU delivered leadership seminars to SOs on leadership best practices. Courses 

included: Mastering Leadership Conversations, Leading through Complexity, and Leadership 

Presence Under Pressure. Outcomes included ways to:

n Establish rapport and meaningfully connect with key stakeholders; and 

n Re-frame difficult conversations to identify and develop options for alternative outcomes while 

simultaneously maintaining relationships.

Presenters from the Georgetown University’s Institute for Transformational Leadership led each 

SO topic, facilitating in-person trainings at Headquarters and virtually for regional employees.

SK-17 Managers

In FY 2019, SECU facilitated its third SK-17 seminar series, Leading Self: Essential Skills for 

Effective Leadership, expanding on content in prior years’ popular leadership development 

seminar series for SK-17 leaders. During these virtual 90-minute seminars, regional and 

headquarters-based managers developed their team-based leadership capabilities and 

competencies. In FY 2019, the interactive, three-part series included: State of Mind, Thinking Path 

and the Five Saboteurs, and Stress and Resilience. Each session was presented with the goal of:

n Understanding communication styles and the impact of personality in the workplace; 

n Increasing interpersonal communication effectiveness;
24 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

n Recognizing and valuing individual differences, and treating all team members with 

respect; and 

n Fostering trust behaviors and building resilience to maintain high performance that are 

key leadership skills.

SK-15 Supervisors

In FY 2019, the Leadership Development Seminar Series program was expanded to SK-15 

level supervisory staff, facilitating content from prior SK-17 offerings, and thereby promoting a 

baseline level of leadership behaviors Agency-wide. The Effective Group and Team Dynamics 

series included: Getting Work Done in Teams, Calibrating Communication Styles, and Keeping 

Teams Accountable. SECU again offered Thoughtfully Rogue for SK-15 employees. This training 

class focused on supporting and increasing innovation and creativity at the first-line supervisor 

level in the SEC. The goals from SK-15 level programs included helping supervisors:

n Identify the best operating modes to help lead teams to achieve their various outcomes and 

make team communications clearer and more effective;

n Hold teams members accountable for commitments in a constructive and positive manner to 

maintain trust and respect; and

n Introduce a variety of practical strategies for addressing issues and difficult conversations in 

ways that strengthen, rather than weaken, the group or team.

All Managers

SECU offerings provide specialized, targeted leadership development for all managerial levels 

at the SEC, thereby emphasizing the importance of leadership skills for all who formally lead 

others. All managers have access to All Things Management (ATM) and the askHR portal on 

the SEC’s intranet, which include a review of merit principles, prohibited personnel practices, the 

Agency’s selection processes and hiring toolkit, information about the CaRE program (non-EEO 

ADR), and key fairness and inclusion expectations for leaders.

All SEC managers are eligible to receive twelve sessions of private executive coaching. The 

coaching supports managers as they pause, reflect, and explore new options for their careers and 

actions. In FY 2019, approximately 10% of managers participated in this executive coaching 

program. As a supplement to in-class training and coaching, the SECU published its Winter 

Reading list, available to all SEC staff. Each of the books promotes the baseline leadership 

culture of inclusivity and engagement and best practices for leading self and others that the 

SEC is working to maintain. The FY 2019 book list was available online for free. The book list 

included: Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and 

Working Smarter All Day Long by David Rock, Immunity to Change: How to Overcome it 

and Unlock the Potential in Yourself and Your Organization by Robert Kegan, and Leadership 

Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating and Initiating Change by William B. Joiner and 

Stephen A. Joseph.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 25

The SEC also has required supervisory training as set forth below: 

n Fundamentals of Human Resource Management (LD 307): SECU facilitated multiple offerings 

of the Fundamentals of Human Resource Management course during FY 2019, which was 

offered in-person and virtually. LD 307 is required for all SEC new managers. This course 

covers a broad range of human capital-related topics to educate SEC managers on the 

Agency’s HR policies, statutory, regulatory, and procedural requirements, and on federal sector 

best practices. Topics including the SEC’s policies on the prevention of workplace violence, 

providing accommodations, and EEO and whistleblower protections are extensively covered.

During 2019, LD 307 was updated to a blended learning format. Participants complete 

required eLearning16 that prepares them to participate in the in-person classroom session.

The EEO training module provides fact-based scenarios and video content for discussion 

and in-depth teaching on the SEC’s EEO complaint process and substantive EEO laws. The 

training also covers the Merit Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices as foundational 

to federal employment; cards containing this information are provided to all participants in 

required supervisory training. Subject matter experts facilitate the classroom portion of the 

course through the discussion of fact-based scenarios derived from a global case study read in 

advance. This allows participants to better understand the interconnectedness of managing the 

SEC’s human capital.

n Leader as Coach: In FY 2018, SECU developed a full-day class called Leader as Coach that 

was mandatory for management at all levels in the SEC. The course focused on helping 

managers to provide coaching and feedback to all employees, thereby promoting agency-wide 

learning and emphasizing career growth. Managers worked together to discuss a wide variety 

of case studies and role played to practice listening and providing coaching or feedback.

SEC managers spent the day developing an understanding of coaching as a conversation 

distinct from mentoring, feedback, supervising, or consulting with others and increased their 

knowledge of the basic “moves” of coaching and when to use them. Offerings are ongoing for 

new SEC managers, and over 95% of SEC managers have participated.

Compliance Indicator B.6—The Agency involves managers in the implementation of 

its EEO Program.

As this report describes, support from managers and supervisors is critical to an effective EEO 

Program. OEEO engaged Senior Officers, managers, and supervisors in all Divisions and Offices 

in the EEO Program and related efforts. As described above, throughout FY 2019, SEC leadership 

demonstrated meaningful commitment to EEO principles and to affirmative employment. Leaders 

at all levels were involved in different aspects of the SEC’s EEO Program as appropriate, including 

Special Emphasis Programs and related initiatives and barrier analysis and follow-up (including 

corrective plans). Managers are required to cooperate as necessary and appropriate with EEO-related 

16 Online modules include: The Legal Foundation, Ethics, Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity, Managing in 

the Union Environment, OMWI Information for Supervisors, Hiring and Staffing, Rules for Managing Performance 

and Conduct, Collaboration and Resolution (CaRE) (ADR) for Supervisors, Recognition Through Awards, Disability 

Accommodation, Managing Telework, Work Schedules and Leave, Career Horizons, and Performance Management: A 

Rating Official’s Guide to Completing Final Performance Appraisals for SK Employees.
26 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

counselings, investigations, and ADR efforts. The Agency also encouraged managers and supervisors 

to engage with EEO and general D&I-related issues through the EAGs, which serve as advocates for 

equality, diversity, and inclusion. Each EAG has an Executive sponsor, and all EAGs have fostered 

employee engagement throughout the SEC by hosting various learning opportunities.

OEEO is planning in future fiscal years to engage Senior Officers and managers further by consulting 

with each Division’s leadership, providing Division-specific EEO and related data, and soliciting 

Division personnel to participate in strategic planning discussions and brainstorming appropriate 

goals and related implementation plans for each Division’s strategic plan. Similarly, OEEO intends 

in future fiscal years to engage more directly with regional management teams through on-site visits, 

as feasible.

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. Per MD-715, in ensuring 

such accountability, the SEC must:

n Conduct regular internal audits, on at least an annual basis, to assess the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the Title VII and Rehabilitation Act programs and to ascertain whether the Agency 

has made a good faith effort to identify and remove barriers to equality of opportunity in the 

workplace.

n Establish procedures to prevent all forms of discrimination, including harassment, retaliation, and 

failure to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities.

n Evaluate managers and supervisors on efforts to provide equality of opportunity for all employees.

n Maintain clearly defined, well-communicated, consistently applied, and fairly implemented 

personnel policies, selection and promotion procedures, evaluation procedures, rules of conduct, 

and training systems.

n Implement effective reasonable accommodation procedures that comply with applicable executive 

orders, EEOC guidance, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board’s 

Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards and Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility 

Standards (and ensure that EEOC has reviewed those procedures when initially developed and if 

procedures are later significantly modified).

n Be mindful of the Agency’s disability program obligations, including the provision of reasonable 

accommodations, when negotiating collective bargaining agreements with recognized labor 

organization(s) representing Agency employees.

n Ensure effective coordination between the Agency’s EEO Programs and related human resource 

programs, including the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP), the Selective 

Placement Programs, and the Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP).
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 27

n Review each finding of discrimination to determine the appropriateness of taking disciplinary 

action against Agency officials involved in the matter. Track these decisions and report trends, 

issues, and problems to Agency leadership for appropriate action.

n Ensure compliance with settlement agreements and orders issued by the Agency, EEOC, and EEOrelated cases from the Merit Systems Protection Board, labor arbitrators, and the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority.

Compliance Indicator C.1—The Agency conducts regular internal audits of its 

component and field offices.

The SEC is not organized in “field components” but does have various regional offices out of 

which employees perform mission-related work. For EEO Program purposes, regional office data 

are considered and included in barrier analysis research, where applicable, along with data from 

Headquarters.

Compliance Indicator C.2—The Agency has established procedures to prevent all 

forms of EEO discrimination.

As explained in Section A.2 above (Compliance Indicator A.2) and set forth in Table 6, the SEC has 

promulgated various regulations and procedures to advance the EEO Program. These policies and 

procedures aid in the proactive prevention of discrimination and increase accountability. Further, 

clear policies and procedures related to personnel programs generally work to minimize subjectivity, 

foster consistency in decision-making across the SEC, and clarify the roles and responsibilities of the 

various offices/programs. In addition to the regulations listed above, SEC managers and supervisors 

must comply with additional regulations and procedures listed in the following table, thus helping 

prevent unlawful discrimination:

Table 6: Regulations Governing Major Personnel Programs

SEC Regulations

Administrative Leave and Official Time (SECR 6-4) 

Delegated Examining (SECR 6-6)

Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Incentives (SECR 6-10)

Employee Recognition Program for SK Employees (SECR 6-14)

Work Schedule Program (SECR 6-15)

Telework Program (SECR 6-16)

Disciplinary and Adverse Actions (SECR 6-20)

Performance Management Program (for Bargaining Unit Employees) (SECR 6-21)

Overtime, Compensatory Time, Religious Compensatory Time, Travel Compensatory Time, and Pay Limitations (for 

Bargaining Unit Employees) (SECR 6-22)

Merit Promotion Program (for Bargaining Unit Employees) (SECR 6-23)

Merit Promotion Program (for Non-Bargaining Unit Positions) (SECR 6-24)

Administrative Grievance Procedure (SECR 6-25)

Training and Development Program (SECR 6-28)

Excepted Service Hiring Authority (SECR 6-33)

Position Management and Reorganizations (SECR 6-35)

Pay-Setting for SK Positions (SECR 6-38)
28 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SEC Regulations

Exceptions to Internal SEC Human Resources Policies (SECR 6-39)

Performance Management Program (for Non-Bargaining Unit Employees) (SECR 6-44)

Attorney Hiring (SECR 6-58)

Law Clerk Hiring (SECR 6-60)

Student Honors Programs (SECR 6-61)

Chairman’s Attorney Honors Program (SECR 6-62)

Direct Hire Authority (SECR 6-72)

2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between SEC and NTEU Chapter 293

The SEC-NTEU CBA, which has 52 Articles, also creates an expectation of consistency in personnel 

decision-making and includes an article addressing Equal Employment Opportunity, which affirms 

the parties’ commitment to the principles of EEO and workplace fairness.

Of particular importance, the SEC makes available EEO information related to harassment 

prevention, reasonable accommodation, and permissible religious expression. For example, the 

Commission re-issued a Policy on Preventing Harassment and new Procedures Related to the Policy 

on Preventing Harassment (issued in February 2019), which set forth the anti-harassment policy and 

program pursuant to the Faragher-Ellerth line of Supreme Court cases and the EEOC’s Enforcement 

Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors. Taken together, 

these documents set forth all of the criteria established in the enforcement guidance which requires:

n A clear explanation of prohibited conduct;

n Assurance that employees who make complaints of harassment or provide information related to 

such complaints will be protected against retaliation;

n A clearly described complaint process that provides accessible avenues of complaint;

n Assurance that the SEC will protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent 

possible; 

n A complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation; and

n Assurance that the SEC will take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it determines 

that harassment has occurred.

The policy and procedures provide a clear explanation of prohibited conduct, specifying that even 

inappropriate conduct that is not of sufficient severity to constitute unlawful harassment as a matter 

of law is considered misconduct under the SEC’s policy. As set forth in the procedures, OEEO has 

established a firewall between the anti-harassment program in OEEO and the OEEO Director that 

is based on the type of work that OEEO staff performing Faragher-Ellerth related duties undertake.

OEEO staff serve as an intake point for harassment concerns and conduct educational outreach 

when requested by management; management, in conjunction with other SEC stakeholders such as 

OHR, OIG, and OGC, remains responsible for gathering information and taking prompt, corrective 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 29

action, as needed, under the circumstances. This structure maintains OEEO’s independence from the 

decision-making process on harassment complaints, thus minimizing the potential for a conflict of 

interest that could arise if OEEO processes an EEO complaint under Part 1614 involving the same or 

similar acts of alleged harassment. Beginning in FY 2019, the OEEO complaints team began formally 

referring and tracking all allegations of harassment received as part of the informal or formal 

complaint process.

The SEC’s proactive harassment prevention program is grounded in training and early intervention.

Program efforts are designed to reduce the incidence and impact of EEO-based harassment. OEEO 

facilitates interactive harassment prevention dialogues with the SEC workforce of managers, 

supervisors, non-supervisory employees, and contractors. These dialogues raise awareness of 

behaviors that could be offensive on an unlawful basis regardless of intent and promote an 

environment in which concerns can be addressed and resolved expeditiously and respectfully, thus 

emphasizing the benefit of immediate reporting. They also introduce participants to the value of 

bystander awareness in preventing harassment. Interactive sessions help educate parties as to how 

behavior was perceived and why it could be problematic and inappropriate at work. In FY 2019, 

50 training sessions were held, and approximately 1,030 employees and contractors participated. In 

line with published scientific literature in this area, this program is based on voluntary participation 

to increase open disclosure of potential concerns and facilitate transfer of learning to the job. Within 

the SEC, the well-respected PPH program has grown through word-of-mouth and recommendations 

from participants. In early FY 2020, OEEO presented a concentrated version of the program to the 

SEC Chairman, the Commissioners, and their staff.

OEEO had many contacts regarding potential PPH concerns in FY 2019, and most led to preemptive resolution because corrections were made to avoid or resolve the potential PPH issue at the 

onset before it escalated. Over the past four years, the volume of proactive contacts to OEEO has 

increased from fewer than 30 in FY 2015 to a high of 72 in FY 2018; 65 proactive inquiries were 

logged during FY 2019. OEEO conducted coaching sessions related to preventing harassment often 

as a follow on to the outreach described here; 53 SEC participants benefitted from these coaching 

sessions. Greater societal awareness and the PPH program’s positive reputation for confidential (to 

the extent possible) and quality consultation and coaching has encouraged and led to wider adoption 

of proactive prevention efforts among leaders and employees. The Commission published new 

operating procedures in June 2019, which define steps to be taken by parties in response to an alleged 

harassment incident as well as methods to prevent or address any potentially retaliatory response.

Establishing and posting these procedures, jointly signed by the OEEO Director and the Chief 

Operating Officer (COO), help communicate both the importance of harassment prevention and the 

Agency’s commitment to the program’s goals and intent.

Similarly, the SEC has in place a Reasonable Accommodation Policy and program to ensure that 

applicants and employees know about their right under the Rehabilitation Act to receive a reasonable 

accommodation for disability-related limitations if needed to apply for a job, perform the essential 

functions of a job, or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment. This policy also explains 

management’s responsibilities when a supervisor or manager is on notice that an employee requires 
30 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

a reasonable accommodation. The SEC continues to make progress enhancing this program, and 

in FY 2019, EEOC informed the Agency that its proposed policy, standard operating procedures, 

and forms had been approved and comply with applicable EEOC regulations and guidance. The 

Commission is finalizing these documents internally and will disseminate and train appropriate staff 

on the revised policy and procedures (and forms), and post them on SEC.gov, as required under the 

new Section 501 Affirmative Action Regulations. As separate offices, there is a clear firewall between 

OEEO and OHR—the office administering the SEC’s reasonable accommodation and PAS programs.

Additional information about the SEC’s reasonable accommodation program and efforts to correct 

deficiencies can be found in Part E and in Part J.

Compliance Indicator C.3—The Agency evaluates managers and supervisors on their 

efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity.

The successful performance of SEC managers and supervisors includes efforts to achieve a 

workplace free from discrimination. All SEC supervisors and managers have an element in their 

annual performance appraisal that evaluates commitment to Agency EEO policies and principles 

and participation in the EEO Program. “Leading People” is a critical element in the performance 

plans of SK-15 supervisors, SK-17 managers, and Senior Officers, all of whom have supervisory 

responsibilities. This critical element states:

n Senior Officers: This executive core qualification involves the ability to lead people and manage 

the workforce to meet the organization’s mission and goals. Included in this meta competency are 

behaviors related to conflict management, leveraging diversity, developing others, team building, 

and human capital management. Fosters an environment that encourages employees to make 

whistleblower disclosures, which includes responding constructively when employees make 

disclosures and taking requisite action to resolve the disclosure.

n SK-15/SK-17: Plans, distributes, coordinates, and monitors work assignments; evaluates work 

performance and provides constructive feedback by taking action to address performance 

problems; ensures staff are appropriately selected and utilized and are treated in a fair and 

equitable manner regardless of race, gender, age, religion, and other individual differences.

Champions and promotes a diverse and inclusive work environment in which all employees have 

an opportunity to be productive by managing, developing, and treating staff equitably regardless 

of individual differences. Contributes to a culture of respecting and appreciating diversity and 

the benefits of a diverse workforce through participating in diversity awareness activities and 

supporting and/or participating in the Agency’s diversity recruiting and hiring efforts. Fosters 

an environment that encourages employees to make whistleblower disclosures, which includes 

responding constructively when employees make disclosures and taking requisite action to resolve 

the disclosure.

The performance management program provides examples of behaviors in these areas for assessing 

specific levels of performance. The specific language in “Leading People” elements does not 

explicitly list all day-to-day EEO responsibilities. The language included, however, is intended to 

require that rating officials assess all those with supervisory duties on all aspects of EEO compliance.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 31

As interpreted and applied; therefore, these critical elements are considered by rating officials in 

evaluating the performance of all Senior Officers, managers, and supervisors on resolving EEO 

conflicts, participating in ADR, ensuring cooperation with complaint and harassment prevention 

processes, providing accommodations as required, ensuring subordinate supervisors are equipped to 

lead a diverse workforce, collaborating with OEEO and other stakeholders to identify and remove 

barriers, and complying with EEO-related settlement agreements and orders.

Compliance Indicator C.4—The Agency ensures effective coordination between its 

EEO Programs and Human Resources (HR) program.

OEEO and OHR coordinate effectively and will continue to work on ways to enhance early 

coordination and collaboration, particularly with respect to substantive reviews of SEC policies 

and procedures every three years. The CHCO and OEEO Director meet monthly to discuss various 

personnel programs, policies, and procedures. Notably, coordination between the two offices related 

to preparing the MD-715 has been enhanced over the last several fiscal years through the use of 

a SharePoint site that relevant stakeholders can access to provide updates and share information.

OEEO and others have timely access to accurate and complete data to prepare the MD-715 

workforce data tables and other data calls.

Significantly, OEEO has made preparing and delivering briefings on barrier analysis to OHR 

leadership and program offices and other internal stakeholders a sustained priority in FY 2019 

(and in future fiscal years) to raise awareness of the cross-cutting nature of this work, to highlight 

intersections and areas for collaboration in report-writing and data gathering, and to increase 

buy-in from partners across the SEC to EEO-related strategic planning. As mentioned above, OHR 

and OEEO worked particularly well together in FY 2019 in revamping supervisory training into a 

blended format (e-learning and live) including scenario-based learning sessions. Another successful 

area in which OEEO and OHR have coordinated include regarding grievances and MSPB appeals 

and related EEO complaints to ensure the same matter is not dual-processed inappropriately under 

applicable legal authorities. Although OMWI primarily worked with OHR to focus on outreach 

and recruitment for SEC’s workforce, OEEO will work on enhancing coordination with these efforts 

in line with areas for study and/or opportunities identified through its barrier analysis work and 

to contribute an OEEO perspective to future SEC recruitment strategies. Finally, OHR and OEEO 

prepared various annual reports (e.g., MD-715, No FEAR Act, the Federal Equal Opportunity 

Recruitment Plan, and the Disabled Veterans’ Affirmative Action Plan) and will continue to enhance 

early collaboration with respect to all required reports to ensure all perspectives are represented.

For information on collaborative efforts to implement the SEC’s affirmative action plan regarding 

individuals with disabilities, see Part J.
32 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Compliance Indicator C.5—Following a finding of discrimination, the Agency explores 

whether it should take a disciplinary action.

The SEC’s EEO Policy Statement sets forth its commitment to maintaining a work environment that 

is free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. On February 20, 2020, the SEC implemented 

revised SEC Administrative Regulation 6-20, Disciplinary and Adverse Actions.

17 The regulation sets 

forth policies and principles for taking disciplinary and adverse actions with respect to bargaining 

unit and non-bargaining unit employees. The process and procedures covering SEC disciplinary 

and adverse actions are incorporated by reference in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) 

between the SEC and NTEU. The CBA explains that adverse actions are taken “for such cause as 

will promote the efficiency of the service.”18 The Agency does not have a Table of Penalties and uses 

progressive discipline when appropriate.

The SEC has held employees accountable for inappropriate conduct as necessary under the 

circumstances. For example, two employees were disciplined (i.e., placed on suspension) during the 

period FY 2015 – FY 2019 (one in FY 2017 and one in FY 2018) in accordance with Agency policy 

related to conduct found to be inconsistent with EEO and whistleblower protections laws.

In FY 2019, OEEO did not issue any findings of discrimination. In the event of a finding, OEEO 

would issue a final decision consisting of findings on the merits of each claim and appropriate 

remedies and relief in accordance with subpart E of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.

19 Where appropriate and 

permissible, OEEO also would share findings—and/or related necessary policy or practice changes—

with other relevant staff. SEC personnel may also learn about findings through posted notices and 

appropriate discussions in trainings. In sharing such information, OEEO would seek to share lessons 

learned to avoid additional future violations. In all instances, the Agency would take care to keep 

identities of personnel involved confidential to the extent required by law.

In certain cases where conduct is found not to be unlawful, but nonetheless problematic, the OEEO 

Director or designee is also prepared to recommend particular improvements or corrections. OEEO 

would provide specific feedback, as appropriate, to SEC officials with oversight responsibilities for 

the involved program or team/employee to improve EEO knowledge, management practices, and 

share lessons learned. This type of technical assistance would be provided on a need-to-know basis, 

only after—(a) carefully evaluating the propriety of giving feedback, (b) redacting information 

to maintain confidentiality where possible and as required by law, and (c) determining that such 

information can be shared with officials consistent with OEEO’s role as a neutral.

17 Discipline includes written reprimands and suspensions for 14 calendar days or less. Adverse actions include suspensions 

for more than 14 calendar days, removals, and reductions in grade or pay.

18 See also 5 U.S.C. §§ 7503(a) & 7513(a) (codifying that an agency may take disciplinary or adverse actions against an 

employee “for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service”).

19 OEEO would coordinate with the OMWI Director regarding the design and implementation of any remedies set forth in a

Final Agency Decision resulting from violations of civil rights statutes, regulations, or Executive orders (as required by the 

Dodd-Frank Act). See 12 U.S.C. § 5452(a)(3).
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 33

Compliance Indicator C.6—The EEO office advises managers/supervisors 

on EEO matters.

At the same time that the SEC holds managers and supervisors accountable for inappropriate EEOrelated conduct, it also invests significant effort into equipping them proactively with information to 

avoid pitfalls in the first place.

The OEEO intranet page, SEC’s public website, and posters throughout facilities invite all managers, 

supervisors, and employees to contact OEEO. Personnel are readily available to provide technical 

assistance and EEO Program-related info, and do so frequently when contacted directly or through 

generic email accounts.

20

During FY 2019, the SEC engaged in numerous actions to promote transparency of its EEO 

Program, including, but not limited to, the following.

n Pursuant to EEOC’s MD-715, the SEC made progress towards conducting six barrier analyses, 

closed out two analyses, briefed relevant supervisors and managers on analytic work, and 

continued work on actions and evaluation based on prior barrier analysis work.

n Consistent with EEOC regulations and MD-110, the OEEO compliance program provided 

timely counseling, alternative dispute resolution, investigation, and final adjudication processes 

to individuals raising complaints of discrimination, including orienting participants (including 

supervisors and managers) to the federal sector process and rights and responsibilities.

n The SEC posted EEO complaint processing data on its public website, consistent with the No 

FEAR Act, and informed new employees of their rights and remedies under antidiscrimination 

laws and whistleblower protection laws within 90 days of their appointment.

n The SEC published operating procedures implementing the Policy on Preventing Harassment.

These procedures define responsibilities, including for supervisors and managers, under the 

Agency’s PPH.

n OEEO offers education, upon request, regarding conduct that could be viewed as inappropriate in 

the workplace to raise awareness and to support civility and professionalism in the workplace.

n OEEO launched a new supervisor outreach initiative to new and/or newly promoted supervisors 

within weeks of starting their positions to equip these new leaders with practical tips regarding 

EEO compliance and points of contact to assist them before more formal training is available. 

20 OGC provides legal advice to management on EEO matters.
34 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Essential Element D:

Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

This element requires that the Agency make early efforts to prevent discrimination and to identify 

and eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity. According to MD-715:

Agencies have an ongoing obligation to prevent discrimination on the bases of race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, age, reprisal and disability, and eliminate barriers 

that impede free and open competition in the workplace. As part of this on-going 

obligation, agencies must conduct a self-assessment on at least an annual basis to 

monitor progress, identify areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups, 

and develop strategic plans to eliminate identified barriers.

Compliance Indicator D.1—The Agency conducts a reasonable assessment to monitor 

progress towards achieving equal employment opportunity throughout the year.

OEEO’s Barrier Analysis Team (BAT) leads SEC efforts to identify triggers, investigate barriers, and 

offer opportunities for management to adopt as corrective action plans (as needed) on a year-round 

basis. BAT work is directed on a day-to-day basis by an Industrial/Organizational Psychologist and a 

Senior Counsel who coordinate with OEEO management, OHR personnel, and Division staff who 

are necessary partners in conducting effective analyses. BAT work is supported by contractors who 

have expertise in data analytics.

OEEO continued to mature the barrier analysis program in FY 2019. OEEO had come to 

understand that project planning is not a mechanical process, but an iterative one to assess progress 

at significant milestones and make adjustments. In light of this recognition, OEEO initiated a 

transition to a more Agile approach to project planning in FY 2019. Team members and leadership 

participated in structured training on Agile principles and engagement with the SEC’s Agile 

Community of Practice. The SEC’s progress toward more Agile working methods started in the 

Office of Information Technology (OIT) and the Division of Economic Risk Analysis (DERA).

OEEO’s barrier analysis program was one of the first to expand the reach of Agile outside that 

initial group. Agile uses cross-functional and self-organizing teams, emphasizes collaboration and 

continuous learning, and speeds up value creation through incremental delivery, resulting in enhanced 

efficiency and faster value through real-time changes. This approach holds promise in the context of 

OEEO’s affirmative employment program.

Compliance Indicator D.2—The Agency identifies areas where barriers may exclude 

EEO groups.

The SEC will continue to identify barriers (if any) to EEO for specific segments of the workforce and 

applicants to the Agency. Barriers will be identified using EEOC’s recommended methodologies and 

by applying best practices in social science or Industrial/Organizational psychology. OEEO continues 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 35

to conduct barrier analyses throughout the fiscal year using data sources to identify triggers and 

through additional means including focus groups and individual interviews with decision makers. It 

made significant progress on a number of barrier analysis studies in FY 2019: 

n OEEO briefed senior leaders across the Agency on analytic results from two large scale analytic 

studies. In early FY 2019, OEEO shared information from the study of female applicants to 

mission critical occupations (accountant, economist, and securities compliance examiner). Later 

briefings focused on the study of discretionary cash and time-off awards.

n OEEO hosted a second inter-agency information sharing session with 27 EEO representatives 

from more than 20 other federal agencies in September 2019. Representatives of EEOC’s Office 

of Federal Operations attended to share in the discussion. Participants’ feedback from this session 

shows how such cross-agency collaboration helps support the individual Agency programs.

n OEEO continued work on the equal employment opportunity analytic tool and the related 

self-service workforce data summary tools. These tools enable users to review data on the 

demographic composition within specific occupations of the entire workforce, newly hired staff, 

applicant flow data (AFD), and separations by critical organizational characteristics. Preparations 

for changes to the workforce data tables in MD-715 2.0 rely on these tools to support workforce 

analysis.

n OEEO provided one-on-one consultation with other agencies in devising analytic methods for 

their barrier analysis and data reporting work. OEEO experts met, individually and in group 

settings, with more than ten Agency representatives across the year to provide advice and answer 

questions about data and analytic methods.

n OEEO also extended its reach externally by speaking at local area networking and professional 

society events, and to a working group on multi-generational issues in the workplace sponsored by 

the National Academies of Science.

n A description of the work on specific barrier analysis studies follow.

Barrier Analysis Study: Analyses of internal competitive promotion to SO and senior 

grade level positions 

In FY 2019, OEEO completed the last action agreed to in response to this analysis on whether 

females encounter a glass ceiling as they seek promotion to senior executive positions. Through 

coordinated efforts across the Agency, significant progress was made toward improvement 

as a result of these analyses and other efforts related to diversity and inclusion. One action 

remained open from the agreed-upon action plans as of September 30, 2018. That action 

requires examining the records and documentation of interview and selections made for internal 

competitive promotion actions. Data compiled for vacancies posted in FY 2017 and FY 2018 
36 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

for positions at the SK-15, SK-17, and SO levels were analyzed in FY 2019. OEEO shared 

results with representatives of OHR in the summer. OEEO’s analysis supported changes made to 

process and procedure for screening and interviewing job candidates. Additional improvements 

to forms design and consistent documentation have been made since the initial implementation 

of the policy titled Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates (PM-2016-

001) in 2016. OEEO’s review and feedback helped clarify the value of the established policy and 

procedure to help ensure equality of opportunity for women. This study has now been closed 

and transitioned toward a longer-term monitoring and evaluation phase. Additional information 

about this study is included in Part I of this report, infra.

Barrier Analysis Study: Persons with Disabilities (PWD)

The SEC continued work to analyze and support its commitment to affirmative employment of 

persons with disabilities. During FY 2019, the SEC continued preparations for implementation of 

the revised regulation through a variety of actions coordinated across OEEO, OHR, and OMWI.

n OEEO worked in collaboration with OHR, OMWI, and the Disability Interests Advisory 

Council (DIAC) to develop an interactive suite of web content comprising a Guide to

Disability Inclusion in the Workplace. These materials gather in a single place general tips 

for working inclusively and disability-specific suggestions. The Guide was launched during 

National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM).

n OEEO also worked with OMWI and DIAC on plans to host an invited speaker for a session 

titled Disability, Disclosure, and Identity in the Workplace, which took place during NDEAM.

Information about the study of PWD and an overview of the Agency’s affirmative action plan for 

persons with disabilities, as well as accomplishments and actions related to those efforts, is found 

in Part J, infra.

Barrier Analysis Study: Analyses by gender of applicants to MCO positions

OEEO concluded its analysis of recruiting and hiring female applicants for employment in the 

SEC’s mission critical occupations (MCOs), specifically, accountant, economist, and securities 

compliance examiner positions. During FY 2019, OEEO continued to share research results 

from this study with Agency leaders. OEEO offered specific suggestions for action once the hiring 

freeze was lifted. As a first step in the evaluation plan, OEEO captured and reviewed the posting 

language for MCO vacancies in light of this analysis’ recommendations. This study has now 

been closed and transitioned toward a longer-term monitoring and evaluation phase. Additional 

information about this study is included in Part I of this report, infra.

Barrier Analysis Study: Analyses of discretionary cash and time-off awards

OEEO continued analysis of the distribution of discretionary cash and time-off awards to 

employees in different groups. The SEC began this analysis in FY 2016, and work continued in 

FY 2019. Analytic work included applying a variety of multivariate linear and non-linear models 

to awards distributed between FY 2013 and FY 2017. In FY 2019, OEEO briefed Agency 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 37

leadership on the results of this study, offering opportunities for action toward improvement 

in reviewing and monitoring in areas of awards distribution identified by the study. Based 

on OEEO’s briefings and information sharing, Agency leadership initiated several efforts 

toward process improvement. Actions emerging from these efforts will be further defined for 

implementation in FY 2020. Additional information about this study is included in Part I of this 

report, infra.

Barrier Analysis Study: Analysis of the accountant occupation 

Research into the participation of women in accountant positions continued in FY 2019.

Accounting is the SEC’s occupation with the second largest employee population. OEEO 

completed initial data collection in FY 2019. Insights gained from qualitative and quantitative 

analyses conducted during FY 2019 suggested the need to understand more fully an incumbent’s 

decision to seek promotion. OEEO extended the timeline for this study to incorporate expanded 

data collection to help us better understand how accountants, both men and women, make 

decisions about their career development and promotional opportunity. OEEO plans to begin 

summarizing and interpreting the additional research results during FY 2020. Additional 

information about this study is included in Part I of this report, infra.

Barrier Analysis Study: Analysis of the attorney occupation

Research into the participation of men in attorney positions continued in FY 2019. The attorney 

occupation is the SEC’s occupation with the largest employee population. OEEO expanded review 

of workforce data on the SEC’s attorney occupation, started interviewing experts involved in 

recruiting and hiring attorneys for the Commission, and developed plans for additional qualitative 

data collection in FY 2020. Additional information about this study is included in Part I of this 

report, infra.

Analytic work supporting these studies continues in FY 2020 to form the basis for suggested 

action to improve equal employment opportunity.

Compliance Indicator D.3—The Agency establishes appropriate action plans to 

remove identified barriers.

OEEO’s careful analysis, and synthesis of research results provides a strong, data-driven basis for 

Agency efforts to further its affirmative employment program. OEEO shares research results and 

encourages concrete, measurable actions management can take for further improvement. OEEO 

recently formalized a framework in which final studies and opportunities identified by OEEO are 

provided to the SEC’s Chief Operating Officer (COO), who will, in turn, consult with relevant 

management and provide updates on action planning and implementation. Pursuant to the framework:

n The COO and other relevant management officials provide SEC management’s written 

response to the analysis no later than 60 days after receipt, including what actions the SEC 

will take, the timeline for taking the action, and a method of tracking and reporting on the 

actions management takes.
38 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

n The COO, relevant management officials, and the OEEO Director meet three times a year 

to discuss the status of the SEC management’s action planning. These meetings are also an 

opportunity for OEEO and SEC management to assess any observable impacts and engage 

in additional consultation.

n OCOO provides OEEO and the Chairman’s Office with a report annually discussing the status 

of SEC management’s actions and action planning that relate to OEEO’s analyses. The report is 

provided a month after the end of the fiscal year so that OEEO can include the information in 

the SEC’s next MD-715 report.

This framework provides the means not only for action planning, but also for the monitoring 

necessary to ensure accountability.

Compliance Indicator D.4—The Agency has an affirmative action plan for people with 

disabilities, including those with targeted disabilities.

The SEC has an EEOC-approved affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities. OEEO has 

applied its research approach to support and assess progress under the Agency’s affirmative action 

plan for persons with disability. See Parts I and J of this report for a full discussion.

Essential Element E:

Efficiency

Management Directive 715 explains that agencies must:

n Have an efficient and fair dispute resolution process and effective systems for evaluating the 

impact and effectiveness of their EEO Programs.

n Maintain an efficient, fair, and impartial complaint resolution process. Agencies should benchmark 

against EEOC regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and other federal agencies of similar size highly 

ranked in EEOC’s annual report on the federal sector complaints process.

n Ensure that the investigation and adjudication function of the Agency’s complaint resolution 

process are kept separate from the legal defense arm of the Agency or other Agency offices with 

conflicting or competing interests.

n Establish and encourage the widespread use of a fair alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

program that facilitates the early, effective, and efficient informal resolution of disputes. Appoint 

a senior official as the dispute resolution specialist of the Agency charged with implementing a 

program to provide significant opportunities for ADR for the full range of employment-related 

disputes. Whenever ADR is offered in a particular workplace matter, ensure that managers, at all 

appropriate levels, will participate in the ADR process.

n Use a complaint tracking and monitoring system that permits the Agency to identify the 

location, status, and length of time elapsed at each stage of the Agency’s complaint resolution 

process, the issues and the bases of the complaints, the aggrieved individuals/complainants, the 

involved management officials, and other information necessary to analyze complaint activity 

and identify trends.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 39

n Identify, monitor, and report significant trends reflected in complaint processing activity.

Analysis of data relating to the nature and disposition of EEO complaints can provide useful 

insight into the extent to which an Agency is meeting its obligations under Title VII and the 

Rehabilitation Act.

n Ensure timely and complete compliance with EEOC orders and the provisions of settlement/

resolution agreements.

n Maintain a system that collects and maintains accurate information on the race, national origin, 

sex, and disability status of Agency employees.

n Maintain a system that tracks applicant flow data, which identifies applicants by race, national 

origin, sex, and disability status and the disposition of all applications.

n Maintain a tracking system of recruitment activities to permit analyses of these efforts in any 

examination of potential barriers to equality of opportunity.

n Identify and disseminate best workplace practices.

According to the MD-715 instructions, “[t]his 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.

Year over year, the SEC complaints program continues to improve. In FY 2019, OEEO onboarded 

a new Deputy Director and took steps to hire a Compliance and Resolutions Branch Manager 

dedicated to maintaining and enhancing the quality and timeliness of all aspects of the Part 1614 

complaint process. The Deputy Director is a former EEO Director at a sister financial regulatory 

agency with extensive labor and employment legal experience in various sectors. The Branch 

Manager is a first line supervisor, formerly an EEOC Administrative Judge and EEO Director at 

other Executive agencies, with extensive federal sector complaint processing experience. They are 

working collaboratively with existing OEEO staff to assess the SEC’s program and to identify areas 

for possible enhancements, including adoption of best practices obtained through benchmarking 

and networking.

The SEC follows the requirements, standards, and practices in Part 1614 and is developing additional 

tools to promote uniformity and efficiency in complaint-program activities. These resources will 

facilitate consistent, timely processing of EEO matters. OEEO continued to make enhancements to 

the complaints program in FY 2019, including, for example:

n Issuing a policy on the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in EEO matters, updating ADR 

frequently asked questions (FAQs), and creating a new educational resource, Top 10 Reasons to 

Consider ADR, to increase participation in ADR;

n Creating and mandating a new ADR training module for supervisors;
40 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

n Creating and updating complaints program standard operating procedures and forms including, 

for example, related to ADR, referrals to the SEC’s harassment program, issuance of litigation 

holds by OGC, the format for Final Agency Decisions, non-disclosure agreements, and 

iComplaints security and recordkeeping requirements;

n Creating new complaints-related tracking tools including, for example, related to referrals to and 

from OEEO, open case status, and upcoming due dates;

n Assessing quality-control measures related to EEO complaint-processing contractors to ensure 

they are providing quality work;

n Deploying generic email accounts to ensure ready access to OEEO staff;

n Leveraging facilitation services offered through OHR for some counseling matters;

n Discussing a protocol with OHR and OGC to ensure these offices timely provide procedural 

information about matters filed in venues that could displace OEEO’s jurisdiction for processing 

EEO matters;

n Enhancing counseling protocols with respect to contractors to ensure information relevant to 

assessing OEEO jurisdiction over any subsequent formal complaint filed is timely compiled;

n Retraining staff on SEC protocols for reporting privacy breaches;

n Strategizing with SEC Acquisitions staff to streamline access to complaint-processing services;

n Auditing internal recordkeeping practices to organize and update templates and samples to further 

OEEO consistency and efficiency;

n Assessing legal obligations related to Union rights at various stages in the EEO administrative 

process and working with NTEU Chapter 293 regarding a notification protocol for settlements 

involving bargaining unit members; and

n Assessing possible enhancements to SEC processes for claims of discrimination raised pursuant to 

Executive Orders regarding parental status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

These and other enhancements to the EEO complaints program implemented during FY 2019 have 

helped the Commission comply with Part 1614 and MD-110 requirements. Notably, these changes 

occurred despite an increase in complaint activity in FY 2019 compared to FY 2018.

In FY 2019, OEEO completed 37 counselings under Part 1614. (OEEO received a total of 31 new 

informal complaints/requests for EEO counseling during FY 2019; not all were completed before the 

end of FY 2019.) All but one counseling completed in FY 2019 qualified as timely under 29 C.F.R. §

1614.105. Eleven counselings were timely completed within 30 days; eleven traditional counselings 

were completed timely with written extensions of no longer than 60 days. Eleven counselings were 

processed through the SEC’s ADR program and were timely completed within 90 days. In each of 

these counselings, the Agency provided the regulatory required notification to individuals of their 

various rights and responsibilities in the EEO process. This information was provided during the 

initial counseling session verbally and also later in writing.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 41

In FY 2019, 24 new formal EEO complaints were filed under Part 1614—compared with only 

12 in FY 2018. In all new formal complaints, the Agency issued acknowledgement letters upon 

receipt of a formal complaint. Of the new formal complaints that were filed in FY 2019, the 

average length of time for issuing the acknowledgement letter was a few days. In addition, OEEO 

generally issued all Acceptance letters/Dismissal decisions within a reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) 

after receipt of the written EEO counselor’s report. In FY 2019, OEEO conducted investigations 

of formal EEO complaints in a timely fashion. Of the nine investigations completed during FY 

2019, none were untimely. Thus, in FY 2019, 100% of formal complaints were processed within 

regulatory timeframes. This compares favorably with the government-wide average of 83.75% 

for the most recent year for which data is available.

21 OEEO will provide complainants with the 

regulatory required “180-day letter” if an investigation is expected to exceed 180 days. This letter 

notifies complainants of the date by which OEEO expects to complete the investigation and informs 

complainants of their right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or to file a 

lawsuit. Of the investigations completed during FY 2019, none exceeded 180 days.

In FY 2019, five final Agency decisions (no discrimination found) were issued.

22 In FY 2019, the 

discrimination bases alleged most frequently at the SEC were: reprisal (14), sex (14), race (12), age 

(10), and disability (four). For comparison purposes, according to EEOC’s Annual Report on the 

Federal Workforce for FY 2018–Complaint Tables, the top five bases in complaint allegations filed 

for FY 2018 were reprisal/retaliation, age, disability–physical, sex–female, and race–Black/African 

American.

23 In FY 2019, the issues most frequently raised at the SEC were: non-sexual harassment 

(nine), promotion/non-selection (seven), terms/conditions of employment (six), assignment of duties 

(four), and performance evaluation/appraisal (three). According to the EEOC’s Annual Report on the 

Federal Workforce for FY 2018–Complaint Tables, the top five issues in complaint allegations were 

harassment–non-sexual, disciplinary action, terms and conditions of employment, promotion/nonselection, and reasonable accommodation.

24

As soon as OEEO receives notice that a complainant has requested an EEOC hearing before an 

Administrative Judge (AJ) or has filed an appeal of a final Agency action with EEOC’s OFO, OEEO 

uploads all documents to FedSEP (the EEOC’s online password-protected federal-sector EEO portal).

The SEC also timely issues Final Agency Orders (FAOs) following receipt of any EEOC AJ decision 

and the associated hearings file.

21 The most recent data on EEOC’s website is FY 2018, published as: “U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

Office of Federal Operations, Annual Report on the Federal Work Force, Fiscal Year 2018”. See https://www.eeoc.

gov/federal-sector/report/form-462-and-md-715-data-tables-fy-2017-and-fy-2018, accessed on July 27, 2020.

Government-wide percentage of investigations that were timely completed (including U.S. Postal Service (USPS)) was 

83.75%; excluding USPS it was 78.39%.

22 SEC FY 2019 462 Report: Part I, D.2; Part II, B; and Part VI, B.2.

23 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations, Annual Report on the Federal Work 

Force, Fiscal Year 2018, at Table B-8.

24 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations, Annual Report on the Federal Work 

Force, Fiscal Year 2018, at Table B-8.
42 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Compliance Indicator E.2—The Agency has a neutral EEO process.

As noted above, the OEEO Director reports directly to the Chairman of the SEC on substantive 

EEO matters—not to anyone in OGC or OHR—and exercises full authority to carry out core EEO 

complaint program functions, thus ensuring impartiality and removing conflict of interest. OEEO 

carefully safeguards its neutrality and impartiality, which is critical to having an efficient and fair 

EEO complaint resolution process. OEEO neutrality ensures that employees and managers know that 

the pre-complaint and investigation stages of the Part 1614 process are not adversarial, that OEEO 

will compile a neutral and impartial factual record, and that, when requested, OEEO will issue a 

final decision assessing the facts and law to determine whether or not one or more of the applicable 

employment discrimination laws have been violated.

Beginning in FY 2019, OEEO made it a strategic priority to ensure that all SEC staff understand 

the importance of OEEO independence. OEEO staff met collectively to create a mission, vision, 

description of staff, summary of business lines, and values statement to guide its work and share with 

the broader SEC community. OEEO independence is prominent in these materials and the message is 

relayed on OEEO’s intranet page and in this report. OEEO staff also reiterate this message in other 

routine briefings, trainings, and meetings.

Compliance Indicator E.3—The Agency has established and encouraged the 

widespread use of a fair alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program.

Consistent with EEOC Management Directive 110(MD-110) guidance, the SEC has a longstanding 

ADR program entitled Conflict to Resolution or C2R, which primarily uses mediation. In March 

2019, OEEO updated its Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) policy specifically related to 

EEO matters. Under this policy and the C2R program, the Commission is committed to resolving 

workplace disputes in an appropriate, fair, and efficient manner and to using alternative methods 

for resolving employment-related disputes where appropriate and feasible. Resolving issues early 

and expeditiously helps maintain a work environment that fosters open communication, trust, and 

engagement. Used properly in appropriate circumstances, ADR can provide faster, less expensive 

and contentious, and more productive results in eliminating workplace disputes, including claims 

of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and workstyle or personality conflicts that may arise.

Thus, some key objectives of the C2R program include resolving workplace conflicts at an early 

stage if possible, improving workplace communication and morale, and creating a more efficient 

EEO Program.

The SEC has allocated funding to use contract ADR professionals to resolve workplace disputes; 

in some instances, OEEO works with the SEC Dispute Resolution Specialist to support facilitation 

efforts. Consistent with MD-110, the SEC’s COO—not the responsible management official directly 

involved in the dispute—has settlement authority for EEO cases at the administrative level, including 

during EEO counseling. OEEO works with OGC to ensure that an official with settlement authority 

is accessible during the dispute-resolution process. The Agency’s ADR Policy makes clear that 

although ADR is voluntary for EEO filers, supervisors and managers must participate in good faith if 

a filer elects ADR and OEEO authorizes its use.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 43

OEEO promotes the benefits of ADR on the SEC’s intranet and in training materials, including 

through a mandatory ADR module for supervisors and a tip sheet entitled Top 10 Reasons to 

Consider ADR, both launched in FY 2019. In FY 2019, OEEO processed a total of 37 informal 

complaints (informal complaints carried over from FY 2018 and new informal complaints initiated 

in FY 2019). Among these, the option to pursue ADR in lieu of traditional EEO counseling was 

routinely explained to counselees. Through C2R, OEEO conducted 11 mediations during both the 

formal and informal process; five or approximately 45.45% of these matters settled or resulted in the 

counselee not filing a formal EEO complaint. Compared to FY 2018, resolution rates for informal 

and formal mediations remained generally consistent (57.4% versus 45.5%) while participation rates 

increased (seven mediations versus 11 mediations). OEEO will continue to monitor whether efforts 

to increase ADR participation and resolution rates are successful.

Compliance Indicator E.4—The Agency has effective and accurate data collection 

systems in place to evaluate its EEO Program.

The SEC has systems in place to accurately collect, monitor, and analyze various sorts of data critical 

to a successful EEO Program:

n OEEO uses the Micropact iComplaints platform to track and analyze complaint activity, including 

the issues and bases of the complaints, the aggrieved individuals/complainants, and the alleged 

responsible management officials.

n OHR uses the Department of Interior, Interior Business Center’s DataMart to store employee 

demographic data by sex, race, national origin, and disability status. This demographic 

information is voluntarily supplied by employees who complete or update certain forms, including 

Selective Service registrations, SF-181, and SF-256.

n OHR uses USAJobs to collect internal and external applicant flow data by sex, race, national 

origin, and disability status for all vacancies posted through USAJobs.

n The harassment prevention team in OEEO uses a SharePoint system to track incoming allegations 

of harassment. The system capabilities include the ability to attach relevant documents.

n OHR’s Reasonable Accommodation Program uses SEC Forms 2937 and 2938 to capture, track, 

and analyze processing of requests for reasonable accommodation or PAS.

n OMWI and OHR track recruitment efforts through Microsoft Excel and similar tools.

All data collected is treated in accordance with applicable Federal law and SEC policies for data 

protection, including but not limited to the Privacy Act. Offices supporting the SEC’s EEO Program 

share information, as necessary, in order to conduct assessments and drive enhancements to equality 

of opportunity at the Agency.
44 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Compliance Indicator E.5—The Agency identifies and disseminates significant trends 

and best practices in its EEO Program.

The SEC regularly monitors trends in its EEO Program to determine whether it is meeting its 

obligations under the workplace anti-discrimination laws. In preparing the Agency’s No FEAR Act 

year-end report in FY 2019, OEEO examined data to identify potential problems, spotted trends, and 

developed action plans for the next fiscal year.

As reported in the SEC’s FY 2019 No FEAR Act report, OEEO staff members have gained insights 

that have helped improve the SEC’s overall EEO Program, including the following.

n Maintaining EEO office independence—e.g., organizational autonomy from the Office of the 

General Counsel, the Office of Human Resources, and others with conflicting interests—is 

indispensable to safeguarding the statutory enforcement mechanisms Federal law and the EEOC 

require agencies to establish and maintain to remedy civil rights violations. This independence also 

is vital to fostering trust that the EEO Program is (and appears) impartial and separate from other 

offices with potentially conflicting interests.

n Many substantive EEO concepts are complex, and new supervisors may sometimes struggle to 

apply complicated rules (e.g., those involving disability and anti-retaliation laws). Consistent 

proactive prevention of discrimination, harassment, retaliation (including whistleblower 

retaliation), and other prohibited personnel practices—through training and targeted technical 

assistance—remains vital to fostering workplace civil rights and upholding merit system principles.

n The federal-sector EEO process itself can seem confusing to new employees, and often even to 

career civil servants. There are numerous, sometimes overlapping sources of legal protection (e.g., 

via statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders) and various related enforcement processes (e.g., 

the Part 1614 process, intra-Agency harassment procedures, Union grievances, Office of Special 

Counsel/Merit Systems Protection Board complaints). Accordingly, regular messaging reinforced 

through outreach can aid understanding and minimize confusion. In particular, explaining the 

differences between filing an EEO complaint alleging violations of federal law and reporting 

harassment under the SEC’s harassment prevention policy is important.

n Raising awareness through sharing personal stories about words and conduct that could be 

perceived as offensive in the workplace can help reduce EEO complaints alleging harassment.

OEEO will continue to monitor educational efforts to determine if this impact is sustained over 

the longer term.

n All organizational leaders must consider EEO and civil service protections before and while 

implementing new or changed policies, practices, procedures, and organizational matters that 

could affect the workforce. Reaching out to the OEEO Director early and often to obtain crucial 

input and feedback on personnel, budget, technology, and other workforce issues can help prevent 

potential EEO missteps and ensure EEO best practices are adopted.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 45

n Resolving issues early and expeditiously helps maintain a work environment that fosters open 

communication, trust, and engagement. Used properly in appropriate circumstances, alternative 

dispute resolution (ADR) can provide faster, less expensive and contentious, and more productive 

results in resolving workplace disputes, including claims of discrimination, harassment, and 

retaliation or workstyle or personality conflicts that may arise. The SEC must be open to and 

make reasonable efforts to settle complaints of discrimination as early as possible in, and 

throughout, the administrative processing of complaints.

OEEO is applying the above experience and insights in planning its priorities. A primary focus 

will be implementing Goal 3 of SEC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018–2022 (Elevate the SEC’s 

performance by enhancing analytical capabilities and human capital development) and Initiative 3.1 

(Focus on the SEC’s workforce to increase capabilities, leverage shared commitment to investors, and 

promote diversity, inclusion, and equality of opportunity among the agency’s staff). In addition to 

supporting the implementation of the SEC Strategic Plan, in FY 2020, OEEO will: 

n Continue to process all informal and formal complaints and requests for ADR in compliance with 

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 and EEOC MD-110; 

n Support efforts to continue implementing the EEOC’s affirmative action regulations under Section 

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 

n Conduct ongoing barrier analyses required by the EEOC, including monitoring action plans that 

effectively address identified barriers; and 

n Collaborate with the federal sector EEO community to share and learn best practices and 

innovative approaches to enhance equality of employment opportunity.

More generally, OEEO will support the SEC in focusing on the following objectives during FY 2020 

and FY 2021: 

n Continuing to incorporate the EEOC’s Six Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program to achieve 

greater program effectiveness; 

n Briefing senior leadership on the state of the EEO Program to reaffirm support for the program, 

provide awareness of issues and trends (systemic or otherwise), and solicit input on strengthening 

the EEO Program; 

n Maintaining accuracy of EEO complaint data; 

n Leveraging internal communication channels to distribute EEO-related information and 

promoting communication of information and early intervention to help officials identify the 

issues and bases that may give rise to EEO complaints; 

n Training supervisors and managers to provide proactive approaches to resolving issues stemming 

from alleged violations of personnel policies and practices; 
46 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

n Fostering constructive, open, continuous communication between employees and management to 

help resolve workplace conflicts at the earliest possible opportunity, and ensuring that employees, 

management officials, and persons with settlement authority understand the purpose and value 

of ADR; 

n Increasing employee awareness of EEO statutes; 

n Continuing to collaborate with stakeholders across the Agency to analyze workforce demographic 

data and to foster employment opportunity for all consistent with applicable law, rules, 

regulations, and guidance; 

n Reviewing information from employee surveys, exit interviews, focus groups, and training to 

identify opportunities for improvement; and 

n Incorporating EEO best practices gained through the SEC’s coalitions with other Federal agencies.

Consistent with these objectives, to identify and keep abreast of significant external EEO complaint 

processing trends and best practices, OEEO compares SEC data with data for similar size and 

mission-focused agencies using existing and available government-wide federal sector reports. OEEO 

personnel also review new EEOC regulations, guidance, and case law updates (such as the EEOC’s 

Digest of EEO Law); monitor current development periodicals; and consult other external expert 

resources. In addition, the OEEO Director attends EEOC’s Quarterly EEO Director Meetings to 

learn from other EEO directors and share innovative ideas. Similarly, OEEO staff take advantage of 

OPM knowledge-sharing vehicles and network with EEO professionals in numerous other contexts 

(such as at annual FDR and EXCEL conferences). Staff also participate in inter-agency EEO councils 

(such as the Small Agency EEO Council) and more informal cross-government task forces.

This concerted, sustained engagement with EEO peers and other colleagues help OEEO learn about 

and share EEO best practices. For instance, during FY 2019, OEEO staff participated in ad hoc interagency working groups formed to share best practices for implementing the EEOC’s new Section 501 

affirmative action regulations and preparing MD-715 reports. Additional cross-agency collaboration 

on barrier analysis (see discussion above) and harassment prevention was driven by OEEO in 

FY 2019. OEEO’s PPH educational program expanded in scope to reach other agencies when 

representatives of 11 federal agencies attended a dialogue session. OEEO then hosted an inter-agency 

session to discuss best practices for preventing harassment; seven agencies were represented. OEEO’s 

training approach was shared even more broadly when OEEO presented an interactive session at the 

Federal Dispute Resolution (FDR) Training in August 2019 to approximately 200 attendees. OEEO 

also met with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) to share information about the PPH 

program. The SEC understands that OFO is considering building an experiential component to their 

own harassment prevention program.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 47

Essential Element F:

Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

According to Management Directive 715, federal agencies must:

n Ensure that they are in full compliance with the law, including EEOC regulations, orders, and 

other written instructions;

n Report Agency program efforts and accomplishments to EEOC and respond to EEOC directives 

and orders in accordance with EEOC instructions and time frames; and

n Ensure that management fully and timely complies with final EEOC orders for corrective action 

and relief in EEO matters.

Compliance Indicator F.1—The Agency has processes in place to ensure timely and full 

compliance with EEOC Orders and settlement agreements.

The SEC has a system of management controls to ensure that its officials timely comply with all 

EEOC orders/directives, final Agency actions, and settlement agreements. OEEO compliance team 

members are tasked with monitoring and facilitating compliance (working with OGC and other 

stakeholders) with all orders and directives issued by EEOC Administrative Judges and the EEOC’s 

Office of Federal Operations, as well as with any final Agency action issued by OEEO, as applicable.

The SEC’s OGC monitors compliance with settlement terms.

In addition, as discussed above, Senior Officers, managers, and supervisors are evaluated under 

Leading People critical performance elements that are interpreted to require them to comply with 

settlements agreements and orders issued by the Agency (e.g., through OEEO final actions, including 

final decisions on EEO complaints), EEOC (e.g., by AJs or by OFO on administrative appeals), 

and EEO-related cases from the Merit Systems Protection Board, labor arbitrators, and the Federal 

Labor Relations Authority. Individuals who fail to adhere to these performance standards would be 

held accountable accordingly through the performance management process. Relatedly, any SEC 

employee responsible for compliance with EEOC orders would be held accountable for poor work 

product and/or delays connected to compliance with such orders.

Compliance Indicator F.2—The Agency complies with the law, including EEOC 

regulations, management directives, orders, and other written instructions.

As a general matter, when an EEO complainant requests a hearing or files an appeal, OEEO staff will 

check FedSEP regularly to ascertain whether the matter has been docketed. Regardless of docketing 

status, OEEO staff will upload the complaint file as prescribed by EEOC orders and/or established 

regulatory timeframes for use by the EEOC (either by an EEOC AJ as part of hearing proceedings or 

by OFO in adjudication of an appeal).
48 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Throughout FY 2019, the SEC timely responded and fully complied with all EEOC orders issued as 

part of the hearings and/or appeals process. Where necessary, the Commission promptly provides 

EEOC with required documentation for completing compliance with any such orders.

In any case involving an EEOC finding of discrimination that would not be the subject of an appeal 

by the Agency, OEEO compliance staff would work with OGC and other necessary stakeholders to 

ensure timely and full compliance and to promptly provide EEOC with any required documentation 

substantiating such compliance.

Compliance Indicator F.3—The Agency reports to EEOC its program efforts and 

accomplishments.

The SEC regularly complies with regulatory requirements to submit an annual Form 462 Report, 

EEOC MD-715 Report, the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report, 

the Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) Report, and quarterly and annual No 

FEAR Act reports. In FY 2019, all annual reports were accurate and complete and submitted on 

time. Also in FY 2019, OEEO posted all four quarterly No FEAR Act data reports on its public 

website, SEC.gov, on time (i.e., within 30 days after the end of each fiscal year quarter (with any 

extension granted because of government furlough)).

Workforce Analyses

The SEC analyzes workforce data to identify triggers that may require further inquiry regarding 

whether or not barriers to equal employment opportunity based on race, ethnicity, sex, or disability 

exist. Starting in FY 2017, the EEOC’s OFO began implementing revised guidance and instructions 

for presenting workforce data in the annual reporting under MD-715 (hereinafter, version MD-715 

2.0 or version 2.0). This change transitions analysis of workforce data from an employment-process 

focus to a population focus. In prior years, tables were prepared to present data separately for 

applications from recruiting, for newly hired staff, for competitive promotion, for non-competitive 

promotion, and for career development in separate tables.

In the 2.0 version, workforce data about the progress of groups of employees through these 

employment processes is presented in one table.

n Tables A1 and B1 present information about the total workforce across the employment life cycle, 

i.e., current status or the total number of employees in the workforce at the close of the fiscal year, 

gains through recruiting and hiring over the reporting period, and losses or separations.

n Tables A2 and B2 are unchanged in version 2.0, presenting information for reporting 

subcomponents, at the SEC, by regional office.

n Tables A3 and B3 present information in the EEOC’s occupational categories for EEO-1 reporting 

enabling comparison across government and to private sector organizations.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 49

n Tables A4 and B4 are unchanged in version 2.0, presenting information by pay grades or, at the 

SEC, by SK-levels.

n Tables A5 and B5 present salary information by $10,000 increments enabling comparison for 

employees serving in various pay systems across government and to private sector organizations.

n Tables A6 and B6 present information about employees serving in each of the Agency’s Mission 

Critical Occupations (MCOs). This information describes current status or the total number of 

employees serving in each pay level at the close of the year and gains through recruiting and hiring.

n Tables A7 and B7 present information about employees serving in senior grade levels, equivalent 

to GS-13 through SES in the General Schedule and Senior Executive Service at other agencies.

These tables share information about the current status or total number of employees in each 

senior grade level at the close of the fiscal year, gains through competitive promotions and newly 

hired staff, and progress through career development of employees seeking each senior grade level.

n Tables A8 and B8 present information about employees in management levels, i.e., first level 

supervisors, managers, and executives, including information about current status or the number 

at each leadership level, gains through competitive promotions and newly hired leaders, and 

progress through career development of employees seeking each leadership level.

n Tables A9 and B9 present information about awards under the Agency’s Employee Recognition 

Program and performance-based pay actions, e.g., under the Agency’s pay-for-performance 

evaluation system.

The next sections provide a selected analysis of workforce data aligned with the version 2.0 

workforce data tables by ethnicity/race and gender. Part J provides analysis of workforce data by 

disability status.

Within these workforce analyses, this report describes identified “triggers,” or observed differences 

in participation rates (i.e., the proportions of employees across the demographic groups) and/or 

inclusion rates (i.e., the proportions of a total employee group found in a particular condition). A 

“trigger” is a trend, difference, variance, outlier, or anomaly that suggests the need for further inquiry 

into a particular policy, practice, procedure, or condition. Statistics are only a starting point for 

analysis that must consider the totality of the circumstances.
50 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In many cases, triggers are evidenced through comparison of workforce data to civilian labor force 

participation rates. The EEO Tabulation, produced using the 2006–2010 American Community 

Survey (ACS) survey data, is the primary external benchmark for conducting comparisons between 

the ethnicity/racial and sex composition of each employer’s workforce to its available labor 

market. According to Census Bureau information about the EEO Tabulation, “The sponsors have 

determined the next EEO Tabulation release will be by Fall 2020/Spring 2021, which will use the 

2014–2018 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) dataset.”25 For brevity, benchmark data from 

the 2006–2010 EEO Tabulation is referred to as the 2010 civilian labor force (CLF) or for specific 

MCO positions, the occupational civilian labor force (OCLF), in this report and accompanying 

workforce tables. Occupational comparisons are initially made using broad categories of civilian jobs 

that do not differentiate between characteristics such as industry (e.g., finance versus health care) 

or specialization (e.g., securities versus employment law). Please refer to Part I of this report, infra, 

for the SEC’s plans for analyzing and enhancing equality of opportunity for SEC employees and 

applicants for employment.

SEC’s Total Workforce

At the end of FY 2019, the SEC had 4,365 employees, 4,266 permanent and 99 temporary. Of the 

4,266 permanent employees, there were 2,294 (53.77%) men and 1,972 (46.23%) women. The SEC 

gained a total of 53 permanent employees, 25 (47.17%) men and 28 (52.83%) women.

In FY 2019, the SEC had a separation rate of less than four percent (150 separations for a turnover 

rate of 3.52%) of its total permanent workforce. The SEC aims to keep its turnover rate relatively 

low, i.e., below eight percent per year. Of the 149 voluntary separations, six were Hispanic or Latino 

employees, 109 were White employees, 21 were Black or African American employees, and 12 

were Asian employees. While the overall separation rate was low, White men represented a higher 

proportion of permanent employee separations than their participation in the total workforce.

White men comprise 48.67% of separations, while they were 39.24% of the permanent workforce.

They comprise 51.19% of resignations. Separations were not higher than permanent workforce 

participation for any other group. The following table summarizes participation within the SEC’s 

permanent total workforce compared to the 2010 CLF.

26

25 The sponsors are the EEOC, Department of Justice’s Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division, 

Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, which produces the EEO Tabulation, the ACS “produces 

period estimates of socioeconomic and housing characteristics. It is designed to provide estimates that describe 

characteristics of an area over a specific time period. In the case of ACS one-year estimates, the period is the calendar 

year. While a one-year estimate includes information collected continuously nearly every day from independent monthly 

samples over a 12-month period, a five-year estimate includes statistics collected over a 60-month period. Then [the 

Census Bureau] aggregate[s] the results over the specified period of time. For example, the 2006-2010 ACS five-year 

estimates describe the population and housing characteristics of an area for the period January 1, 2006 through December 

31, 2010. They do not describe any specific day, month, or year within that time period. The cumulative sample of the 

ACS taken over a five-year time period allows measurement of detailed characteristics in local geographies and increases 

precision of its estimates.” Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation FAQs, accessed from https://www.census.gov/

topics/employment/equal-employment-opportunity-tabulation/about/faq.html on July 20, 2020.

26 As per the EEOC’s instruction, MD-715 tables include only data on permanent employees, unless otherwise noted.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 51

Table 7: SEC FY 2019 Permanent Total Workforce Compared to 2010 Civilian Labor Force (CLF)

Total 

Permanent 

Workforce FY 

2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Current 

Status

# 4,266 2,294 1,972 133 110 1,674 1,099 204 473 266 264 17 26 1,493

% 100 53.77 46.23 3.12 2.58 39.24 25.76 4.78 11.09 6.24 6.19 0.40 0.61 35.00

2010 CLF % 100 51.86 48.14 5.17 4.79 38.33 34.03 5.49 6.53 1.97 1.93 0.88 0.88 32.81

Gains: New 

Hires

# 53 25 28 4 0 15 18 4 4 2 6 0 0 20

% 100 47.17 52.83 7.55 0.00 28.30 33.96 7.55 7.55 3.77 11.32 0.00 0.00 37.74

Losses: 

Separation

# 150 84 66 3 3 73 37 6 15 2 10 0 1 40

% 100 56.00 44.00 2.00 2.00 48.67 24.67 4.00 10.00 1.33 6.67 0.00 0.67 26.67

The graphic below provides a visual comparison of the FY 2019 participation for each ethnicity/race 

and gender combination to the baseline CLF (2010). The height of each bar above or below the line 

reflects differences in participation rates. The participation of White female employees at the SEC 

shows the largest difference at -8.27% points below their participation in the 2010 CLF. Hispanic or 

Latino men and women show levels of difference that are both similar in magnitude to each other 

and a little more than 2% points below their participation in the 2010 CLF (Hispanic or Latino men 

at -2.05% points and Hispanic or Latino women at -2.21% points).

Relative to other ethnicity/race and gender groups, the SEC’s permanent workforce has higher 

participation of Asian employees, both men and women, and among Black or African American 

women. For these groups, the participation in the SEC’s permanent staff is 4.26 to 4.57% points 

higher than that demographic group’s 2010 CLF participation. Those specific groups contribute the 

largest portion to the 8.11% point difference in participation of all minority group members. While 

these data suggest that participation in the total SEC permanent workforce for these groups is higher 

than in the 2010 CLF, more specific analysis by occupation and pay grade tells a more nuanced 

story. Additional detail about those groups is shared later in this section through comparisons to 

occupational CLF (OCLF) and by pay grade or leadership level, infra.

Percentage Difference Between SEC Total Workforce and Civilian Labor Force (2010) 

by Ethnicity/Race and Gender

1.91

-1.91 -2.05 -2.21

0.91

-8.27

-0.71

4.56 4.27 4.26

0.01

-0.01

8.11

-12

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

Hispanic 

or Latino

 M F 

White

 M F 

Black or African

American

 M F 

Asian

 M F

 All Other

 M F

 Minority

M F
52 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SEC’s Mission Critical Occupations

This section discusses workforce analysis in each of the SEC’s five mission critical occupations 

(MCO): attorney, accountant, securities compliance examiner, information technology management, 

and economist. Among the SEC’s total permanent employees, there were 1,797 attorneys, 846 

accountants, 326 securities compliance examiners, 284 information technology (IT) management 

employees, and 84 economists. For each MCO, selected analysis of current status in terms of 

participation and inclusion by SK-levels, gains through external hiring and progress through 

competitive promotion of men, women, and minority group members are presented. Detailed 

analysis of promotion for PWD is provided in Part J, infra. Background information on the analyses 

presented provides the reader a basis for interpreting these selected analyses.

Employee Gains and Career Progression

Information about employee gains from external hiring and progression through competitive 

promotion are key to assessing equal employment opportunity for the Agency’s MCO workforce.

Analysis of recruiting, hiring, and competitive promotion is of particular importance this fiscal year.

A hiring freeze was lifted in the midst of FY 2019, and the SEC welcomed almost twice as many new 

staff members in FY 2019 as compared to the prior year.

Applicant Flow Data (AFD) is an important tool used to examine the fairness and inclusiveness of 

recruitment efforts and career progression of the workforce. These data are available through OPM’s 

USA Staffing© only for SEC vacancies posted on USAJOBS. The SEC uses USAJOBS for most, but 

not all, of its hiring actions.

27 In FY 2019, the SEC did not have a tool to capture and report on 

applicant data for hiring actions outside of USAJOBS.

A few important notes about AFD help facilitate interpretation. First, selections designated within 

AFD are tentative. AFD presented in various workforce tables show the demographic makeup for all 

applications28 from persons who self-identified and were: (1) qualified; (2) referred; or (3) tentatively 

selected for vacancies posted on USAJOBS that closed during FY 2019. Various hiring process steps, 

beyond a tentative selection decision, may impact success in onboarding a new hire (e.g., suitability 

assessment or declination of offer). To help distinguish the data on hiring, the workforce data tables 

provide separate rows of information for all employees newly hired and onboarded during the course 

of the fiscal year. Differences are observed in the demographic statistics of those selected versus those

hired and brought on board.

27 For example, hiring into accountant and economist positions under the SEC’s Fellows authority and, in some cases,

attorneys into the Excepted Service under 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(d) do not require public posting through USAJOBS. The 

SEC does proceed with public posting for a large number of vacancies even where such is not required.

28 Note that a single applicant may submit more than one application for the same vacancy, which was posted at different

grade levels, and for the same job across vacancy postings. AFD, then, include more than one record for a particular 

employee or external applicant; each application is counted separately.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 53

Second, applicants for external hiring are encouraged to voluntarily provide data on their gender, 

race/ethnicity, and disability as part of their USAJOBS profile. Because self-identification is not 

required by USAJOBS and depends on applicants’ willingness to volunteer their demographic 

information, data should not be extrapolated from the group that voluntarily identified their 

demographics to the remaining applicants who did not. At the same time, as a result of changes made 

to improve the collection of applicant profile data since 2016, AFD in this report include gender and/

or ethnicity/race data for 66.90% of the applications for SEC employment or promotion submitted 

through USAJOBS. For the five MCOs at the SEC (i.e., attorneys, accountants, securities compliance 

examiners, information technology management, and economists), applicants self-identified gender 

and/or ethnicity/race from a high of 75.62% for information technology management to a low of 

50.00% for economists.

In FY 2019, OPM implemented a number of actions to help agencies in their analysis of AFD. OPM: 

(1) made information about appointment type (permanent or temporary) available for each vacancy; 

(2) created a variable so that agencies can more easily identify supervisory versus non-supervisory 

vacancies; and (3) changed AFD so that all applications submitted by the same applicant reflect a 

unique identifier, providing valuable data for agencies to analyze and identify demographic trends for 

successful and unsuccessful applicants. These actions provide some, but not all, of the information 

needed to complete workforce data tables under the MD-715 2.0 design.

In particular, OPM’s USAStaffing system does not capture information about the interview stage of 

the hiring process.

29

Analysis of internal competitive promotion is another area of interest in the SEC’s review of equal 

employment opportunity. To explore data related to promotional opportunity, unlike what was 

done for current status of the total workforce and for each MCO, comparisons are made to the 

composition of the SEC’s overall workforce. In particular, EEOC has suggested that agencies 

consider the Relevant Applicant Pool (RAP)30 in benchmark comparisons for each occupation.

The demographic profile of the RAP represents more closely an attainable standard for workforce 

composition. Data on the RAP for each MCO is provided in summary level within this section and in 

Table A6 (as well as Table B6 by disability status).

29 For purposes of this report, Tables 6, 7, and 8 omit the rows that should summarize AFD at the interview stage. These 

data are unavailable via USAStaffing.

30 The RAP defined for each MCO is based on the number of employees holding a qualifying occupation series and in the 

SK-levels encumbered at the Agency between SK-11 and SK-16. Specifically, for attorneys, the RAP included all employees 

in the 0905 series. For accountants, the RAP included all employees in the 0510 series. For securities compliance 

examiners, the RAP included all employees in the 1831 and the 0501, Financial Administration and Program series. For 

the information technology management occupation, the RAP included all employees in the 2210 series, and for the 

economist occupation, the RAP included all employees in the 0110 series.
54 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

As the SEC has continued to evaluate data on competitive promotion, we have learned that 

employees are less likely to self-identify their demographic information in AFD. To help ensure 

higher quality analysis, data on internal competitive promotion augments AFD with an employee’s 

self-identification data from the Agency’s Human Resource Information System (HRIS). The 

SEC has encouraged employee self-identification for demographic information, particularly for 

disability status. To leverage the greater coverage of demographic data, progress through competitive 

promotion is summarized and analyzed through a combination of AFD and internal HRIS records 

for employees on staff.

Pursuant to EEOC’s instruction, internal competitive promotion data include AFD for vacancies 

posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion consideration. Other methods of progressing to 

higher graded positions are not captured. Employees in the competitive service across the government 

are eligible to apply for MP postings. AFD for these vacancies does not benefit from the additional 

demographic information available for SEC employees on staff. Summaries of these vacancy postings 

are, then, restricted to data available from AFD.

Finally, the SEC’s fellows programs are an important pathway into MCOs. In FY 2019, the SEC 

implemented the practice of posting all fellows opportunities on USAJOBS. This step will enable 

better monitoring of demographic data on fellows for MCOs.

With this context, the next sections present data on each MCO. Following sections present similar 

information for SEC’s senior-graded and leadership positions.

Attorneys

The current status, gains through external hiring and internal competitive promotion of attorneys 

is presented in the table below. In FY 2019, among the 1,797 attorneys there were 988 (54.98%) 

men, 809 (45.02%) women, and 407 (22.65%) minority group members. The Agency hired 

twenty-eight attorneys and promoted thirty-six.

A more detailed analysis of men and women who hold positions in the attorney occupation, the 

Agency’s largest MCO, is presented below, infra.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 55

Table 8: Table Attorney (0905) MCO Workforce Compared to the Occupational Civilian Labor Force (OCLF)

Attorney 

(0905) 

Permanent 

Employees 

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

2010 OCLF % 100 66.70 33.30 2.52 1.85 59.68 26.68 2.13 2.60 1.82 1.74 0.01 0.00 12.67

Current 

Status: MCO 

Workforce

# 1,797 988 809 44 34 808 582 52 74 82 111 2 8 407

% 100 54.98 45.02 2.45 1.89 44.96 32.39 2.89 4.12 4.56 6.18 0.11 0.45 22.65

Gains: 

New Hires

# 28 13 15 2 0 10 11 1 1 0 3 0 0 7

% 100 46.43 53.57 7.14 0.00 35.71 39.29 3.57 3.57 0.00 10.71 0.00 0.00 24.99

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 36 24 12 0 0 19 9 0 0 5 3 0 0 8

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 52.78 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.89 8.33 0.00 0.00 22.22

Note: Within each row, # shows the count of employees and % the participation rate. New hires may not equal selections 

because onboarding of selections made in the prior fiscal year can occur in the current fiscal year, and selections may not 

materialize into hires. Competitive promotion data include AFD information for vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and 

MP consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

See Table A6.

Gains, AFD for External Hiring: Attorneys (0905)

The SEC received 1,875 applications through USAJOBS and made 15 selections for attorney 

positions. Of the 1,875 applicants, 1,103 self-identified. Among those who self-identified, 706 

(64.01%) were men and 397 (35.99%) were women. Fifteen of the self-identified applicants 

were selected. Of the 15 selectees who self-identified, 7 were men and 8 were women.

Progression, AFD for Internal Progression Competitive Promotion: Attorney (0905) 

The SEC received 245 applications for the 36 attorney competitive promotions. Of the 245 

individuals who self-identified, 221 qualified for promotion, 153 men and 68 women. Of those 

tentatively selected for the promotions, 24 were men and 12 women. White employees comprised 

177 (80.09%) of the qualified applicants and received 28 (77.78%) of the 36 competitive 

promotions, with White men receiving 52.78% of the promotions and White women receiving 

25.00% of the promotions. A further demographic breakdown by ethnicity/race and gender of 

the candidates who applied for internal promotions follows.

Table 9: Attorney (0905) FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data: External Hiring and Internal Promotion

Attorney 

(0905) 

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Applicant Flow Data: New Hires

Total # 1,875

Applied

# 1,103 706 397 116 43 421 158 86 139 70 55 13 2 524

% 100 64.01 35.99 10.52 3.90 38.17 14.32 7.80 12.60 6.35 4.99 1.18 0.18 47.51

Qualified

# 922 603 319 102 34 370 141 70 103 55 40 6 1 411

% 100 65.40 34.60 11.06 3.69 40.13 15.29 7.59 11.17 5.97 4.34 0.65 0.11 44.58

Referred

# 154 99 55 9 0 74 34 7 11 9 10 0 0 46

% 100 64.29 35.71 5.84 0.00 48.05 22.08 4.55 7.14 5.84 6.49 0.00 0.00 29.87
56 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Attorney 

(0905) 

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Selected

# 15 7 8 2 0 4 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 5

% 100 46.67 53.33 13.33 0.00 26.67 40.00 0.00 13.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33

Internal Competitive Promotion

RAP % 100 54.19 45.81 2.30 2.23 43.65 32.30 3.18 4.26 4.93 6.49 0.14 0.54 24.05

Total # 245

Applied

# 245 169 76 3 5 139 54 9 6 18 10 0 1 52

% 100 68.98 31.02 1.22 2.04 56.73 22.04 3.67 2.45 7.35 4.08 0.00 0.41 21.22

Qualified

# 221 153 68 3 5 127 50 7 4 16 8 0 1 44

% 100 69.23 30.77 1.36 2.26 57.47 22.62 3.17 1.81 7.24 3.62 0.00 0.45 19.91

Referred

# 62 38 24 0 2 30 18 2 0 6 4 0 0 14

% 100 61.29 38.71 0.00 3.23 48.39 29.03 3.23 0.00 9.68 6.45 0.00 0.00 22.58

Selected

# 36 24 12 0 0 19 9 0 0 5 3 0 0 8

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 52.78 25.00 0.00 0.00 13.89 8.33 0.00 0.00 22.22

Note: This table includes the total number of applications received, and aggregated counts and percentages at the four 

distinct stages of the selection process for all applicants who self-identified their ethnicity/race and gender. All percentages 

are calculated based on the total within the row. The All Other column includes the following race groups: American Indian/

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More; none of these groups individually represent at least two 

percent of the total. See Table A6.

Accountants

The current status, gains through external hiring, and competitive promotion of accountants is 

presented in the table below. In FY 2019, among the 846 accountants there were 482 (56.97%) 

men, 364 (43.03%) women, and 242 (28.61%) minority group members. The Agency hired one 

accountant and promoted three. A more detailed analysis of men and women who hold positions 

in the attorney and accountant occupations, the Agency’s two largest MCOs, is presented later in 

this report, infra.

Table 10: Accountant (0510) FY 2019 MCO Workforce Compared to the (OCLF) 

Accountant 

(0510) 

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

2010 OCLF % 100 39.91 60.09 2.19 3.93 31.79 44.23 2.49 5.66 3.06 5.49 0.38 0.78 23.98

Current 

Status: MCO 

Workforce

# 846 482 364 28 22 374 230 32 44 46 64 2 4 242

% 100 56.97 43.03 3.31 2.60 44.21 27.19 3.78 5.20 5.44 7.57 0.24 0.47 28.61

Gains: 

New Hires

# 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Note: Within each row, # shows the count of employees and % the participation rate. New hires may not equal selections 

because onboarding of selections made in the prior fiscal year can occur in the current fiscal year, and selections may not 

materialize into hires. Competitive promotion data include AFD information for vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and 

Merit Promotion consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not 

presented. See Table A6.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 57

Gains, AFD for External Hiring: Accountants (0510)

In FY 2019, the SEC received 194 applications through USAJOBS and made nine selections 

for accountant positions. Of the 119 applicants who self-identified their demographics, 66 

(55.46%) were male and 53 (44.54%) were female. Of the nine selectees, two self-identified, 

one man and one woman.

Progression, AFD for Internal Progression Competitive Promotion: Accountant (0510) 

The SEC received 18 applications for three accountant competitive promotions. Of the 

18 applicants who self-identified, 15 qualified (eight men and seven women). Of the three 

individuals who received a competitive promotion, two were men, and one was a woman.

Detailed demographics follow.

Table 11: Accountant (0510) FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data: External Hiring and Internal Promotion

Accountant 

(0510)

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Applicant Flow Data: New Hires

Total 

Received # 194

Applied

# 119 66 53 10 5 19 13 25 20 12 13 0 2 87

% 100 55.46 44.54 8.40 4.20 15.97 10.92 21.01 16.81 10.08 10.92 0.00 1.68 73.11

Qualified

# 56 32 24 3 1 11 5 13 10 5 6 0 2 40

% 100 57.14 42.86 5.36 1.79 19.64 8.93 23.21 17.86 8.93 10.71 0.00 3.57 71.43

Referred

# 32 21 11 1 0 7 3 9 6 4 2 0 0 22

% 100 65.63 34.38 3.13 0.00 21.88 9.38 28.13 18.75 12.50 6.25 0.00 0.00 68.75

Selected

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Internal Competitive Promotion

RAP % 100 55.95 44.05 3.33 2.82 43.15 27.40 3.97 5.51 5.38 7.81 0.13 0.51 29.45

Total 

Received # 18

Applied

# 18 10 8 0 0 9 5 0 3 1 0 0 0 4

% 100 55.56 44.44 0.00 0.00 

50.00 27.78 0.00 16.67 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22

Qualified

# 15 8 7 0 0 7 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 3

% 100 53.33 46.67 0.00 0.00 46.67 33.33 0.00 13.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00

Referred

# 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Selected

# 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Note: This table includes the total number of applications received, and aggregated counts and percentages at the four 

distinct stages of the selection process for all applicants who self-identified their ethnicity/race and gender. All percentages 

are calculated based on the total within the row. The All Other column includes the following race groups: American Indian/

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More; none of these groups individually represent at least two 

percent of the total. See Table A6.
58 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Securities Compliance Examiners 

The current status and gains through competitive promotion and external hiring of securities 

compliance examiners is presented in the table below. In FY 2019, among the 326 securities 

compliance examiners there were 214 (65.64%) men, 112 (34.36%) women, and 112 (34.36%) 

minority group members. The Agency hired two securities compliance examiners (one man and 

one woman) and promoted three, all of whom were women.

Gains, AFD for External Hiring: Securities Compliance Examiners (1831)

In FY 2019, the SEC received 103 applications on USAJOBS and made no selections for 

securities compliance examiner positions. Thirty-seven applicants voluntarily self-identified their 

demographics. Of the 37 who self-identified, 28 (75.68%) were men, and nine (24.32%) were 

women. See Table A6.

Table 12: Securities Compliance Examiner (1831) FY 2019 MCO Workforce Compared to the (OCLF)

Securities 

Compliance 

Examiner 

(1831) 

Permanent 

Employees 

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

2010 OCLF % 100 54.75 45.25 3.06 3.65 44.11 28.34 3.57 8.71 3.69 3.96 0.00 0.01 26.65

Current 

Status: MCO 

Workforce

# 326 214 112 18 4 153 61 11 18 30 27 2 2 112

% 100 65.64 34.36 5.52 1.23 46.93 18.71 3.37 5.52 9.20 8.28 0.61 0.61 34.36

Gains: 

New Hires

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

% 100 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100 0.00 100.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33

Note: Within each row, # shows the count of employees and % the participation rate. New hires may not equal selections 

because onboarding of selections made in the prior fiscal year can occur in the current fiscal year, and selections may not 

materialize into hires. Competitive promotion data include AFD information for vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and 

Merit Promotion consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not 

presented. See Table A6.

Progression, AFD for Internal Competitive Promotion: Securities Compliance Examiner (1831) 

The SEC received 21 applications for three securities compliance examiner promotions. Of the 

21 applicants who self-identified (13 from men and 8 from women), 18 qualified (eleven men 

and seven women). Of the three tentatively selected applicants, one was a Hispanic or Latino 

woman, and two were White women. The following table reflects the demographic breakdown.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 59

Table 13: Securities Compliance Examiner (1831) FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data: External Hiring 

and Internal Promotion

Securities 

Compliance 

Examiner 

(1831)

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Applicant Flow Data: New Hires

Total # 103

Applied

# 37 28 9 3 1 17 5 3 2 5 1 0 0 15

% 100 75.68 24.32 8.11 2.70 45.95 13.51 8.11 5.41 13.51 2.70 0.00 0.00 40.54

Qualified

# 34 27 7 2 0 17 5 3 1 5 1 0 0 12

% 100 79.41 20.59 5.88 0.00 50.00 14.71 8.82 2.94 14.71 2.94 0.00 0.00 35.29

Referred

# 5 3 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00

Selected

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Internal Competitive Promotion

RAP % 100 62.73 37.27 5.28 1.24 44.10 18.63 3.73 9.32 9.01 7.76 0.62 0.31 37.27

Applied

# 21 13 8 2 1 11 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 7

% 100 61.90 38.10 9.52 4.76 52.38 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.05 0.00 0.00 33.33

Qualified

# 18 11 7 1 1 10 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 6

% 100 61.11 38.89 5.56 5.56 55.56 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 0.00 0.00 33.33

Referred

# 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100 0.00 100.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33

Selected

# 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100 0.00 100.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33

Note: This table includes the total number of applications received, and aggregated counts and percentages at the four 

distinct stages of the selection process for all applicants who self-identified their ethnicity/race and gender. All percentages 

are calculated based on the total within the row. The All Other column includes the following race groups: American Indian/

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More; none of these groups individually represent at least two 

percent of the total. See Table A6.

Information Technology Management

The current status, gains through external hiring, and competitive promotion of information 

technology (IT) management employees is presented in the table below. In FY 2019, among the 

284 IT management specialists there were 206 (72.54%) men, 78 (27.46%) women, and 160 

(56.34%) minority group members. The Agency hired eight employees in IT management and 

promoted nine.
60 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Table 14: Information Technology Management (2210) FY 2019 MCO Workforce Compared to the (OCLF) 

IT 

Management 

(2210) 

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

2010 OCLF % 100 70.36 29.64 5.39 2.17 52.21 20.89 6.61 4.50 5.14 1.55 0.01 0.01 25.38

Current 

Status: MCO 

Workforce

# 284 206 78 16 3 99 25 29 34 56 16 6 0 160

% 100 72.54 27.46 5.63 1.06 34.86 8.80 10.21 11.97 19.72 5.63 2.11 0.00 56.34

Gains: 

New Hires

# 8 5 3 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 4

% 100 62.50 37.50 0.00 0.00 37.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 50.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 9 6 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 7

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 22.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 33.33 0.00 0.00 77.78

Note: Within each row, # shows the count of employees and % the participation rate. New hires may not equal selections 

because onboarding of selections made in the prior fiscal year can occur in the current fiscal year, and selections may not 

materialize into hires. Competitive promotion data include AFD information for vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and 

Merit Promotion consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not 

presented. See Table A6.

Gains, AFD for External Hiring: Information Technology Management (2210)

In FY 2019, the SEC received 1,765 applications through USAJOBS and made six selections 

for information technology management positions. Of the 1,765 applicants, 1,307 voluntarily 

self-identified their diversity demographics. Of those applicants who self-identified, 78.88% were 

men and 21.12% were women. Four selected applicants identified as male (two White, one Black 

or African American, and one Asian), and two identified as female (one White and one Black or 

African American).

Progression, AFD for Competitive Promotion: Information Technology Management (2210) 

The SEC received 742 applications, among whom 587 self-identified (462 males and 125 

females) for nine information technology management promotions. Of the 587 applicants, 136 

qualified (106 males and 30 females). Of the nine tentatively selected, six were men (66.67%; 

four Asian and two White) and three were women (33.33%, all Asian). The following table 

reflects the demographic breakdown: 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 61

Table 15: Information Technology Management (2210) FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data: External Hiring and 

Internal Promotion

IT

Management

(2210)

Permanent

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Applicant Flow Data: New Hires

Total 

Received # 1,765

Applied

# 1,307 1,031 276 110 30 290 54 323 142 291 46 17 4 963

% 100 78.88 21.12 8.42 2.30 22.19 4.13 24.71 10.86 22.26 3.52 1.30 0.31 73.68

Qualified

# 1,220 971 249 104 28 272 49 300 129 280 39 15 4 899

% 100 79.59 20.41 8.52 2.30 22.30 4.02 24.59 10.57 22.95 3.20 1.23 0.33 73.69

Referred

# 60 47 13 4 3 17 2 12 8 14 0 0 0 41

% 100 78.33 21.67 6.67 5.00 28.33 3.33 20.00 13.33 23.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.33

Selected

# 6 4 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 33.33 16.67 16.67 16.67 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Internal Competitive Promotion

RAP % 100 72.12 27.88 5.95 1.12 33.09 8.55 10.41 12.27 20.45 5.95 2.23 0.00 58.36

Total 

Received # 742

Applied

# 587 462 125 39 12 138 24 112 43 167 41 6 5 425

% 100 78.71 21.29 6.64 2.04 23.51 4.09 19.08 7.33 28.45 6.98 1.02 0.85 72.40

Qualified

# 136 106 30 6 1 36 3 13 12 51 14 0 0 97

% 100 77.94 22.06 4.41 0.74 26.47 2.21 9.56 8.82 37.50 10.29 0.00 0.00 71.32

Referred

# 67 54 13 2 1 15 1 8 3 29 8 0 0 51

% 100 80.60 19.40 2.99 1.49 22.39 1.49 11.94 4.48 43.28 11.94 0.00 0.00 76.12

Selected

# 9 6 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 7

% 100 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 22.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 33.33 0.00 0.00 77.78

Note: This table includes the total number of applications received, and aggregated counts and percentages at the four 

distinct stages of the selection process for all applicants who self-identified their ethnicity/race and gender. All percentages 

are calculated based on the total within the row. The All Other column includes the following race groups: American Indian/

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More; none of these groups individually represent at least two 

percent of the total. See Table A6.
62 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Economists 

The current status of economists is presented in the table below. In FY 2019, among the 84 

economists, there were 62 (73.81%) men, 22 (26.19%) women, and 28 (33.33%) minority 

group members. The Agency neither hired nor promoted employees in the permanent staff 

economist ranks during the reporting period.

Table 16: Economist (0110) FY 2019 MCO Workforce Compared to the (OCLF) 

Economist 

(0110) 

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F All

2010 OCLF % 100 67.07 32.93 3.34 1.85 55.79 25.20 2.84 2.66 4.46 3.02 0.01 0.00 18.17

Current 

Status: MCO 

Workforce

# 84 62 22 2 3 45 11 4 0 9 8 2 0 28

% 100 73.81 26.19 2.38 3.57 53.57 13.10 4.76 0.00 10.71 9.52 2.38 0.00 33.33

Gains: 

New Hires

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Note: Within each row, # shows the count of employees and % the participation rate. New hires may not equal selections 

because onboarding of selections made in the prior fiscal year can occur in the current fiscal year, and selections may not 

materialize into hires. Competitive promotion data include AFD information for vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and 

Merit Promotion consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher-graded positions are not 

presented. See Table A6.

Detailed Workforce Analysis for Attorneys and Accountants 

Accountants and attorneys comprised 61.95% of the SEC’s total permanent workforce. Male and 

female SEC accountants and attorneys participated at levels above their benchmark in their respective 

occupations in the civilian labor force, or Occupational CLF (OCLF), except for the demographic 

groups of female accountants and male attorneys as shown in bold font in the table below.

Within the female accountant and male attorney groups, the participation rates of both White male 

attorneys and White female accountants at the end of FY 2019 are below their OCLF as further 

described below.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 63

White female accountants’ participation rate at the SEC (27.19%) is below the OCLF for White 

female accountants of 44.23%. This result follows the same pattern as the overall participation 

rate of female accountants at the SEC (43.03%) compared to the OCLF for female accountants of 

60.09%. This difference is under investigation as part of the Agency’s barrier analysis program.

Table 17: Summary of the SEC’s Attorney and Accountant Occupations: Participation by Sex

Total Male Female

White

Job Title Male Female

Attorneys

# 1,797 988 809 808 582

% 100% 54.98% 45.02% 44.96% 32.39%

OCLF 100% 66.70% 33.30% 59.68% 26.68%

Accountants

# 846 482 364 374 230

% 100% 56.97% 43.03% 44.21% 27.19%

OCLF 100% 39.91% 60.09% 31.79% 44.23%

See Table A6.

The participation rate for White male attorneys at the SEC (44.96%) is below the OCLF for White 

male attorneys of 59.68%. Similar to the White female accountants, the difference for White male 

attorney participation mirrors the difference for the overall participation rate for male attorneys at 

the SEC (54.98%) compared to the OCLF for male attorneys of 66.70%. These numbers are under 

study as part of the Agency’s barrier analysis program.

Senior Grade Levels from SK-13 to Senior Officer

The SEC conducts analysis on the participation of men, women, and minority group employees 

at various grade levels to understand equality of employment opportunity in the Agency’s career 

progression. Specifically, the SEC reviewed the participation of men, women, and minority group 

members within the Agency’s grade levels equivalent to the senior grades in the General Schedule and 

Senior Executive Service.

31 The current status, gains through external hiring, and internal competitive 

promotion in senior grade levels is presented in the table below. This section describes the results 

of those analyses by ethnicity/race and gender. Analysis of career progression for persons with 

disabilities is described in Part J of this report, infra.

31 The SEC crosswalks the Agency’s alternative pay plan’s senior grade levels to the General Schedule according to the 

following equivalencies: SES = SO and EX; GS-15 = SK-15, SK-17, AL-02, and AL-01; GS-14 = SK-14, SK-16, and AL-03; 

GS-13 = SK-13.
64 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

To evaluate equality of employment opportunity for the current status and internal competitive 

promotion into senior grades at the SEC, unlike what was done for current status of the total 

workforce and for each MCO, comparisons are made to the composition of the SEC’s overall 

workforce. In particular, EEOC instructs that agencies consider two comparators when evaluating 

participation in and promotional opportunity to their senior graded or supervisory and management 

workforce, the Relevant Applicant Pool32 and the Upward Mobility Benchmark.

33 Inclusion rates are 

considered for these populations to assess whether employee groups are distributed in senior graded 

and leadership level positions at rates similar to the overall population.

A summary of the table below shows that among senior grades as a whole,34 43.00% of the positions 

are held by women and 57.00% by men. In comparison, the workforce comprising the Upward 

Mobility Benchmark is 44.69% women and 55.31% men. Minority group members hold 31.10% of 

positions in senior grades as compared to 33.01% of employees participating in the Upward Mobility 

Benchmark. Additional detail comparing the workforce composition of senior graded and leadership 

positions is found in the next section.

As was true for MCO positions, review of AFD for senior graded and leadership level positions 

helps uncover the Agency’s success in attracting, recruiting, and hiring talent. The following table 

summarizes AFD for external hiring and internal promotion aggregated across all senior graded 

positions. Data are presented on the ethnicity/race and gender of the applications submitted by, 

deemed minimally qualified for, referred for consideration, and tentatively selected for senior grade 

level positions. Detailed results for each GS equivalent senior grade level is found in table A7.

Gains, AFD for External Hiring: Senior Graded Positions

In FY 2019, the SEC received 4,494 applications through USAJOBS and made 25 selections for the 

senior graded positions. Of the 2,953 applicants who self-identified, their diversity demographics 

were 67.83% men and 32.17% women. Across the hiring phases, women’s participation among 

qualified and referred remained similar to their participation in the applicant pool. However, a 

larger proportion of women were selected for senior grade level positions than expected compared 

to their rate of qualification. Among the 25 self-identified external applicants who were eventually 

selected, 12 (48.00%) were men and 13 (52.00%) were women (10 White, and three Black or 

African American).

32 Note that Relevant Applicant Pool includes all employees eligible to apply for a particular senior grade level or in the next 

section to a particular leadership level. Eligible applicants, who do apply for a specific position, must meet all minimum 

qualifications for consideration. Those applicants minimally qualified for consideration are included in the Qualified 

Applicant Pool (QAP) in tables showing AFD. We note that the RAPs for the SK grade equivalencies of the GS-14 and 

GS-15 levels combine data across two SK-grade levels. This combination was made to conform analyses to the format 

provided, though the actual RAPs for the individual SK-levels differ.

33 The Upward Mobility Benchmark for Senior Grade Levels includes all employees serving in those occupations for which 

the agency has established career paths to senior grades. For the senior grade levels, the Upward Mobility Benchmark 

includes occupations held by at least 1% of all employees and where at least 25% of the occupation’s incumbents hold 

a senior grade position (SK-15 or higher) or for which at least 2% of internal promotions were made to senior grades 

in the past five years. There are 11 occupations so defined, all five MCOs, and the following six occupations: 0201 

Human Resources Management; 0301 Miscellaneous Administration & Program; 0340 Program Management; 0343 

Management Program Analysis; 1102 Contracting; and 1160 Financial Analysis.

34 In this summary analysis, data were collapsed across levels to provide an overall picture. Refer to Table A7 for detail about 

each GS equivalent senior grade level.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 65

Table 18: Senior Grade Level FY 2019 Participation by Ethnicity/Race and Gender

SEC

FY 2019

SK-Level Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F All

Upward 

Mobility: 

Senior 

Grades

% 100 55.31 44.69 3.14 2.39 41.06 25.93 4.30 9.42 6.41 6.35 0.41 0.59 33.01

Total Senior 

Grades

# 3,881 2,212 1,669 129 84 1,642 1,032 164 286 261 248 16 19 1,207

% 100 57.00 43.00 3.32 2.16 42.31 26.59 4.23 7.37 6.73 6.39 0.41 0.49 31.10

Senior Officers: SES Equivalent

RAP 100 58.12 41.88 3.28 2.23 43.99 27.04 3.72 5.66 6.83 6.48 0.29 0.47 28.97

Current 

Status

# 121 71 50 2 0 63 41 4 4 2 3 0 2 17

% 100 58.68 41.32 1.65 0.00 52.07 33.88 3.31 3.31 1.65 2.48 0.00 1.65 14.05

Gains: 

New Hire

# 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 8 4 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

% 100 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 12.50

GS-15 Equivalent

RAP 100 57.60 42.40 3.18 2.45 43.13 26.93 3.91 5.80 7.09 6.72 0.30 0.50 29.94

Current 

Status

# 750 476 274 33 9 366 187 24 42 51 35 2 1 197

% 100 63.47 36.53 4.40 1.20 48.80 24.93 3.20 5.60 6.80 4.67 0.27 0.13 26.27

Gains: 

New Hire

# 6 2 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100 33.33 66.67 16.67 0.00 16.67 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 30 14 16 1 1 10 10 1 3 2 2 0 0 10

% 100 46.67 53.33 3.33 3.33 33.33 33.33 3..33 10.00 6.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 33.33

GS-14 Equivalent

RAP 100 55.50 44.50 3.57 2.70 39.52 25.68 4.77 8.69 7.18 7.04 0.46 0.39 34.79

Current 

Status

# 2,660 1,506 1,154 79 67 1,134 735 103 151 182 186 8 15 791

% 100 56.62 43.38 2.97 2.52 42.63 27.63 3.87 5.68 6.84 6.99 0.30 0.56 29.74

Gains: 

New Hire

# 21 11 10 2 0 8 6 0 2 1 2 0 0 7

% 100 52.38 47.62 9.52 0.00 38.10 28.57 0.00 9.52 4.76 9.52 0.00 0.00 33.33

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 34 24 10 0 1 14 5 1 2 9 2 0 0 15

% 100 70.59 29.41 0.00 2.94 41.18 14.71 2.94 5.88 26.47 5.88 0.00 0.00 44.12

GS-13 Equivalent

RAP 100 23.16 76.84 0.00 4.21 7.89 19.47 13.16 46.84 1.58 4.74 0.53 1.58 72.63

Current 

Status

# 350 159 191 15 8 79 69 33 89 26 24 6 1 202

% 100 45.43 54.57 4.29 2.29 22.57 19.71 9.43 25.43 7.43 6.86 1.71 0.29 57.71

Gains: 

New Hire

# 18 7 11 1 0 4 5 1 2 1 4 0 0 9

% 100 38.89 61.11 5.56 0.00 22.22 27.78 5.56 11.11 5.56 22.22 0.00 0.00 50.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 8 1 7 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 4

% 100 12.50 87.50 0.00 25.00 12.50 37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Note: Within each row, # shows the count of employees and % the participation rate. RAP = Relevant Applicant Pool. New 

hires may not equal selections because onboarding of selections made in the prior fiscal year can occur in the current year, and 

selections may not materialize into hires. AFD information for vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion 

consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented. See 

Table A7.
66 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

The participation of minority group members, contrary to what was true for women, declined 

across the hiring phases. Minority group members represented 62.89% of the self-identified external 

applicants and 32.00% of selected candidates.

Progression, AFD for Internal Competitive Promotion: Senior Grade Promotions

The SEC received 3,605 applications for 80 senior grade level promotions. Among the 

applicants, 2,744 self-identified (59.26% men and 40.74% women). Among the 1,544 qualified 

applicants, 450 (29.15%) White men qualified and 29 were tentatively selected (36.25% of 

applicants tentatively selected). Similar to what we found for external hiring, among competitive 

promotions, female participation increased across the hiring phases. Women represent 40.74% of 

the 2,744 self-identified applicants, 42.55% of the qualified applicant pool, 43.61% of referred 

applicants, and 46.25% (37) of the 80 candidates selected for promotion.

On the other hand, similar to what we saw for external hiring, 62.17% of self-identified internal 

competitive promotion applicants were minority group members. Their participation remained 

high in the qualified applicant pool (57.19%) and referred applicant pool (62.21%), yet 37.50% 

(30) of the candidates tentatively selected for promotion were minority group members.

Table 19 below reflects the demographic breakdown.

Supervisors, Managers, and Executives 

In light of the critical importance of leadership to the Agency and to the workplace experience 

for employees across the organization, the following provides analysis of the workforce in SEC’s 

leadership ranks, including evaluation of equal employment opportunity for career mobility among 

ethnic/racial and gender groups. The current status, gains through external hiring, and competitive 

promotion in three leadership levels35 for supervisor, manager, and executive is presented in the table 

below. This section summarizes results from those analyses.

To understand these data, reviews of the relevant applicant pools or feeder positions and upward 

mobility benchmarks are made. As mentioned above, EEOC instructs agencies to consider two 

metrics when evaluating their supervisory and management workforce, the Relevant Applicant Pool 

and the Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark. The SEC offers the opportunity for employees 

in any occupation to be promoted to the first level supervisor, the SK-17 manager level, or the 

Senior Officer executive level. The chart below graphically presents the relevant applicant pool 

composition36 for each leadership level. This chart shows that, at the SEC, the eligible RAP gets larger 

at higher levels of leadership.

35 The SEC cross-walked the Agency’s alternative pay plan supervisory levels to the Executive, Manager, and Supervisor 

levels according to the following equivalencies: Executives = SO; Managers = SK-17 and the supervisory Administrative 

Law Judges in pay plan Administrative Law (AL); and Supervisors = employees or positions at SK-levels below SK-17 who 

hold supervisory status. We previously provided a discussion on this – see Footnote 31.

36 The RAP for supervisory and management positions include any eligible SK-14 through SK-17 employee. The RAP pool 

for: first level supervisor is the SK-14 level; manager is the SK-14 through SK-16 levels; and the SO is the SK-14 through 

SK-17 levels. We note that, similar to the senior grade level equivalencies, the relevant applicant pools for supervisory levels 

at the Agency combine data across multiple SK levels. This combination was made to conform analyses to the format 

provided, though the actual RAPs for the specific leadership levels differ.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 67

Table 19: Senior Graded (GS-13, GS-14, GS-15 Equivalent) FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data: External Hiring and 

Internal Promotion

Total Senior 

Graded 

Permanent 

Employees

FY 2019 Total M F

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Gains: External Applicant Flow Data – New Hires 

Total 

Received # 4,494

Applied

# 2,953 2,003 950 261 103 812 284 492 413 402 137 36 13 1,857

% 100 67.83 32.17 8.84 3.49 27.50 9.62 16.66 13.99 13.61 4.64 1.22 0.44 62.89

Qualified

# 2,533 1,762 771 226 79 720 246 427 333 363 102 26 11 1,567

% 100 69.56 30.44 8.92 3.12 28.42 9.71 16.86 13.15 14.33 4.03 1.03 0.43 61.86

Referred

# 269 180 89 15 4 106 45 29 26 29 14 1 0 118

% 100 66.91 33.09 5.58 1.49 39.41 16.73 10.78 9.67 10.78 5.20 0.37 0.00 43.87

Selected

# 25 12 13 2 0 7 10 1 3 2 0 0 0 8

% 100 48.00 52.00 8.00 0.00 28.00 40.00 4.00 12.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00

Progression: Internal Competitive Promotion 

Total 

Received # 3,605

Applied

# 2,744 1,626 1,118 156 107 715 323 426 516 302 132 27 40 1,706

% 100 59.26 40.74 5.69 3.90 26.06 11.77 15.52 18.80 11.01 4.81 0.98 1.46 62.17

Qualified

# 1,544 887 657 82 62 450 211 208 290 136 72 11 22 883

% 100 57.45 42.55 5.31 4.02 29.15 13.67 13.47 18.78 8.81 4.66 0.71 1.42 57.19

Referred

# 1,048 591 457 62 43 262 134 173 222 85 41 9 17 652

% 100 56.39 43.61 5.92 4.10 25.00 12.79 16.51 21.18 8.11 3.91 0.86 1.62 62.21

Selected

# 80 43 37 1 4 29 21 2 5 11 6 0 1 30

% 100 53.75 46.25 1.25 5.00 36.25 26.25 2.50 6.25 13.75 7.50 0.00 1.25 37.50

Note: This table includes the total number of applications received, and aggregated counts and percentages at the four 

distinct stages of the selection process for all applicants who self-identified their ethnicity/race and gender. All percentages 

are calculated based on the total within the row. The All Other column includes the following race groups: American Indian/

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More; none of these groups individually represent at least two 

percent of the total See Table A7.

Table 20: Relevant Applicant Pools – Eligible to Apply for Each Leadership Level

SK-Levels Relevant Applicant Pools for Each Leadership Level

SK-17

Senior Officer

SK-16

SK-15 Manager (SK-17)

SK-14 First Level Supervisor (SK-15)
68 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

The Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark37 provides a useful comparison for the demographic 

composition of leadership because that benchmark includes those occupations where a career path to 

leadership is established. The Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark includes all employees serving 

in occupations for which the Agency has established career paths to the SO ranks, without regard to 

SK-level. It includes only employees within occupations held by at least 2% of SOs. The chart below 

shows the composition of the Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark.

Table 21: Occupations within the Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark 

Within Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark Not Within Upward Mobility Benchmark

Occupations with 2% or more Senior Officers Less than 2% Senior Officers

Attorney (0905)

All Other Occupations

Accountant (0510)

Securities Compliance Examiner (1831)

IT Management (2210)

Economist (0110)

Miscellaneous Administration & Program (0301)

Program Management (0340)

The table below provides selected workforce analysis for supervisor, manager, and executive positions 

by ethnicity/race and gender. Similar to the data presented for each MCO, at each leadership level, 

data include the current status as of the end of the fiscal year, gains through external hiring, and 

progression through internal competitive promotion during the reporting period. Analysis of career 

progression to leadership for persons with disabilities is described in Part J of this report, infra.

A summary of the table below shows that among supervisory and managerial levels as a whole38

38.17% positions are held by women and 61.83% by men. In comparison, the workforce comprising 

the Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark is 43.56% women and 56.44% men. Minority group 

members hold 25.52% of positions in leadership as compared to 30.97% of employees participating 

in the Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark. Additional detail comparing the workforce 

composition of senior graded and leadership positions is found on page 69.

37 The Upward Mobility Benchmark for leadership levels includes all employees serving in those occupations for which 

the agency has established career paths to SO executive ranks. The Leadership Upward Mobility Benchmark includes 

occupations held by at least 2% of SOs. There are seven occupations so defined, all five MCOs, 0301 Miscellaneous 

Administration & Program; and 0340 Program Management.

38 In this summary analysis, data were collapsed across levels to provide an overall picture. Refer to Table A7-1 for detail 

about each GS equivalent senior grade level.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 69

Table 22: Leadership FY 2019 Workforce Analysis 

SEC

FY 2019

Leadership Total

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F M F All

Upward 

Mobility: 

Leadership

% 100 56.44 43.56 3.17 2.28 42.48 26.55 4.11 7.78 6.28 6.45 0.39 0.50 30.97

Total Leadership

RAP 100 63.73 36.27 5.95 3.22 31.62 12.28 14.14 14.88 11.47 5.02 0.56 0.87 56.11

Current 

Status

# 862 533 329 34 10 416 226 28 50 53 40 2 3 220

% 100 61.83 38.17 3.94 1.16 48.26 26.22 3.25 5.80 6.15 4.64 0.23 0.35 25.52

Gains: 

New Hire

# 9 3 6 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100 33.33 66.67 11.11 0.00 22.22 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 72 41 31 1 2 28 20 2 4 10 4 0 1 24

% 100 56.94 43.06 1.39 2.78 38.89 27.78 2.78 5.56 13.89 5.56 0.00 1.39 33.33

Executive

RAP 100 61.95 38.05 4.11 0.51 50.39 28.02 2.31 4.63 4.88 4.63 0.26 0.26 21.59

Current 

Status

# 121 71 50 2 0 63 41 4 4 2 3 0 2 17

% 100 58.68 41.32 1.65 0.00 52.07 33.88 3.31 3.31 1.65 2.48 0.00 1.65 14.05

Gains: 

New Hire

# 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 8 4 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

% 100 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 0.00

Manager

RAP 100 63.14 36.86 4.57 2.29 44.86 21.71 4.29 7.43 9.14 5.43 0.29 0.00 33.43

Current 

Status

# 389 241 148 16 2 196 109 9 18 19 18 1 1 84

% 100 61.95 38.05 4.11 0.51 50.39 28.02 2.31 4.63 4.88 4.63 0.26 0.26 21.59

Gains: 

New Hire

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 17 9 8 0 0 7 5 0 1 2 2 0 0 5

% 100 52.94 47.06 0.00 0.00 41.18 29.41 0.00 5.88 11.76 11.76 0.00 0.00 29.41

Supervisor

RAP 100 51.96 48.04 3.17 2.91 36.31 25.77 5.44 11.66 6.55 11.76 0.48 0.52 42.49

Current 

Status

# 352 221 131 16 8 157 76 15 28 32 19 1 0 119

% 100 62.78 37.22 4.55 2.27 44.60 21.59 4.26 7.95 9.09 5.40 0.28 0.00 33.81

Gains: 

New Hire

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Progression: 

Competitive 

Promotion

# 47 28 19 1 2 17 12 2 3 8 2 0 0 18

% 100 59.57 40.43 2.13 4.26 36.17 25.53 4.26 6.38 17.02 4.26 0.00 0.00 38.30

Note: Within each row, # shows the count of employees and % the participation rate. RAP = Relevant Applicant Pool. New 

hires may not equal selections because onboarding of selections made in the prior fiscal year can occur in the current fiscal 

year, and selections may not materialize into hires. AFD information for vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit 

Promotion consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not 

presented. See Table A8.
70 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Detailed Analysis of Current Status and Trends over Time in the SO ranks

Due to its importance to Agency success, this section presents a more detailed analysis of the 

participation of women and minority employees in SO positions. The number of SOs at the SEC 

decreased from FY 2016 to the end of FY 2019. Meanwhile, the representation of women among 

SOs continued to trend upward. The participation of women among SOs was higher than the 

representation of women among Senior Executives in the Federal workforce. According to OPM’s 

FedScope, in FY 2019, women made up 33.8% of Senior Executives in the Federal workforce, 

compared to 41.32% among the SEC’s SO population.

As of the end of FY 2019, the proportion of minority SOs at the SEC remained below the FY 2019 

participation rate of 21% among Senior Executive positions in the Federal workforce. Since FY 

2016, the participation rate of minority employees among SOs increased from 13.38% to 14.05%.

From FY 2016 to FY 2019, the number of permanent staff Black or African American SOs increased 

by one from seven to eight, while the numbers of Asian SOs, Hispanic or Latino SOs, and those in 

other race/ethnicity groups decreased by a total of three SOs.

39

As was true for MCO positions, review of AFD for leadership levels helps explore the Agency’s 

success in attracting, recruiting, and hiring talent in its leadership ranks. The following table 

summarizes AFD for external hiring and internal promotion across leadership positions at the 

executive, manager, and first level supervisory levels. Additional detail is found in table A8.

Gains, AFD for External Hiring: Leadership Levels

In FY 2019, the SEC received 679 applications through USAJOBS and made six selections for 

the supervisory positions across all levels. Of the 679 applications, 457 voluntarily self-identified 

their diversity demographics. Among them were 324 (70.90%) men and 133 (29.10%) women.

Two men and four women were selected for managerial or supervisory positions (two White 

men, three White women, and one Black or African American woman). The table below 

provides the demographics of the individuals who applied and self-identified for leadership 

positions, those who qualified, and the applicants who were tentatively selected.

Progression, AFD for Internal Competitive Promotion: Leadership Levels

The SEC received 2,012 applications; 1,613 of which were self-identified (63.73% from men 

and 36.27% from women) for 72 supervisory or managerial tentative selections for promotion.

As was shown in the senior grade level positions, women’s participation among applicants who 

applied, qualified, referred and were selected for promotion progressively increased from 38.48% 

of the QAP from women to 43.06% of those tentatively selected for promotion. Minority group 

member participation among applications for promotion declined from 52.79% of the QAP to 

33.33% of those tentatively selected for promotion; the steepest part of the decline was from the 

referred (59.36%) to selected (33.33%) stages. Table 23 reflects the demographic breakdown.

39 Although their overall numbers remained unchanged, Black or African American and Asian Senior Officers left the

SEC and Black or African American and Asian Senior Officers were appointed during the three-year period. Additional 

information can be found in OMWI’s Annual Report at https://www.sec.gov/page/omwi-section-landing.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 71

Additional Detail on the Workforce Analysis for Senior Leadership and Senior GradeLevel Positions

The FY 2019 participation rates of men and women differ within and across the SEC’s supervisory 

and management ranks, with an unusual pattern shown in the first-level supervisor, as compared to 

the composition of the feeder or relevant applicant pool at lower SK-levels.

Specifically, women represent 43.38% (1,154 employees) and men represent 56.62% (1,506 

employees) at the GS-14 equivalent level. However, among first level supervisors, men make up 

62.78% (221 employees) and women comprise 37.22% (131 employees). Participation of women 

was lower in this first-level supervisor position than found in any other leadership level; there were 

almost twice as many male first-level supervisors as female.

By way of comparison, the participation rate of males is lower in higher leadership levels. At the 

highest individual contributor level, SK-16, there is greater female participation. Although SK-16 

employees are usually not supervisors, they are eligible to apply for manager and executive, SO, 

positions. There were a total of 515 permanent SK-16 employees in FY 2019; men accounted for 

60.97% (314) and women accounted for 39.03% (201) of this level’s workforce composition.

Table 23: Supervisory and Management FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data: External Hiring and Internal Promotion

FY 2019 

Promotion 

Total

TotalMaleFemale

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Applicant Flow Data: New Hires

Total 

Received # 679

Applied

# 457 324 133 34 7 152 45 77 49 59 30 2 2 260

% 100 70.90 29.10 7.44 1.53 33.26 9.85 16.85 10.72 12.91 6.56 0.44 0.44 56.89

Qualified

# 336 246 90 27 2 27 38 53 28 48 20 2 2 182

% 100 73.21 26.79 8.04 0.60 8.04 11.31 15.77 8.33 14.29 5.95 0.60 0.60 54.17

Referred

# 94 62 32 3 0 44 17 10 10 5 5 0 0 33

% 100 65.96 34.04 3.19 0.00 46.81 18.09 10.64 10.64 5.32 5.32 0.00 0.00 35.11

Selected

# 6 2 4 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

% 100 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 33.33 50.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67

Internal Competitive Promotion

Total 

Received # 2,012

Applied

# 1,613 1,028 585 96 52 510 198 228 240 185 81 9 14 905

% 100 63.73 36.27 5.95 3.22 31.62 12.28 14.14 14.88 11.47 5.02 0.56 0.87 56.11

Qualified

# 1,076 662 414 62 34 357 151 133 173 104 46 6 10 568

% 100 61.52 38.48 5.76 3.16 33.18 14.03 12.36 16.08 9.67 4.28 0.56 0.93 52.79

Referred

# 684 404 280 47 26 184 94 113 130 55 21 5 9 406

% 100 59.06 40.94 6.87 3.80 26.90 13.74 16.52 19.01 8.04 3.07 0.73 1.32 59.36

Selected

# 72 41 31 1 2 28 20 2 4 10 4 0 1 24

% 100 56.94 43.06 1.39 2.78 38.89 27.78 2.78 5.56 13.89 5.56 0.00 1.39 33.33

Note: This table includes the total number of applications received, and aggregated counts and percentages at the four 

distinct stages of the selection process for all applicants who self-identified their ethnicity/race and gender. All percentages 

are calculated based on the total within the row. The All Other column includes the following race groups: American Indian/

Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More; none of these groups individually represent at least two 

percent of the total. See Table A7.
72 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

The participation rates of men and women at the manager level were distributed relatively similarly 

to the SK-16 employees. There were a total of 389 managers of whom 61.95% were men (241 

employees) and 38.05% were women (148 employees).

Finally, within the total of 121 SOs, 58.68% are men (71 employees) and 41.32% are women (50 

employees). See Tables A8 and A4P.

Employee Recognition and Awards

In addition to analyzing workforce statistics, the SEC analyzes data on the distribution of 

discretionary cash and time-off awards to understand equal employment opportunity based on race, 

ethnicity, sex, and disability in these programs. Data presented on the distribution of discretionary 

awards for this report has been refined to more closely examine discretionary awards of higher value.

In the analysis below, data have been summarized to align with the SEC’s Employee Recognition 

Program.

The SEC’s Employee Recognition Program has defined two types of discretionary cash awards, On 

the Spot Awards, with a maximum limit of $1,000, and Special Act awards, with an approval limit 

delegated to Division and Office leadership of $2,500. Special Act awards between $2,500 and 

$10,000 require additional approval by the COO or the Chairman. Similarly, time-off awards of at 

least 40 hours are subject to that same additional approval. In FY 2019, no discretionary time-off 

awards greater than 40 hours were distributed.

In consideration of these process differences, data for discretionary cash and time off-awards in 

this section are summarized by collapsing across Table A9 categories. Data for two categories of 

time-off awards are described: up to 10 hours, and 11 – 40 hours. Cash awards are summarized in 

five categories: $500 and under; $501 – $999; $1,000 – $1, 999; $2,000 – $2,999; and $3,000 or 

more. For ease of interpretation, the summary level data are presented in this section in the table 

below by ethnicity/race and gender. Summary analysis of awards by disability status are presented 

in Part J, infra.

Time-Off Awards Summary by Ethnicity/Race and Gender

In reviewing the data on discretionary time-off awards, some general conclusions emerged. Men 

were less likely than women to receive a slightly lower value (less than 10 hours) time-off award 

(48.81% men versus 51.19% for women).

As was found in prior years, White women were more likely to receive both lower and higher 

value time-off awards (participation rates of 29.62% and 30.80% for lower and higher value 

time-off awards) than would be expected given their overall workforce participation (25.76%).

Approximately 30% of time-off awards distributed in both value categories were given to White 

women, compared to their participation on rolls at 25.76%. Among women, Asian women were 

less likely to receive lower value time-off awards than expected (4.47% of awards were granted 

to Asian women whereas they represent 6.19% of the workforce).
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 73

Table 24: Analysis of FY 2019 Employee Recognition and Awards

Awards 

Distribution

FY 2019TotalMaleFemale

Hispanic or 

Latino

White Black or 

African 

American

Asian All Other Minority

M F M F M F M F M F

Time-Off Awards

Time-Off Awards: 

10 hrs and Less % 100 48.81 51.19 2.83 2.14 35.47 29.62 4.72 14.03 5.41 4.47 0.37 0.94 34.91

Time-Off Awards: 

11 - 40 hrs % 100 50.23 49.77 3.09 3.09 36.97 30.80 2.94 8.58 6.70 6.85 0.53 0.45 32.23

Cash Awards

Cash Awards: 

$500 and Less % 100 45.84 54.16 2.04 4.82 32.55 22.77 7.15 21.02 3.36 4.53 0.73 1.03 44.68

Cash Awards 

$501 - $999 % 100 55.24 44.76 3.62 3.05 40.76 25.14 5.14 11.24 5.52 4.57 0.19 0.76 34.09

Cash Awards: 

$1,000 - $1,999 % 100 57.87 42.13 3.73 1.86 44.22 26.32 2.98 7.83 6.56 5.59 0.37 0.52 29.44

Cash Awards: 

$2,000 - $2,999 % 100 56.22 43.78 4.15 0.46 43.78 30.41 1.38 7.37 6.91 5.07 0.00 0.46 25.80

Cash Awards: 

$3,000 or more % 100 60.20 39.80 2.04 1.02 51.02 30.61 0.00 5.10 7.14 3.06 0.00 0.00 18.36

Total Perm. 

Workforce

% 4,266 2,294 1,972 133 110 1,674 1,099 204 473 266 264 17 26 1,493

% 100 53.77 46.23 3.12 2.58 39.24 25.76 4.78 11.09 6.24 6.19 0.40 0.61 35.00

Note: All percentages are calculated based on the total awarded within the row, i.e., participation rates. The All Other column 

includes the following race groups: American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Two or More; none 

of these groups individually represent at least two percent of the total. See Table A9.

African American employees, both men and women, were less likely to receive a higher-value 

(11 to 40 hours) time-off award; they participated among higher value time-off award recipients 

at lower rates than their participation in the workforce (for African American men overall 

participation was 4.78%, higher value time-off awards was 2.94%; for African American 

women overall participation was 11.09%, larger time-off awards was 8.58%).

Cash Awards Summary by Ethnicity/Race and Gender

For discretionary cash awards, White men were more likely to be awarded than other groups in 

all cash values greater than $500 (participation rates range from 40.76% to 51.02% compared 

to their overall workforce participation rate of 39.24%) and the most likely to receive the highest 

value ($3,000 or more) cash awards.

Asian women were less likely to receive cash awards at any value; their greatest participation rate 

was 5.59% which is below their overall workforce participation rate of 6.19%. At the same 

time, Asian men’s participation among award recipients rose with increasing cash award value, 

from 3.36% to 7.14%.
74 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Cash awards to African American men and women were concentrated at lower value levels 

($500.00 or less) and progressively decreased at each higher cash award value. For African 

American men, participation decreased from 7.15% for cash awards less than $500 to 1.38% 

for cash award from $2,000 to $2,999 and 0.00% for cash awards more than $3,000. African 

American women’s participation decreased from 21.02% for cash awards less than $500 to 

7.37% for cash awards from $2,000 to $2,999 and 5.10% for cash awards more than $3,000.

As mentioned elsewhere in this report, discretionary cash and time-off award was the focus 

of a barrier analysis study by OEEO over this reporting period. That analysis found that 

organizational characteristics, such as grade and occupational series, account for some of 

the disparities in discretionary award distribution. Part I of this report, infra, provides 

additional detail about the analysis and findings related to discretionary cash and time-off 

award distribution.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 75

SUMMARY OF EEO PLAN OBJECTIVES PLANNED TO ELIMINATE 

IDENTIFIED BARRIERS OR CORRECT PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES

Accomplishments

The following provides an update and overview of activity completed by the SEC as part of its barrier 

analysis program and to correct previously identified program deficiencies.

Action Plans Implemented 

Based on the analyses described above conducted as part of the Agency’s Barrier Analysis program, 

OEEO worked with Agency leadership to define actions that will support equality of employment 

opportunity for female applicants to the Agency’s MCO positions and the distribution of 

discretionary cash and time off awards. OEEO began capturing agreed upon action as the basis for 

monitoring and evaluation of actions taken in the near term and longer term improvement of metrics 

from workforce data. Near term action included such items as changes to vacancy postings for MCO 

positions or providing information to Division and Office leadership about their distribution of 

awards more regularly. Longer term, OEEO will continue to monitor workforce data on a regular 

basis, at least annually, as part of its affirmative employment program. Additional information about 

the actions agreed to is shared in Parts I of this report, infra.

In FY 2019, OEEO continued to advance its barrier analysis and reporting functions. OEEO 

expanded functionality in its automated tool that extracts, accurately codes, summarizes, and 

provides reporting on demographic information about employees and applicants for employment.

This tool, called the Equal Employment Opportunity—Analytic Tool (EEO-AT), was used to 

generate the data for workforce data tables in this report as well as the responses to data-related 

questions in Part J, infra. The EEO-AT’s flexible framework enabled both this year’s reporting and 

more in-depth analysis that forms the basis for the barrier analysis work described above and in 

Parts I and J of this report, infra. Further, the EEO-AT’s benefits include self-service functionality, 

effective interface with the EEOC’s data portal FedSEP, and greater facility for OEEO to respond 

to anticipated and future changes. The additional work on EEO-AT required the re-allocation of 

substantial resources from OEEO’s barrier analysis function in FY 2019. However, the investment 

made in the development of EEO-AT was required to prepare for changes in the MD-715 reporting 

framework, which is required as part of this FY 2019 report.

Improving the Reasonable Accommodation Program

As reported in the SEC’s FY 2018 MD-715 Report, the SEC did not meet the goal of processing 90% 

of accommodation requests within the timeframe specified in the Agency’s policy. A new policy and 

procedural guidance were approved by the EEOC in FY 2019, and in light of that approval, the RA 

electronic system requirements were also reviewed in FY 2019. The Agency engaged an acquisition 

to procure a new HR service delivery platform and will determine whether this platform is viable 

for automating RA requests and accommodations. System requirements analyses are expected to be 

completed in FY 2021 and full design and implementation of the system is expected in FY 2022. The 

implementation of the system is expected to simplify case tracking, help identify systemic delays, and 

improve customer service and address the timeliness standards set by the new SEC policy.
76 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In the meantime, OHR identified opportunities to strengthen its manual tracking process. OHR 

tracks timeliness for processing RA requests and meets on a monthly basis with the CHCO to review 

and discuss timeliness and processing of all RA cases. The overall FY 2019 processing timeliness rate 

for RA and Temporary Medical Telework (TMT) programs was 74%. The SEC processed 54 RA 

requests for adjustable height tables (AHT) and met or exceeded processing timelines for 73% of 

those requests. Of the remaining 79 requests, the SEC met or exceeded timely processing standards 

for 57% of closed requests.

The timeframe for processing RA requests in FY 2019 was affected by a number of organizational 

and business process changes that resulted in a 15% decrease from the FY 2018 timeliness result of 

72%. Specifically, in FY 2019, changes to the procurement process for the purchase and installation 

of equipment and assistive technology impacted the Agency’s ability to provide accommodations 

timely. In addition, the SEC initiated frequent consultations with medical experts at the Federal 

Occupational and Health (FOH) to complete medical reviews of employees with a wide range 

of conditions in an effort to improve their ability to do their jobs and maintain a high level of 

productivity; in FY 2019, requests to FOH were processed in 37.8 days on average.

The SEC intends to replace the current resource guide, Disability Accommodation Procedures, with 

a new policy and operational procedure. This new guidance will be available to everyone involved 

in the accommodations process and will explain how persons with disabilities should request 

accommodations, how requests are processed, and, as applicable, how requestors may seek review of 

decisions where a request has been denied. The new policy and procedural guidance were approved 

by the EEOC in FY 2019. Updates were made to current RA procedures to align with recent updates 

made to the process and related program guidance, including requirements in EEOC’s revision to 

Section 501 regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The SEC is going through an internal 

review and intends to publish these documents, including a Section 508-compliant version, in FY 

2020. Additional information about the status of this effort is provided in Parts H and J of this 

report, infra.

In addition, the SEC’s TMT program provides temporary telework to employees with short-term 

medical conditions that may not constitute a covered disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

when supervisory officials and the Disability Program Office determine that it is appropriate. In FY 

2019, the Disability Program Office revised the TMT policy and operational procedures to clarify the 

process and guidelines and to comply with provisions set forth in the SEC 2018 Collective Bargaining 

Agreement (CBA) for the TMT program. OHR intends to publish the revised TMT policy and 

operational procedures in FY 2020. The SEC processed and closed 119 TMT requests and processed 

91% of those requests timely.

Beyond TMT, the SEC also supports a robust telework program, and 95% of the workforce has 

an active telework agreement. Sixty-four percent of those agreements are for recurring telework 

schedules and 36% are ad-hoc telework agreements. The SEC provides equipment for teleworking 

individuals that meet certain criteria. The SEC continues to provide equipment for all employees who 

telework three or more days each week and, as needed, for employees with disabilities authorized to 

telework as a reasonable accommodation.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 77

Periodic Training for Supervisors and Hiring Officials Related to the Hiring, Promotion, 

and Reasonable Accommodation of Individuals with Disabilities

The SEC currently provides training on the Disability Program to all new managers through the 

mandatory College of Leadership Development (LD 307) Fundamentals of Human Resources 

(HR) Management course offered by the Agency’s learning office, SEC University. In FY 2019, the 

Disability Program Office revamped LD 307 training to ensure awareness of RA program process 

and related program guidance, and regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In 

FY 2019, the SEC had four offerings with participation from managers throughout the SEC. This 

training includes both e-learning and virtual learning and contains case studies to help managers 

across the SEC apply the information obtained during the training. Additional information about 

LD 307 is provided earlier in this report, supra.

Through LD 307, the SEC trained new managers and supervisors on Schedule A hiring authority, 

TMT, and RA to ensure their awareness of their role in hiring and retaining employees with 

temporary or permanent disabilities. In-depth, situation-specific training was provided as needed to 

individual managers who supervise employees with disabilities. Periodic training occurs with each 

hiring manager that requests to fill a position. The hiring checklist the staffing specialists use includes 

a Schedule A section that is discussed in depth during the one-on-one hiring conversation. The 

HR specialist trains the hiring manager on the various procedures of the Schedule A hiring process 

and offers it as a course of action where applicable. The SEC will continue to provide training to 

supervisors and hiring officials to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities with regard to 

hiring and supervising employees with disabilities. The training will cover restrictions on questions 

related to medical information, Schedule A hiring authorities, SEC’s disability accommodation 

procedures, overlap between the Family Medical Leave Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 

confidentiality requirements.

Hiring and Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities

In FY 2019, the SEC continued to take steps to improve overall disability recruitment efforts as 

outlined in the FY 2018–2019 Recruitment Strategy. In FY 2019, the following activities were used 

to support this initiative related to hiring and accommodating individuals with disabilities:

n Introduced a streamlined approach to the general hiring process by filtering external hiring 

requests through the Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC) for further review. The 

SPPC referred qualified applicants from the Schedule A database to hiring managers prior to or 

concurrently with the general staffing process.

n Attended over 17 career fairs and events which allowed the SEC to maintain a physical 

recruitment presence and support efforts to build a pipeline for future employment.

n Developed and distributed Schedule A recruitment materials via social media and professional 

organizations. The SEC hired seven employees under the Schedule A hiring authority of which 

two had targeted disabilities.

n Continued to work with selecting officials through training, meetings, and internal 

communications to encourage the use of special appointment authorities to recruit veterans 

with disabilities.
78 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

n Continued to maintain partnerships with professional organizations and partnered with various 

professional associations across the Agency, such as the SEC Veterans Committee and the 

Disability Interests Advisory Committee (DIAC).

n Explored a new partnership opportunity with an external organization that provides interns with 

disabilities to federal and private organizations.

n Utilized the Delegated Examining (DE) authority as well as the Pathways Programs to recruit and 

hire disabled veterans.

n Partnered with the DIAC to host the first Hiring Manager’s Forum regarding Schedule A 

Disability and Veterans hiring authorities in an effort to further educate SEC hiring managers and 

promote the use of such authorities and featured a panel discussion with managers from across the 

Agency who shared their experience using these programs.

n Revised the current resource guide, Disability Accommodation Procedures, to align with SEC 

policy format and guidelines. The updated RA policy and operational procedure align with recent 

updates made to the RA process and related program guidance, including requirements identified 

in the EEOC’s Section 501 regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In FY 2019, the 

revised RA policy and operational procedures were approved by the EEOC for implementation 

and the SEC intends to publish the revised policy and operational procedures in FY 2020.

n Updated the current TMT policy and operational procedures to clarify the process and 

guidelines and to comply with provisions set forth in the SEC 2018 Collective Bargaining 

Agreement for the TMT program. OHR intends to publish the updated policy and operational 

procedures in FY 2020.

n Revamped LD 307 new managers training to ensure awareness of RA program process and 

related program guidance, and regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and conducted 

four offerings that included e-learning, virtual learning, and a RA case study application 

component for managers across the Agency.

n Hosted a NDEAM celebration featuring leading experts in the areas of disability disclosure 

and identity in the workplace.

n Hosted various outreach events in partnership with various SEC employee affinity groups to 

include the DIAC and Women’s Committee that included a Fall Festival, Eyeglass Drive, and 

the Annual May Meet and Greet, which generated new members for the DIAC. 

n Processed 119 TMT requests.

n Processed 131 RA requests, of which 34 were requests for telework as a reasonable 

accommodation.

n Trained all new employees on Work-Life, TMT, RA, and leave programs to ensure awareness of 

various solutions or flexibilities for employees.

n Continued to update OHR’s friendly, interactive portal, AskHR, on the SEC’s intranet. The 

site provides employees with information about hiring, compensation and benefits, employee 

development, performance management, and disability accommodations among a number of 

other topics.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 79

Agency EEO, Diversity and Inclusion, and Leadership Development Accomplishments

In FY 2019, the SEC achieved a number of accomplishments in the areas of EEO, diversity 

and inclusion, and leadership development, including, but not limited to, the accomplishments 

listed below.

Outreach and Recruitment of Diverse Talent

Under OMWI’s leadership, the SEC pursues a comprehensive strategy for building and 

maintaining a diverse workforce and fostering an inclusive workplace culture. A key component 

of that strategy has been outreach and recruitment to develop and maintain a pipeline of diverse 

talent for future SEC employment. Though hiring remained limited during FY 2019, the SEC 

participated in 24 diversity outreach and recruitment events; distributed job advertisements to 

265 recruitment sources; and used its partnerships with 20 professional associations, educational 

organizations, and institutions to inform diverse professionals and students about job vacancies 

and internships.

In addition to outreach and recruitment efforts conducted by OMWI, OHR also took steps to 

ensure the SEC has a pipeline of talent in the disability and veteran community by:

n Maintaining relationships with key organizations throughout FY 2019; 

n Launching a new marketing campaign entitled “I Am the SEC,” which highlights various 

occupations and SEC employees who bring a range of skill sets from diverse backgrounds 

as a means to attract prospective candidates including veterans and people with disabilities 

(available at: https://www.sec.gov/news/sec-videos/i-am-sec);

n Attending several disability- and veteran-focused career fairs and events; and

n Strengthening partnerships with internal employee affinity groups to bring awareness to SEC 

personnel regarding disability and veteran hiring initiatives.

For example, the SEC has partnered with the following organizations: Bender; American 

Association of People with Disabilities; American Association on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities; American University Academic Support and Access Center; Campaign for 

Disability Employment; Deaf and Hard of Hearing Bar Association; Disability Support 

Services—University of Maryland; Disabled American Veterans; Disaboom; Office of Disability 

Employment Policy in the U.S. Department of Labor; Office of Disability Services—George 

Mason University; Professionals with Disabilities; U.S. Business Leadership Network; and the 

Workforce Recruitment Program.

Work-Life Programs

The SEC supports its employees and their family members through an array of work-life 

programs that includes the Employee Assistance Program, a fitness program, health and 

wellness units, an on-site child care facility, a child and elder backup care program, and various 

opportunities to engage with experts to obtain guidance on better managing responsibilities and 
80 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

life events via WorkLife4You. The SEC further offered a large spectrum of services to support 

its employee’s needs and life circumstances by offering 96 live webinars, seven supervisory-only 

webinars, and 14 health and wellness seminars.

Training and Leadership Development

The SEC provided numerous opportunities for employees to acquire the skills and certifications 

needed to succeed in their positions and to progress in their careers. SECU provided classroomstyle and e-Learning programs and offered an extensive array of learning opportunities in 

technical areas (e.g., courses on Hedge Funds, Mutual Funds, and Credit Derivatives) as well as 

in leadership development to SEC senior leaders and non-supervisory staff alike.

The SECU College of Leadership Development (LD) offerings are designed to promote 

leadership behaviors that support OCOO’s and OHR’s vision to promote respect, honor the 

dignity of all people, develop others and cultivate the creativity, growth and diversity of thought 

and experience for leaders at all organizational levels. Content incorporates multiple learning 

formats so all SEC employees can successfully participate, including 508 compliant e-learning, 

virtual offerings, and the availability of on-demand sign language interpreters. Varied training 

formats provide SEC leaders with an equality of access to leadership development offerings, 

regardless of one’s learning style or location at headquarters, one of the SEC’s 11 regional 

offices, or remote workers.

Page 77 above provides information on leadership development focused on specific levels of 

SEC leadership.

Career Development Programs

Among the variety of learning and development offerings, the SEC offered the career development 

programs described below: Women in Leadership, Excellence in Government (EIG) Fellows, 

Aspiring Leaders, and Upward Mobility.

Women in Leadership

The Women in Leadership program is offered under the auspices of the Brookings Institution.

Each year, the SEC offers either managers or non-managerial staff the opportunity to participate 

in this leadership development program in a cohort format. One cohort is offered to SK-15 

and SK-17 supervisors, while another cohort is offered to staff at the SK-14 and SK-16 levels.

Through the Women in Leadership program, individuals from across federal agencies learn how 

to strengthen leadership qualities and explore key elements of senior leadership success while 

maintaining authenticity and balance. The learning objectives of this program include:

n Building self-awareness of workplace behaviors (such as emotional intelligence, resiliency, and 

communication) and implementing self-directed strategies to promote continued leadership 

competency; 

n Promoting effective relationships and network-building; and

n Understanding individual leadership competency strengths and opportunities for development.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 81

The EIG Fellows Program, coordinated by the Partnership for Public Service, strengthens 

the leadership skills of experienced federal employees through a combination of innovative 

coursework, best practices benchmarking, challenging action-learning projects, executive 

coaching, and government-wide networking. During this competitively-based program, Fellows 

remain in their full-time jobs, meet every six weeks, and spend approximately two days total in 

sessions. Fellows also devote up to five hours per week to their results project. This program is 

offered to employees in the SK-14 to SK-17 (a mix of supervisory and non-supervisory) levels.

In addition to activities with the Partnership for Public Service, SEC’s EIG Fellows attend 

facilitated cohort meetings at SEC Headquarters to share what they are learning and to explore 

how this information can be applied to improve organizational performance, workplace 

relationships, and productivity within the SEC.

Aspiring Leaders

The Aspiring Leaders program is an interactive blended-learning program designed to strengthen 

the leadership and management skills of SEC non-supervisory (SK-13 and SK-14) employees.

The learning objectives of the program include:

n Applying critical leadership skills necessary for effective supervision;

n Understanding first-line management responsibilities as they relate to Human Resource 

Management, Developing People, and Building Effective Relationships; and

n Increasing self-awareness through guided self-assessments and feedback from course 

instructors.

Mentoring Program

In Fall 2018, SEC successfully launched a pilot mentoring program. This inaugural cohort of 

30 employees were paired with mentors across the Agency. The pilot program lasted for six 

months and celebrated their Finale event on June 26, 2019. Throughout the mentoring program’s 

duration, employees and their mentors met regularly to discuss career development among other 

topics. On a regular basis, the program managers in OCOO gathered feedback from both mentees 

and mentors about the program’s efforts. These data informed the Agency’s decision to formally 

institute the SEC’s Mentoring Program. In late FY 2019, OCOO was pleased to announce the 

launch of the next Mentoring Program cohort. As was true for the pilot program, the next cohort 

registration process received overwhelming interest among employees. On September 23, 2019, 

103 employees registered interest in participating in the next mentoring cohort. Thirty employees 

were paired with mentors for the next cohort. The SEC’s Mentoring Program will provide career 

development and support to these 30 employees from October of 2019 until the Capstone event 

scheduled for June 16, 2020. Formal program events for both mentors and participants are 

scheduled quarterly and facilitated by OCOO and SECU experts. SEC held an orientation session 

for both mentors and participants on October 28 and 29, 2019. Additional information about the 

mentoring pilot is found in the summary of the analysis of internal competitive promotion to SO 

and senior grade level positions in Part I of this report, infra.
82 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Training on EEO, Diversity & Inclusion, and Team Effectiveness

The SEC also provided training to employees and/or supervisors on the following:

n Diversity and Inclusion: SECU continues to work with OMWI to procure and support web-based 

and classroom training related to diversity and inclusion. In addition, SECU offers non-conscious 

bias courses as requested for intact teams and within specific leadership programs (e.g., Aspiring 

Leaders) throughout the year.

n Team Effectiveness: SECU offers intact team training for supervisors/managers and their teams 

through a variety of team effectiveness workshops. These workshops are typically two-to-four 

hours in length, can be taken individually to address a need or to learn about a specific topic or as 

part of a workshop series, or are custom-designed for a team to address their unique challenges 

and opportunities. The Team Effectiveness workshops offered in FY 2019 by SECU included: 

Communication Styles;

Workplace Trust;

Achieving Results;

Feedback as a Performance Tool;

Leading People;

Team Dynamics;

Emotional Intelligence;

Leading with the Brain in Mind;

Leadership Presence;

Understanding Your Personality at 

Work (Workplace Big 5 Assessment);

DiSC Behavioral Styles; 

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator;

Simple Strategies to Engage Employees; 

Difficult Conversations (for supervisors 

and non-supervisors); and

Working in a Distributed Team.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 83

CERTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT 

OF CONTINUING EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

PROGRAMS (PART F)

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART F

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

CERTIFICATION of ESTABLISHMENT of CONTINUING

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS

I, Peter J. Henry, Director, OEEO/0905/SO-2, am the

(Insert name above) (Insert official title/series/grade above)

Principal EEO Director/Official for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

(Insert Agency/Component Name above)

The Agency has conducted an annual self-assessment of Section 717 and Section 501 programs against the 

essential elements as prescribed by EEO MD-715. If an essential element was not fully compliant with the standards 

of EEO MD-715, a further evaluation was conducted and, as appropriate, EEO Plans for Attaining the Essential 

Elements of a Model EEO Program, are included with this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.

The Agency has also analyzed its workforce profiles and is conducting barrier analyses aimed at detecting whether 

any management or personnel policy, procedure or practice is operating to disadvantage any group based on race, 

national origin, gender or disability. EEO Plans to Eliminate Identified Barriers, as appropriate, are included with this 

Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.

I certify that proper documentation of this assessment is in place and is being maintained for EEOC review upon 

request.

Signature of Principal EEO Director/Official Date

Certifies that this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report is in compliance with 

EEO MD-715.

Signature of Agency Head or Agency Head Designee Date

9/22/20

9/28/20
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 85

AGENCY EEO PLAN TO ATTAIN THE 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A MODEL 

EEO PROGRAM (PART H)

Please describe the status of each plan that the agency has implemented to correct deficiencies in the 

EEO program.

 If the agency did not address any deficiencies during the reporting period, please check the box.

STATEMENT OF MODEL PROGRAM ESSENTIAL ELEMENT DEFICIENCY

Section I: 

Agency’s Procedures for Reasonable Accommodation

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency

Agency’s procedures for reasonable 

accommodation.

Currently, the SEC has not met the goal of processing 90% of accommodation requests within 

the time frame set forth in the Agency’s procedures for reasonable accommodation.

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Objective

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

10/01/2016 Establish a process that allows the SEC to 

confirm that 90% of accommodation requests 

are processed in compliance with the time 

frame identified in the SEC’s reasonable 

accommodation procedures.

09/30/2022

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes

□ 
86 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned 

Activities

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No)

Modified Date 

From

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

09/30/2022 In FYs 2020 and 2021, the Disability Program 

will implement new policy and procedural 

guidance. In FY 2020, the Agency will engage in 

an acquisition process to procure a Service Now 

Human Resources Service Delivery (HRSD) 

module. System requirements analyses are 

expected to be completed in FY 2021; full design 

and implementation of an automated RA system 

is expected in FY 2022. The implementation of 

the system will enable the SEC to address the 

timeliness standards set by the new SEC RA policy. 

Yes 09/30/2019

09/30/2022 This system will also allow the SEC to assess 

and analyze trends that occur in the Agency that 

warrant increased outreach and education efforts 

with managers and/or employees.

Yes 09/30/2019

Report of Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2019 A new policy and procedural guidance were approved by the EEOC in FY 2019. As such, the RA electronic system 

requirements were also reviewed in FY 2019. Because the Agency is engaged in an acquisition process to procure 

a Service Now Human Resources Service Delivery (HRSD) platform, an assessment will be conducted to determine 

the viability for the RA module for both employees and managers. System requirements analyses are expected to be 

completed in FY 2021 and full design and implementation of the system is expected in FY 2022. The implementation 

of the system will enable the SEC to address the timeliness standards set by the new SEC RA policy.

The Agency identified opportunities to strengthen its manual tracking process. In FY 2019, RA and TMT Request 

and Agreement forms were created to simplify the process for employees making requests; to ensure current, 

accurate, and complete information is obtained to reduce processing times; and to improve the reliability of 

records indicating customer approval of the reasonable accommodation(s) provided. The RA Program team 

tracks timeliness for processing RA requests and meets on a monthly basis with the CHCO to review and discuss 

timeliness and processing of all RA cases. The overall FY 2019 processing timeliness rate for RA and Temporary 

Medical Telework (TMT) programs was 74%. The SEC processed 54 RA requests for adjustable height tables (AHT) 

and met or exceeded processing timelines for 73% of those requests. Of the remaining 79 requests, the SEC met or 

exceeded timely processing standards for 57% of closed requests. 

The time frame for processing RA requests in FY 2019 was affected by a number of organizational and business 

process changes that resulted in a 15% decrease from the FY 2018 timeliness result of 72%. Specifically, in 

FY 2019, changes to the procurement process for the purchase and installation of RA equipment and assistive 

technology impacted SECs ability to provide accommodations timely. In addition, the SEC initiated frequent 

consultations with medical experts at the Federal Occupational and Health (FOH) to complete medical reviews of 

employees with a wide range of conditions in an effort to improve their ability to do their jobs and maintain a high 

level of productivity. As such, in FY 2019, requests to FOH were processed in 37.8 days on average. 

A new RA policy and procedural guidance were approved by the EEOC in FY 2019. Updates were made to 

current RA procedures to align with recent updates made to the process and related program guidance, including 

requirements in EEOC’s revision to Section 501 regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The SEC is going 

through an internal review of its policy and operation guidance and intends to publish these documents, including a 

Section 508-compliant version, in FY 2020. 

In addition, the SEC’s TMT program provides temporary telework to employees with short-term medical conditions 

that may not constitute a covered disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when supervisory officials and the 

Disability Program Office determine that it is appropriate. In FY 2019, the Disability Program Office revised the TMT 

policy and operational procedures to clarify the process and guidelines and to comply with provision set forth in the 

SEC 2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for the TMT program. The SEC processed and closed 119 TMT 

requests and processed 91% of those requests timely. 

Beyond TMT, the SEC also supports a robust telework program, and 95% of the workforce has an active telework 

agreement. Sixty-four percent of those agreements are for recurring telework schedules and 36% are ad-hoc 

telework agreements. The SEC provides equipment for teleworking individuals that meet certain criteria. The SEC 

continues to provide equipment for all employees who telework three or more days each week and, as needed, for 

employees with disabilities authorized to telework as a reasonable accommodation. 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 87

AGENCY EEO PLAN TO ELIMINATE 

IDENTIFIED BARRIER (PART I)

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 

Section I: 

Analysis of Internal Competitive Promotion to SO and Senior Grade Level Positions

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table Narrative Description of Trigger

Analysis of internal competitive promotion 

to Senior Officer and senior grade level 

positions

Tables A7 and A8 In an August 7, 2014, letter to the SEC, the 

EEOC noted that the SEC should evaluate 

whether “women overall, Hispanic females, 

and Asian females may be encountering 

a glass ceiling as they seek promotion 

to SO [senior officer] positions” or “are 

bottlenecking at certain grade levels in their 

occupations.”

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group

All Men

All Women X

Hispanic or Latino Males

Hispanic or Latino Females X

White Males

White Females X

Black or African American Males

Black or African American Females X

Asian Males

Asian Females X

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females X

American Indian or Alaska Native Males

American Indian or Alaska Native Females X

Two or More Races Males

Two or More Races Females X

□ 
88 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Workforce demographic data for FY 2011 – FY 2015

Applicant flow data for new hires and promotion to SK-15 to SO levels for 

the period FY 2011 – FY 2015

Selection case files (hiring and promotions) for the second half of FY 2014 

and the first half of FY 2015

Resumes submitted by female applicants for hire or promotion to SK-15, 

SK-17, and SO positions compared to those submitted by successful 

male candidates

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes EEO complaint activity filed between FY 2012 – FY 2015 to identify any 

complaints filed by applicants for SK-15, SK-17 and SO positions

Grievance Data (Trends) No

Findings from Decisions (e.g., 

EEO, Grievance, MSPB, AntiHarassment Processes) 

No Not applicable.

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS)

Yes Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data on indices and items 

related to promotion, recruiting, and hiring

Employees’ responses to a survey conducted by a vendor in July 2014 

regarding promotions at the SEC

Employees’ responses on promotions and related content from a 

Workplace Experience Survey conducted by OEEO during FY 2018 as 

part of SEC’s barrier analysis work 

Exit Interview Data Yes Employee survey data from the Agency’s exit survey to understand better 

the reasons for voluntary separation

Focus Groups Yes Data from 14 focus group interviews with 72 female supervisors and 

managers at the SK-15 to SO levels about their experiences and career 

development at the Agency

Interviews Yes Interviews with subject matter experts in the SEC’s OHR and OMWI

Interviews with hiring officials and female candidates about their 

experiences with the hiring and promotion process

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM)

Yes Audit reports regarding personnel management at the SEC based on 

research from the Government Accountability Office

EEOC’s technical assistance letters provided in response to the SEC’s 

annual EEO Program status report

Other (Please Describe) Yes Research literature, formally established policies related to promotion 

of SOs at the SEC, and reports to understand promotion and hiring 

processes better

Information about best practices in recruiting female leaders in the federal 

government and private industry
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 89

Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

Yes No

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Barrier Name* (required) Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

Analysis of internal competitive promotion to SO and senior grade 

level position

OEEO, OHR, and OMWI agreed to take action toward enhancing 

equal employment opportunity for women seeking leadership 

positions to address the following areas requiring improvement:

• A perception that the work demands of leadership roles limit 

the viability of using work-life flexibilities, including telework;

• Formal or informal mentoring programs that would facilitate 

the development and visibility of interested employees;

• Consistency and structure in the posting, screening, and 

interview processes for selection; and

• Succession planning for future vacancies to develop 

potential successors and encourage consideration of a 

diverse pool of candidates for leadership positions.

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing?

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date From 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

As of September 30, 2018, 

the following activities were 

identified as needing further 

study as part of monitoring 

Agency action from this study:

• Review the quality 

of information and 

documentation on 

interviews and selections 

for leadership positions.

• Analyze newly available 

data from interview and 

selection documentation 

to monitor progress on 

responsive action from 

this study.

08/14/2014 08/16/2019 Yes 09/30/2018 08/16/2019

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes

Director, OMWI Pamela Gibbs Yes

Director, OEEO Peter J. Henry Yes
90 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned 

Activities

Modified Date

From

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

11/30/2017 OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency 

workforce to explore employee perceptions of, among other topics, 

promotional opportunity, recruitment, and hiring for leadership positions.

11/6/2017

03/31/2018 The Agency will solicit stakeholder input for the design of a mentoring 

program.

02/28/2018

09/30/2018 OHR will monitor leadership bench strength against metrics established 

by the SEC Human Capital Strategic Plan for FY 2016 – FY 2018, 

continue to encourage strategic conversation between hiring managers 

and HR specialists when considering hiring options, and monitor 

compliance with Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job 

Candidates (PM-2016-001) and participation in training by employees 

directly involved in the selection process.

09/30/2018

09/30/2018 OHR and OMWI will explore continued enhancements to the SEC’s 

leadership development programs, including additional opportunities 

to foster diversity among SEC employees preparing for senior level 

positions.

09/30/2018

09/30/2018 OMWI will continue to target recruiting to attract women and minorities, 

including Hispanic, Asian, and African American women, as applicants for 

leadership positions. 

09/30/2018

08/16/2019 OEEO will continue to monitor the data that triggered this analysis along 

with additional quantitative and qualitative data related to employee 

perceptions of promotion and leadership opportunities, participation 

in and perceptions of telework, and participation rates and data or 

documentation of the interviewing and selection stages when filling 

leadership positions.

08/16/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 91

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2017 Since 2013, OMWI has leveraged the participation of female SOs as well as other employees for all of its outreach 

events. OMWI will continue to include this as an element of its multi-prong strategy to enhance diversity at the 

SEC. As of September 30, 2017, through strong partnership across the Commission, and in particular, among 

representatives from OEEO, OHR, OMWI, and the Diversity Council, the Agency implemented a number of actions to 

improve equal employment opportunity. These actions included the following:

• Monitoring the bench strength of talent in line to take on leadership positions and using an interest survey and 

competency-based data to inform leadership development programming through SECU;

• Starting in the fall of 2017, exploring options for a mentorship program;

• More consistently posting internal detail and permanent vacancy postings for leadership positions, including SO 

positions, on the main page of the intranet and in the Agency’s internal communications vehicle, SEC Today;

• Publishing the revised policy on Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates that requires 

documentation for each hiring action for both staff level and leadership positions;

• Continuing to leverage OHR’s expertise in the design and implementation of structured interviews for SO 

positions;

• Conducting training for all employees and, more specifically, mandatory training for anyone involved in the 

hiring and/or promotion process;

• Increasing the quality of interaction between HR specialists and hiring managers toward more strategic 

conversation, greater use of selection best practices, and more consistently providing feedback to unsuccessful 

candidates who applied for leadership positions;

• Continuing to evaluate applicant flow data for internal and external hiring to determine progress towards 

removing potential barriers for women and minorities seeking leadership positions;

• Maintaining active participation of OEEO and OMWI in the development and implementation of the Agency’s 

Human Capital Strategic Plan; 

• Targeting recruiting efforts to attract talented women and minorities to apply for SO and other leadership 

positions; and

• Working with the Chairman, the Commissioners, the Diversity Council, employees, and managers in support of 

efforts to promote equality of opportunity and diversity at the Agency.
92 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2018 In FY 2018, the SEC accomplished the following: 

1. OEEO conducted a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore employee perceptions 

of, among other topics, promotional opportunity, recruitment, and hiring for leadership positions. The survey 

was conducted between October 11, 2017, and November 6, 2017. OEEO analyzed 1,360 responses 

and narrative comments from 469 employees. Survey responses demonstrate significant improvement in 

employee perception of promotional opportunity at the Commission and recognition of steps taken to improve 

the standardization and transparency of posting opportunities for promotion and detail opportunities. Across 

six items specific to promotions replicated from a survey conducted in 2014, the average increase in percent 

favorable results was 16.5% points. 

2. The Commissioners and the Chairman gathered information and hosted two round-table discussions focused 

on diversity and inclusion related issues. On October 12, 2017, Chairman Clayton solicited input from 

the workforce to explore ideas for fostering mentorship at the SEC in anticipation of the first round-table 

discussion. On January 17, 2018, SEC Chairman Clayton and all four SEC Commissioners sponsored an 

Agency-wide mentoring roundtable. This roundtable featured SEC leaders, as well as a senior level director 

from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a partner from a law firm, and the Associate Director of the 

Inclusiveness Center of Excellence from the Americas division in one of the four largest public accounting 

firms. A more general diversity and inclusion session was hosted by the Chairman on February 28, 2018, as 

part of African American History Month celebrations. This session included SEC panelists and two invited 

guests, Managing Directors at legal firms focused on the financial industry. One of these guests was a 

former director of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

3. In summer 2018, the SEC successfully launched a pilot mentoring program leading to the first cohort of 

30 participants who will receive mentoring throughout FY 2019. The pilot mentoring program received 

overwhelming interest among employees. In total, 142 employees submitted a statement of interest in the 

program. Among them, 71.1% were women, 25.4% were Black or African American women, 2.1% were 

Hispanic women, and 12.0% were Asian women. On a first-come, first-serve basis, 30 participants were 

accepted into the mentoring program and matched with volunteer mentors with deep technical expertise and/or 

leadership experience. The 30 participants include 75.9% women and 51.7% minorities, including eight (27.6%) 

Black or African American women and four (13.8%) Asian women. The SEC held an orientation session for 

both mentors and participants on September 28, 2018, and will hold formal events throughout FY 2019 to help 

guide the mentoring relationship toward success.

4. OHR and OMWI continued to make significant enhancements to the SEC’s leadership development programs. 

As described above in Part E and later in Part J Section IV, the SEC added to the offerings within its leadership 

development program. The actions described below help to inform the design and administration of career 

development programs and content that will support women overall, Hispanic women, and Asian women 

interested in pursuing advancement to SO.

— Late in FY 2017, OHR conducted a Leadership Interest Survey to gather data from all SK-15 and SK-17 

managers. Survey data from both men and women in SEC management were analyzed in early FY 2018 to 

inform SECU’s leadership development offerings going forward. 

— OHR developed and collaborated with NTEU to finalize a Competency Assessment Survey to inform 

workforce planning efforts and shape the future of SEC-wide training and development programs. The 

survey was launched in September 2018, and data collection continued into the new fiscal year.

— OHR’s Human Capital Strategy group began a long term, multi-year planning effort for a leadership 

development program similar to the SES Candidate Development Programs offered by other federal 

agencies. This program will support the technical and core competency development for cohorts of 

employees seeking leadership positions, including those interested in the SO leadership ranks.

5. Within the constraints of the hiring freeze that continued in FY 2018 from FY 2017, OMWI targeted its recruiting 

efforts to attract women and minorities, including Hispanic, Asian, and African American women, as applicants 

for leadership positions. 

6. OEEO monitored the data that triggered this analysis along with additional quantitative and qualitative data 

related to employee perceptions of promotion and leadership opportunities, participation in and perceptions of 

telework, and participation rates and data or documentation of the interviewing and selection stages when filling 

leadership positions. In support of data monitoring, OEEO:

— Leveraged successes from the development of the EEO-AT in FY 2017 to develop a series of workforce 

data summary tools to assess progress in enhancing promotional opportunity for women and minority 

women into leadership positions. 

— Reviewed data on employee perceptions about and use of telework across the Agency and by employees at 

all leadership levels for evidence of greater openness to flexible work arrangements.

— Received and prepared to review available paper record documentation of selections made in FY 2017 and 

FY 2018 for internal competitive promotions to leadership positions at the SK-15, SK-17, and SO levels. 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 93

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2019 In FY 2019, OEEO completed analysis of the interview documentation gathered as per the policy on Requirements 

for Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates. For that analysis, OEEO reviewed the interview documentation 

maintained by OHR in selection case files. 

• Data reviewed were gathered between October 1, 2017, and May 31, 2018, for internal competitive promotion 

vacancies to the SK-15, SK-17, and SO levels. OEEO notes that during most of the period of study, the SEC 

was under a hiring freeze. As such, relatively few internal promotion actions were undertaken. Further, the 

freeze was more likely to impact occupations other than Mission Critical Occupations (MCOs). The data 

reviewed, then, included a relatively large proportion of MCO vacancies; in particular, vacancies for Attorney 

and Securities Compliance Examiner positions were most prevalent in the data. A total of 50 vacancies and 

data for 218 candidate applications from 195 individual applicants comprises the data set.

• OEEO’s review found some opportunity for greater consistency in the data captured about interviews and 

eventual selection decisions. In particular, copies of the actual job announcement would help with interpreting 

interview documentation. As noted above, the data subject to review in this analysis were captured early on 

after implementing the requirements policy, OHR has since updated Form 2933 used to capture interview and 

selection documentation.

• For the vacancies included in OEEO’s review, we found that the participation rate at which women were 

selected for promotion was higher than their participation among those invited to interview. However, this 

pattern was not found among minority group women. These results may be attributable to the particular 

vacancies for which data were available. 

• OEEO also reviewed the demographic composition of the cadre of interview panel members. Using social 

network analysis, we found that the participation rates of men and women serving on interview panels mirrored 

their participation at the Agency overall and within the specific occupations covered by the interview data.

• OEEO reviewed data on the participation of men and women, including separate analysis of Hispanic and 

Asian women, in the Agency’s Mentoring Program. The proportion of women who registered for the Mentoring 

Program during September of 2019 exceeds their participation on rolls (70.00% versus 46.21%). Program 

registration was particularly strong among Hispanic (13.33%) and Asian women (13.33%). Mentoring 

participants will receive focused career development for the duration of the program from October 2019 through 

June 2020.

This action was the last item among the agreed upon actions from this study of the Agency’s senior leadership 

positions. Analysis of the Agency’s actions to enhance equal employment opportunity for women seeking leadership 

positions demonstrated specific and measurable improvement during the period studied in the areas of: work-life 

flexibilities; mentoring; and posting, screening, and interview processes. The SEC has closed this analysis and 

transitioned the study to a monitoring phase as part of this annual report.
94 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER

Section II: 

Analysis by Gender of Applicants to MCO Positions

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table Narrative Description of Trigger

Analysis by gender of applicants, on 

rolls, and new hires to Mission Critical 

Occupations (MCOs)

Table A6 Female applicants for employment with 

the SEC, and in particular, for the mission 

critical occupations (accountant, securities 

compliance examiner, and economist) 

were hired at a lower rate than their 

representation in the respective OCLF. More 

specifically, there was lower participation 

among women than men at specific 

stages of the hiring process: application, 

qualification, referral, and selection.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group

All Men

All Women X

Hispanic or Latino Males

Hispanic or Latino Females X

White Males

White Females X

Black or African American Males

Black or African American Females X

Asian Males

Asian Females X

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females X

American Indian or Alaska Native Males

American Indian or Alaska Native Females X

Two or More Races Males

Two or More Races Females X
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 95

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Workforce data tables and participation rates for women in these MCOs 

from FY 2013 – FY 2018

Applicant flow data and new hire data from FY 2013 – FY 2017 for each 

MCO

Benchmark data available from the Census Bureau that provide more detail 

into the participation of women in the civilian labor force

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes Data in EEO complaints filed between FY 2013 – FY 2017 to identify any 

complaints filed by women who applied for economist, accountant, or 

securities compliance examiner positions

Grievance Data (Trends) N/A

Findings from Decisions (e.g., 

EEO, Grievance, MSPB, AntiHarassment Processes)

No Not applicable.

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS)

Yes Employee survey data from the Agency’s quality of hire survey related to 

recruiting and hiring

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data on indices and items 

related to recruiting and hiring

Employees’ responses to a Workplace Experience Survey conducted at the 

SEC during FY 2018 regarding recruiting and hiring

Exit Interview Data Yes Employee data from the Agency’s exit survey to understand better the 

reasons for voluntary separation

Focus Groups Yes Focus group interviews with Regional Office leaders about the procedures 

and practices for recruiting and hiring process support

Interviews Yes Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR and OMWI about recruiting 

and hiring

Interviews with Diversity and Inclusion leadership at the “Big Four” public 

accounting firms (i.e., Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC)

Individual interviews with Agency leaders at the headquarters location about 

the procedures and practices for recruiting and hiring process support

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM)

Yes Data definitions and potential benchmark information from the Census 

Bureau and OPM defining population data for these MCOs in the civilian 

labor force and the federal workforce

Other (Please Describe) Yes More than 800 resumes submitted by applicants during FY 2015 for 

MCO positions

Position descriptions and vacancy announcements for the targeted MCOs

Research literature, formally established policies, collective bargaining 

agreement language, and reports to understand recruiting and hiring 

processes better

Information about best practices in recruiting female applicants for 

employment in the federal government and private industry
96 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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)

Barrier Name* (required) Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

Analyses by gender of applicants to MCO positions On the basis of the analytic work, OEEO did not identify any 

specific barriers for female applicants seeking opportunities in the 

SEC’s MCOs. OEEO’s analysis suggests the following will have 

measurable impact on the recruitment and hiring of women into 

these MCOs:

• Adopting process improvements to help ensure high-quality 

decision-making at the referral stage of the application 

process; and

• Increasing early career recruitment (at lower earnings or 

SK-levels) to access candidate pools with greater gender 

diversity, consistent with operational needs.

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing?

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date From 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

The Agency will identify 

actions to enhance equality of 

opportunity in the application 

process for these MCOs. 

03/01/2016 10/18/2019 Yes 10/18/2019

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Director, OEEO Peter J. Henry Yes

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes

Director, OMWI Pamela Gibbs Yes
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 97

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned 

Activities

Modified Date

From 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

11/30/2017 OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency 

workforce to explore, among other topics, employee perceptions of 

recruitment and hiring.

11/06/2017

12/31/2017 In collaboration with other Agency stakeholders, OEEO will gather data 

that help to review and prioritize potential actions for improvement.

12/31/2017

04/15/2018 OEEO will integrate and interpret quantitative and qualitative data to 

establish evidence for any areas for improvement.

10/31/2018

12/31/2018 OEEO will hold meetings and present leadership briefings to share the 

research summary from this study. These briefings form the basis for 

action planning.

11/30/2018

09/30/2019 To the extent areas needing improvement in recruiting and hiring 

processes are found, the SEC will begin to develop an action plan to 

help foster equal employment opportunity.

09/30/2019

10/18/2019 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed in this study.

10/18/2019

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2016 OEEO analyzed, applicant flow data on a quarterly basis. OEEO reviewed relevant written policies and established 

procedures affecting the employment of women, and in particular, the employment of women in major occupations.

The SEC partnered with the National Society of Compliance Professionals (NSCP) to post vacancy announcements 

and also participated in their annual conference hosting a Career Panel. 

OMWI conducted outreach at colleges/universities with a high population of female students and participated in 

career and branding events to increase the female candidate talent pool. In FY 2016, OMWI participated in career 

fairs at the following colleges/universities with high female student populations: 

• Wellesley College Fair: 2/26/16

• Trinity Washington University On-Campus Recruitment: 4/22/16

• Boston College 2016 Fall Career and Internship Fair: 9/13/16

• Montclair State University Accounting Career Fair: 9/15/16

• Alabama State University Career Fair: 9/29/16
98 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2017 OEEO conducted structured research activities to explore the data, including:

• Developing and implementing procedures and process to conduct qualitative coding and analysis methods for 

interview and resume data; 

• Borrowing root cause analysis methods from the Lean Six Sigma and Continuous Improvement research 

tradition to explore alternative explanations related to observed triggers; 

• Investigating the critical steps in the Agency’s recruiting and hiring processes using structured questioning 

methods suggested by EEOC guidance that help support root cause identification.

OEEO analyzed workforce and other quantitative data as well as summarized data from resume and document 

reviews, interviews, and focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed the following:

• The proportions of women applying for consideration in these MCO remain below the 2010 occupational CLF 

over the five year period analyzed from FY 2013 through FY 2017;

• There was an increase in the proportions of women tentatively selected as compared to those referred for 

hiring manager consideration across the time period reviewed for particular MCO positions; and

• Hiring managers and those involved in recruiting for MCO positions could benefit from having approved 

language or materials available for use in recruiting talented women to the Agency’s MCO positions.

OEEO designed a Workplace Experience Survey to gather employee perceptions of several topics, including 

recruitment and hiring. OEEO will use results from these survey data in combination with the data already gathered to 

inform recommendations for Agency consideration.

OMWI conducted outreach at colleges/universities with a high population of female students and participated in 

career and branding events to increase the female candidate talent pool. In FY 2017, OMWI participated in career 

fairs at numerous colleges/universities.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 99

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2018 During FY 2018, OEEO concluded the planned data collection and made significant progress in the interpretation of 

data gathered in this study. The following provides detail about OEEO’s analytic work.

1. OEEO conducted a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore employee perceptions 

of, among other topics, recruitment and hiring for mission critical positions. OEEO analyzed 1,360 responses 

and narrative responses from 469 employees. Analyses compare male and female responses on a variety of 

index and item level results. Among the respondents were: 

— 219 responses from employees who self-identified as accountants, 23.9% of the total population of 

permanent and temporary accountants on rolls. Narrative comments were received from 75 accountants.

— 26 responses from employees who self-identified as economists, 25.5% of the total population of permanent 

and temporary economists on rolls. Narrative comments were received from eight economists.

— 86 responses from employees who self-identified as securities compliance examiners, 25.7% of the 

total population of securities compliance examiners on rolls. Narrative comments were received from 26 

securities compliance examiners.

2. OEEO conducted a series of individual and group interviews with SEC leadership in Divisions and Offices that 

employ accountants, economists, and securities compliance examiners focused on recruitment and hiring 

procedures and practices at the Agency. Thirty-two leaders participated in these interviews. Interview data 

described the practices that were more successful in ensuring equality of opportunity across the stages of the 

SEC’s hiring process.

3. OEEO’s data team investigated available benchmark data to understand better the participation rate of women 

among applicants to MCOs. Beyond the EEO Tabulation, we researched and summarized data from:

— the Public Use Microdata Sample (iPUMS) that allowed filtering within occupation by industry, sector, 

subsector, and earnings for trends across years more recent than 2010;

— FEDScope data on federal accountants, economists, and financial examiners employed by Agency and 

salary data;

— Prior reporting from the EEOC and the GAO on women and minorities in the financial sector in the 

management and professional ranks;

— O*Net information about the educational background of accountants; and

— EEO-1 data on women and men in professional occupations in the financial sector.

4. OEEO used a series of self-service workforce data summary tools to review data on the demographic 

composition within these specific occupations of the entire workforce, newly hired staff, AFD, and separations 

by critical organizational characteristics.

5. OEEO investigated more fully applicant flow data (AFD) over the five year period from FY 2013 through FY 

2017. AFD demonstrate the important effect of posting options and targeted recruitment on the referral of 

women in these occupations. In comparison to AFD from postings for more targeted recruitment, postings 

open to the public for all U.S. citizens to apply experienced a steeper decline in the participation rate of women 

between those deemed qualified and those referred for hiring manager consideration.

6. Social science research on decision making and behavioral economics suggested areas in which the Agency 

can do more to help men and women demonstrate their qualifications when applying for mission critical 

positions.

7. Data for this study were compiled and presented to SEC leadership in a series of briefing sessions to share 

summary research results in which more than 30 senior leaders across the Agency participated. 

Within the constraints of the hiring freeze that continued from FY 2017, OMWI worked to target recruiting to attract 

women and minorities into MCOs, including female accountants, economists, and securities compliance examiners.
100 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2019 During FY 2019, OEEO shared the analytic results from this study with leadership across the Commission as the 

basis for taking action toward improvement. This study is now closed and transitioned to a monitoring phase. The 

following provides detail about these communication efforts.

• In early FY 2019, OEEO completed the series of briefings for executives in the Divisions and Offices involved 

in hiring for MCO positions. This series of briefings culminated in sharing summary results to the Operations 

Steering Committee (OSC). These briefings suggested practical action to support MCO hiring. 

• OEEO consulted with Division and Office leadership as the Agency emerged from the hiring freeze first 

implemented in FY 2017. OEEO leadership jointly, with OHR and OMWI, conducted briefings with the 

Divisions and Offices where replacement and additional MCO hiring was planned for FY 2019. These briefings 

emphasized the actions that would support recruiting and hiring a more diverse pool of candidates, including a 

higher proportion of women. OEEO then consulted with hiring officials in their efforts to define vacancy posting 

language for both home office and regional hiring.

• SEC Divisions and Offices began planning focused on the two opportunities for improvement: (1) adopting 

process improvements to help ensure high-quality decision-making at the referral stage of the application 

process; and (2) increasing early career recruitment (at lower earnings or SK-levels) to access candidate pools 

with greater gender diversity, consistent with operational needs. 

• Toward the close of FY 2019, OEEO planned a second inter-Agency information sharing session related to 

barrier analysis. That session was held on September 23, 2019. OEEO welcomed 27 representatives from 

20 agencies with whom OEEO has developed strong relations. EEOC OFO representatives involved directly 

in supporting barrier analysis work also participated in the information sharing session. In hopes of sharing 

approaches, methods, and learnings from this analysis, OEEO covered content specific to applicant flow data.

— OEEO invited Scott Salvati from OPM to discuss current and anticipated changes to AFD reporting in 

support of the EEO community. 

— OEEO shared how benchmark data sources, qualitative data gathered for this study, and analyses of AFD 

were combined to form a solid analytic base in data driving decisions by Agency leadership. 

• OEEO began designing an evaluation plan to monitor results of actions taken in support of the two 

opportunities for improvement. 

— OEEO captured Division and Office initial plans and activity for tracking immediate actions and monitoring 

later participation of women in AFD; and

— OEEO’s data analysts reviewed all vacancy postings for MCO positions announced after the hiring freeze 

was lifted at mid-year, i.e., from May or later. In early October, vacancy language was assessed for 

readability and clarity of requirements to close out this analysis.

— The SEC has agreed to implement the practice of posting all fellowship opportunities to USAJOBS, which 

will enable better monitoring of this pathway into MCOs.

OEEO will continue to monitor summary results in the workforce data tables for MCO positions, with emphasis on 

AFD going forward.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 101

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER 

Section III: 

Analysis of Discretionary Cash and Time-Off Awards

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table Narrative Description of Trigger

Analysis of discretionary cash and time-off 

awards data

Table A9 The distribution of discretionary cash and 

time off awards, in both the number and 

amount, show differences for specific 

demographic groups, including men, 

women, employees in specific race 

and ethnic groups, and employees with 

disabilities.

In FY 2014, females were given more timeoff awards than males (approximately 52% 

to females and 48% to males) and males 

received more cash awards (between 

51% and 55%) than females. For cash 

awards of $501 or more, males received 

an average award of $1,580 while females 

received an average award of $1,422. 

Members of some minority groups received 

lower cash awards compared to other 

demographic groups.

Cash awards in FY 2014 for individuals 

with disabilities were, on average, $1,120.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group

All Men X

All Women X

Hispanic or Latino Males X

Hispanic or Latino Females X

White Males X

White Females X

Black or African American Males X

Black or African American Females X

Asian Males X

Asian Females X

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males X

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females X

American Indian or Alaska Native Males X

American Indian or Alaska Native Females X

Two or More Races Males X

Two or More Races Females X
102 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Workforce data tables, especially Tables A13 and B13 from the FY 2012 – 

FY 2017 MD-715 reports

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes EEO complaints filed between FY 2012 – FY 2017 where the distribution of 

awards was an issue raised

Grievance Data (Trends) Yes Grievances filed between FY 2013 – FY 2017 on actions related to 

discretionary cash and time-off awards

Findings from Decisions (e.g., 

EEO, Grievance, MSPB, AntiHarassment Processes) 

No Not applicable.

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS)

Yes Employee survey data from the Agency’s FEVS on indices and items 

related to recognition and awards

Workplace Experience Survey responses related to recognition and awards

Exit Interview Data Yes Employee survey data from the Agency’s exit survey to understand the 

relationship between awards and retention

Focus Groups Yes Group interviews with regional leadership that included discussion of 

awards and recognition practices and procedure

Interviews Yes Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR and Office of Financial 

Management 

Individual interviews with Division and Office leaders that included 

discussion of their awards and recognition practices

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM)

Yes Reports from the Agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), OHR, and 

from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) detailing prior analyses 

of personnel management practices, including those related to employee 

recognition and awards

Other (Please Describe) Yes Distribution of discretionary time-off and cash awards documented in the 

Federal Personnel Payroll System from FY 2013 – FY 2017

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)

Barrier Name* (required) Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

Analyses of discretionary cash and time-off awards Based on data summarized in this study, OEEO identified 

opportunities to improve awards distribution practices for both 

discretionary cash and time-off awards. OEEO worked with 

leadership across the Commission to support action in the 

following areas:

• Institute review and monitoring for who receives awards

• Reduce constraints for when discretionary awards are 

distributed

• Expand the criteria for what contributions are considered 

for award

• Provide management support for how to submit and 

review awards
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 103

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing?

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date From 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Identify and present action 

options for Agency consideration 

to help address observed group 

differences in the Agency’s 

employee recognition program

03/16/2016 09/30/2020 Yes 01/31/2020

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Director, OEEO Peter J. Henry Yes

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned 

Activities

Modified 

Date From

(mm/dd/yyyy

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

11/30/2017 OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency 

workforce to explore employee perceptions of recognition and awards.

11/06/2017

12/31/2017 OEEO will integrate and interpret quantitative and qualitative data, 

statistical results, trends across years, root causes, and identified 

triggers.

07/31/2018

03/31/2018 OEEO will expand statistical analysis and trends over time to cover 

discretionary cash and time-off awards distribution, to consider other 

discretionary awards (e.g., gift cards), and to consider how different 

variables may interact in their effects on groups of employees.

09/27/2018

06/30/2019 OEEO will work to summarize and interpret the research results 

listed above as the basis for identifying any areas of opportunity for 

improvement in ensuring equal employment opportunity in the Agency’s 

employee recognition program. 

6/27/2019

11/01/2019 To the extent areas needing improvement in recognition and awards 

processes are found, the SEC will begin to develop an action plan to help 

foster equal employment opportunity.

6/27/2019

09/30/2020 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed on this study.

01/31/2020
104 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2016 OEEO completed in depth statistical analysis of awards and other quantitative data and has summarized data from 

document reviews and interviews. Analyses showed evidence of improvement over time in the observed triggers 

related to the distribution of awards. In contrast to overall Agency-wide results, statistical modeling showed that 

the number and value of awards granted to women and men, some minority groups, and persons with disabilities 

provided evidence of fewer areas of concern for equal employment opportunity in recent years. Processing and 

procedural improvements instituted since triggers were originally observed positively impacted the awards program.

In FY 2015, OHR updated its guidance on the parameters to be used by management when developing both 

monetary and time-off award recommendations. The guidance was created to provide a more consistent approach to 

motivating and recognizing employees’ contributions. 

OEEO designed a Workplace Experience Survey to gather employee perceptions on several topics, including 

recognition and awards. The survey data were slated to be used in combination with the statistical data already 

summarized to inform recommendations for the Agency’s consideration.

FY 2017 During FY 2017, OEEO conducted a series of analyses on the distribution of discretionary cash and time off awards. 

This set includes review of:

• Statistical analyses of the overall distribution of and multiple regression results predicting cash and time-off 

awards across FY 2013 – FY 2016 to explore the contribution of gender, race/ethnicity, disability, and age 

that may influence award distributions beyond the effects of known organizational characteristics, e.g., pay 

band or SK-level;

• Analysis to understand the trends over time, to investigate more complex or interaction models, and to 

investigate the influence of budgetary limits on award distribution;

• The perceptions of staff about the employee recognition program; and

• Research literature, formally established policies, collective bargaining agreement language, and reports to 

understand recognition and award processes better.

OEEO conducted structured research activities to explore the data, including:

• Applying parametric and non-parametric methods of statistical analysis within and across fiscal years; 

• Defining multiple criterion measures for both the number and amount of awards distribution;

• Tracking statistical results across fiscal years to understand the relative influence of budgetary limits and 

process improvement on awards distribution;

• Borrowing root cause analysis methods from the Lean Six Sigma and Continuous Improvement research 

tradition to explore alternative explanations related to observed triggers in the distribution of awards; and 

• Investigating the critical steps in the Agency’s award processes using structured questioning methods 

suggested by EEOC guidance that help support root cause identification.

FY 2018 The following provides detail about OEEO’s analytic work conducted in FY 2018 in support of this analysis.

1. OEEO conducted a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore employee perceptions 

of, among other topics, recognition and retention. The survey was conducted between October 11, 2017 and 

November 6, 2017, and generated 1,360 responses for analysis. OEEO’s analyses compared responses from 

those who self-identified as belonging to different employee groups on a variety of index and item level results, 

including results specific to awards, recognition, and retention. 

2. OEEO analyzed the number and percent of EEO complaints filed regarding the issue of awards between FY 

2013 and FY 2017. Results from the small volume of such complaint activity include a disproportionate number 

from African American employees. The small sample sizes included limit the reliability and conclusions to be 

drawn from these data. 

3. In FY 2018, OEEO expanded the statistical analyses conducted in FY 2017 to understand the incidence rate 

across groups, including non-recipients, in addition to exploring the differences observed among award recipients. 

Additional statistical modeling or analysis improved understanding of the effects of: timing, frequency, differences 

in practices for individual versus group awards, procedural guidance, and interactions between Division or Office 

practices on discretionary cash and time off awards to employees in various demographic groups.

4. OEEO reviewed data from the Agency’s gift card program since its inception in FY 2016 to understand how this 

more informal recognition program may differ from other parts of the Employee Recognition Program in relation 

to the research described here.

5. OEEO gathered qualitative data from individual and group interviews about the practices and procedures 

followed in different Divisions and Offices related to awards and recognition.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 105

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2019 The following provides detail about OEEO’s work conducted in FY 2019 in support of this analysis. OEEO continued 

and completed statistical analysis of data on discretionary cash and time-off awards and observed the following:

1. Holding other organizational characteristics related to awards constant, OEEO did not observe consistent 

statistical disparities by gender, Hispanic ethnicity, or disability status on awards distribution. Consistent 

disparities were observed in both the amount and number of awards distributed by race. African American and 

Asian employees received fewer and/or lower value awards in each year studied. 

2. A statistical relationship exists between the timing of awards decisions across the annual performance cycle 

and demographic distribution, holding other factors constant. Results demonstrate the value of stronger focus 

on managerial review and monitoring of awards distribution later in the year. Awards distributed later in the year 

demonstrated fewer statistically significant disparities.

3. Differences year-over-year in the amount and distribution of awards in combination with organizational changes 

associated with the total available budget, electronic system implementation, and a growing acceptance of 

alternative work arrangements provided some explanations for observed awards distribution. Data suggested 

that the benefit of additional review and focus on the awards program diminishes over time as less attention is 

paid to the challenges.

4. Data on the volume of awards granted to individual employees in combination with distribution by award 

type, group versus individual, and a structured review of policy and procedures for the Employee Recognition 

Program confirm that award criteria favor individual contributions over collaborative work. Further, minority 

group members were more likely to receive group awards which may result from receiving fewer assignments 

that lead to individual recognition.

The analysis of awards data led to the identification of the four areas defined above, focused on who receives 

awards, when they are distributed (within and across year), for what contributions awards are given, and how awards 

are justified and reviewed. 

OEEO began sharing the results of this analysis with Agency leadership in the second half of FY 2019. OEEO 

conducted eight leadership briefings with senior leadership. Based on OEEO’s briefings and information sharing, 

Agency leadership initiated several efforts toward process improvement.

1. OHR and OEEO formed a working group to determine feasible changes to refine the Employee Recognition 

Program toward improving managerial decision-making accountability, and review processes, as well as 

defining collaborative work appropriate for awards at different tiers in the awards program. 

2. OEEO met with leadership from various Divisions and Offices in service to improving reporting on awards 

distribution. 

Toward the close of FY 2019, OEEO planned a second inter-Agency information sharing session related to barrier 

analysis. That session was held on September 23, 2019. OEEO welcomed 27 representatives from 20 agencies with 

whom OEEO has developed strong relationships. EEOC OFO representatives involved directly in supporting barrier 

analysis work also participated in the information sharing session. In hopes of sharing approaches, methods, and 

learnings from this analysis, OEEO covered content specific to the various research methods and statistical analyses 

applied for this study. In particular, OEEO shared:

• An overview of the methods applied to account for the simultaneous influence of organizational and personal 

characteristics on awards distribution.

• Statistical indications of differences in distribution over the performance cycle that suggest a difference in 

awards processes earlier versus later in the fiscal year.
106 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER 

Section IV: 

Analysis of the Accounting Occupation

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table Narrative Description of Trigger

Analysis by gender in the accounting 

occupation 

Tables A6 The participation rate of women in 

accounting positions at the Agency is lower 

than expected based on their availability; 

this condition may be impacted at different 

stages of the employment lifecycle, i.e., 

recruitment, selection, development, and 

retention of accountants.

In FY 2014, female accountants at the 

SEC, and in particular, White female 

accountants, had participation rates lower 

than the OCLF (over 16 percentage points). 

The White female accountant OCLF is 

44.23%, whereas White females comprised 

27.52% of the SEC’s accountants.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group

All Men

All Women X

Hispanic or Latino Males

Hispanic or Latino Females X

White Males

White Females X

Black or African American Males

Black or African American Females X

Asian Males

Asian Females X

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females X

American Indian or Alaska Native Males

American Indian or Alaska Native Females X

Two or More Races Males

Two or More Races Females X
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 107

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Workforce data tables and participation rates for women in the accounting 

occupation from FY 2013 – FY 2019

Applicant flow, new hire, and competitive promotion data from FY 2013 – FY 

2019 for the accounting occupation

Benchmark data available from the Census Bureau that provide more detail 

into the participation of women in the civilian labor force

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes EEO complaint activity filed between FY 2012 – FY 2017 to identify any 

trends in complaints filed by applicants or employees in the accountant 

occupation

Grievance Data (Trends) Yes Grievances filed by accountants between FY 2013 and FY 2018

Findings from Decisions (e.g., 

EEO, Grievance, MSPB, AntiHarassment Processes) 

No Not applicable

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS)

Yes Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data on indices and items 

related to recruiting, hiring, promotion, training and career development

Employees’ responses to a Workplace Experience Survey conducted at 

the SEC during FY 2018 regarding recruiting, hiring, career development, 

promotion, recognition, and retention

Exit Interview Data Yes Employee survey data from the Agency’s exit survey to understand better 

the reasons for voluntary separation

Focus Groups Yes Focus group interviews with Regional Office leaders about the procedures 

and practices for career development, promotion, recognition, and retention 

of accountants

Interviews Yes Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR, SECU, and OMWI about 

recruitment, hiring, and career development for accountants at the Agency

Interviews with Diversity and Inclusion leadership at the “Big Four” public 

accounting firms (i.e., Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC)

Individual interviews with Agency leaders at Headquarters about the 

procedures and practices for career development, promotion, recognition, 

and retention of accountants

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM)

Yes Data definitions and potential benchmark information from the Census 

Bureau and OPM defining population data for the accountant occupation in 

the civilian labor force and the federal workforce

Other (Please Describe) Yes Records related to employee telework schedules and usage from 

FY 2013 – FY 2019

Pay scales and compensation levels among the Agency’s encumbered 

grade levels in the accountant occupational series

Position descriptions and vacancy announcements for the job of accountant

Training records from SF-182 on requests for internal and external training 

submitted by SEC accountants through the learning management system

More than 300 resumes submitted during FY 2015 by applicants for 

accountant vacancies

Written policies and formally established procedures affecting the 

employment of women, and in particular, the employment of women in 

accountant positions

Research literature, collective bargaining agreement language, and reports 

to better understand career development, promotion, retention, or recruiting 

and hiring processes for the accounting occupation

Information about best practices in recruiting women in accounting in the 

federal government and private industry
108 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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)

Barrier Name* (required) Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

Analysis of women in accounting No barrier has yet been identified

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing?

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date From 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

As of September 30, 2018, the 

following areas were identified 

for further analysis and review:

• Processes for the 

career development and 

promotion of accountants 

• Career progression and 

workforce planning within 

the SEC’s accountant 

occupation

To the extent areas of 

improvement for female 

accountants at the Agency are 

found, the SEC will develop an 

action plan to help foster equal 

employment opportunity.

03/01/2017 3/31/2021 Yes 06/30/2020

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Director, OEEO Peter J. Henry Yes

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes

Director, OMWI Pamela Gibbs Yes
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 109

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned 

Activities

Modified 

Date From

(mm/dd/yyyy

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

11/30/2017 OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency 

workforce to explore perceptions of different aspects of the employee 

lifecycle among accountants.

11/6/2017

06/30/2018 OEEO will continue review and analysis of quantitative and qualitative 

data on career development, promotion, and retention processes for the 

accountant occupation.

07/31/2018

05/31/2020 Compile and share results from interviews and focus groups conducted 

with Accountant incumbents.

06/30/2020 Update analyses with FY 2019 workforce data and FY 2020 qualitative 

data collection.

10/31/2020 The SEC will begin to identify actions as appropriate to help foster equal 

employment opportunity.

04/30/2020

12/31/2020 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed on this study.

06/19/2020

02/28/2021 Briefings for Division and Office leadership for the accountant workforce.

03/31/2021 OEEO Director initiates project close out and transition to ongoing 

monitoring.

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2017 OEEO conducted structured research activities to explore the data analyzed, including:

1. Developing and implementing procedures to conduct qualitative coding and analysis methods for interview and 

resume data; 

2. Borrowing root cause analysis methods from the Lean Six Sigma and Continuous Improvement research 

tradition to explore alternative explanations related to triggers; and

3. Investigating the critical steps in the Agency’s career development, retention, recruiting, and hiring processes 

using structured questioning methods suggested by EEOC guidance that help support root cause identification.

OEEO analyzed workforce and other quantitative data and has summarized data from reviews of written policies or 

formally established procedures affecting the recruitment and hiring of women in the accounting profession at the 

SEC, as well as interviews and focus groups related to the recruiting and hiring of accountants. OEEO continues to 

review, analyze, and summarize data on the career development and retention of men and women in the Agency’s 

accountant occupation. 

OEEO designed a Workplace Experience Survey to gather employee perceptions on several topics, including 

career development, promotion, retention, and recruiting and hiring. OEEO will use the survey data gathered from 

men and women in the accounting occupation in combination with data already gathered and anticipated to inform 

recommendations for Agency consideration.

OMWI conducted outreach at colleges/universities with a high population of female students and participated in 

career and branding events to increase the female candidate talent pool. At three of these schools, OMWI focused on 

the universities’ accounting programs to attract a strong female accounting talent pool.
110 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2018 During FY 2018, OEEO concluded the planned data collection as part of this study. The following provides detail 

about OEEO’s analytic work.

1. OEEO conducted a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore employee perceptions 

of, among other topics, promotional opportunity, recruitment, and hiring for leadership positions. OEEO 

analyzed 1,360 responses and narrative comments from 469 employees. Among the respondents were 219 

responses from employees who self-identified as accountants, 24.4% of the total population of accountants 

on rolls. Narrative comments were received from 75 accountants. Analyses compared male and female 

accountant responses on a variety of index and item level results. Accountants reported the most favorable 

results in the areas of: interview processes, supervisory relations, flexible work arrangements, training for 

success within occupation, and work team inclusion.

2. OEEO conducted a series of individual and focus group interviews with SEC leadership in divisions and 

offices that employ accountants between March and May of 2018. Discussion focused on roles, reporting 

relationships, career development, recognition, and retention. Thirty-one leaders participated in this series of 

interviews. 

Interview data and position descriptions describe five general roles for accountants at the SEC. These roles 

require overlapping and unique training and development.

3. OEEO’s data team investigated available benchmark data to understand better the participation rate of women 

in the accounting profession. Beyond the EEO Tabulation, we researched and summarized data from:

— the Public Use Microdata Sample (iPUMS) that allowed filtering within occupation by industry, sector, 

subsector, and earnings for trends across years more recently than 2010

— FEDScope data on federal accountants employed by Agency and salary data

— O*Net information about the educational background of accountants

— Reports compiled from membership in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)

4. OEEO used a series of self-service workforce data summary tools to review data on the demographic 

composition within specific occupations of the entire workforce, newly hired staff, AFD, and separations by 

critical organizational characteristics.

5. Workforce planning and promotions data provided information about the reporting relationships and career 

progression of accountants at the SEC. 

6. Training records and qualitative data demonstrate strong support for the technical training of accountants, often 

in service to continuous education for certification. 

OHR and OMWI continued to make significant enhancements to the SEC’s training and development programs, 

which provide support for the career growth of women in accounting. As described in Part E and in Part J Section IV, 

the SEC added to the offerings within its career development program. 

• OHR developed and worked with NTEU to finalize a Competency Assessment Survey to inform workforce 

planning efforts and shape the future of SEC-wide training and development programs. The survey was 

launched in September 2018, and data collection continued into the new fiscal year.

• SECU expanded offerings under the Career Horizons program that provide individualized support for 

employees in creating development plans and pursuing career growth.

Within the constraints of the hiring freeze from FY 2017, OMWI continued to target recruiting to attract women and 

minorities into mission critical occupations, including female accountants. 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 111

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2019 During FY 2019, OEEO conducted additional analysis and expanded planned data collection as part of this study. 

The following provides detail about this analytic work.

OEEO conducted analyses that revealed no evidence of gender differences in employee retention or participation 

in training and development opportunities. In light of other ongoing barrier analytic work, OEEO deferred further 

consideration of recognition or awards and recruitment or hiring as a focus on this study. OEEO focused further 

analysis on three specific areas:

• The internal competitive promotion process;

• Work-life flexibilities offered by the telework program; and

• Organizational structure and changes in the volume of employees at different SK-levels over time.

With regard to telework, OEEO reviewed trend data over the time period of study from FY 2014 through FY 2018. In 

this period:

• Participation in regular or frequent telework among the total employee population and among male and female 

accountants increased significantly between FY 2014 and FY 2018 (from 55% of male accountants to 73% and 

from 61% to 78% of female accountants).

• Participation among both male and female accountant supervisors showed greater gains in the time period 

of study (from 31% of male accountant supervisors to 57% and from 36% to 57% among female accountant 

supervisors). The largest gains in participation occurred between FY 2014 and FY 2015.

• Contrary to expectation, statistical analysis showed that moderate levels of regular telework were associated 

with a higher likelihood of applying for promotion. 

• Trend analysis of organizational structures helped uncover occupational changes that impact the career 

mobility of accountants on rolls.

• There have been declines in the overall accountant population size with specific divisions and offices. Those 

data also showed coincident increase in the volume of employees in other occupations. Declining population 

size was concentrated in certain leadership SK-levels.

• A large proportion of accountants are relatively long tenured; individual compensation has progressed toward 

the top of the salary band for accountants at the full performance level.

• The pay bands for SK-14 accountants at the full performance level with greater experience and first level 

supervisors with fewer years of experience significantly overlap, a fact that may impact an employee’s career 

decision-making.

• Preliminary analysis of internal competitive promotion data for accountants suggests a gender difference in the 

propensity to seek promotion. Regression modeling suggests that these differences occur for similarly situated 

employees.

Insights gained from these analyses suggested the need to understand more fully an incumbent’s decision to seek 

promotion. OEEO approached Union representatives for support in reaching out to gather data from bargaining unit 

employees. OEEO has extended the timeline for this study to incorporate this expanded data collection. Toward the 

close of FY 2019, OEEO planned a second inter-Agency information sharing session related to barrier analysis. That 

session was help on September 23, 2019. OEEO welcomed 27 representatives from 20 agencies with whom OEEO 

has developed strong relations. EEOC OFO representatives involved directly in supporting barrier analysis work 

also participated in the information sharing session. In hopes of sharing approaches, methods, and learnings from 

this analysis, OEEO covered content specific to our analysis of how comparisons of accountants working different 

scheduled of telework show different patterns in applying for promotion to supervisory levels.

OHR developed and worked with NTEU to administer Competency Surveys to all employees and managers in 

November/December 2018. The responses from the surveys were integrated into a holistic view via an Agency 

dashboard and enables managers to understand real (or perceived) gaps for action planning at the local level. Efforts 

by OHR for FY 2020 include action planning at the SEC-level with regard to the ‘top five’ competencies with the 

largest gaps.
112 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER 

Section V: 

Analysis of the Attorney Occupation

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table Narrative Description of Trigger

Analysis of male attorneys Table A6 The participation rate of men in attorney 

positions at the Agency is lower than 

expected based on their availability in 

the attorney OCLF; this condition may 

be impacted at different stages of the 

employment lifecycle, i.e., recruitment, 

selection, development, and retention of 

male attorneys.

Male attorneys at the SEC had participation rates lower than the OCLF (by 9.10 

percentage points) in FY 2014. Male attorneys comprised 66.70% of the OCLF and 

57.60% of the SEC’s attorney workforce.

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group

All Men X

All Women

Hispanic or Latino Males X

Hispanic or Latino Females

White Males X

White Females

Black or African American Males X

Black or African American Females

Asian Males X

Asian Females

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males X

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females

American Indian or Alaska Native Males X

American Indian or Alaska Native Females

Two or More Races Males X

Two or More Races Females
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 113

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No) Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Workforce data tables and participation rates from FY 2012 – FY 2018 

to review the participation rates for men in the total workforce and in the 

attorney occupation

Available applicant flow data for attorney hiring from FY 2012 – FY 2018

Complaint Data (Trends) No

Grievance Data (Trends) Yes Grievances filed by attorneys between FY 2014 and FY 2018

Findings from Decisions (e.g., 

EEO, Grievance, MSPB, AntiHarassment Processes) 

No Not applicable

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS)

Yes Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data on indices and items 

related to recruiting, hiring, promotion, training, and career development

Employees’ responses to a survey conducted by a vendor in July 2014 

regarding promotions at the SEC

Employees’ responses to a Workplace Experience Survey conducted at 

the SEC during FY 2018 regarding recruiting, hiring, career development, 

promotion, recognition, and retention

Exit Interview Data Yes Employee data for the Agency’s exit survey to better understand the 

reasons for the voluntary separation among attorneys.

Focus Groups No

Interviews Yes Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR and OMWI

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM)

Yes Audit reports regarding personnel management at the SEC based on 

research from GAO

Data definitions and potential benchmark information from the Census 

Bureau and OPM defining population data for the attorney occupation in the 

civilian labor force and the federal workforce

Other (Please Describe) Yes Attorney position descriptions by grade level and across divisions/offices 

Vacancy announcements posted publicly 

Attorney demographic trends in private law practice, in particular, large law 

firms, and as in-house counsel 

Literature and reports published by, among others, the National Association 

of Legal Placement and the American Bar Association to better understand 

recruiting, hiring/lateral hiring, training, and promotion processes and 

practices at private law firms

Reports published by, among others, the American Bar Association, 

Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and Institute for Inclusion in the 

Legal Profession about best practices in recruiting and retaining attorneys, 

particularly, minority male attorneys in the federal government and law firms 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

No No
114 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Barrier Name* (required) Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

Analysis of male attorneys No barrier has yet been identified

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing?

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date From 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Investigate processes across 

the employment lifecycle for 

men in the attorney occupation 

to determine any areas needing 

improvement and begin 

developing action plans to 

help foster equal employment 

opportunity. 

07/15/2017 10/31/2021 Yes 10/31/2020

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Director, OEEO Peter J. Henry Yes

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 115

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned 

Activities

Modified 

Date From

(mm/dd/yyyy

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy)

11/30/2017 OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency 

workforce to explore perceptions of different aspects of the employee 

lifecycle among attorneys.

11/06/2017

06/30/2018 OEEO will begin reviewing written procedures and formally established 

procedures affecting the lifecycle of employees in the attorney occupation 

as they may differ from those policies and procedures applicable to other 

occupations.

6/30/2018

06/30/2019 OEEO will begin conducting interviews and/or focus groups with 

subject matter experts involved in the recruitment, hiring, development, 

recognition, and retention of attorneys.

06/30/2019

09/30/2020 OEEO will begin to conduct quantitative analysis of new hire and 

separations data to inform barrier analysis.

01/01/2021 OEEO will begin integrating and interpreting quantitative and qualitative 

data, trends across year, root causes, and identified triggers to establish 

evidence for any areas in need of improvement.

01/31/2019

04/30/2021 The SEC will begin to identify actions as appropriate to help foster equal 

employment opportunity.

07/31/2020

6/30/2021 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed on this study.

10/30/2020

8/31/2021 Briefings for Division and Office leadership for the attorney workforce.

10/31/2021 OEEO Director initiates project close out and transition to ongoing 

monitoring.

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2018 The following provides detail about analytic work OEEO conducted in FY 2018 in support of this analysis:

1. Continued to analyze applicant flow data for attorney hiring. 

2. Researched and reviewed trends in demographics by gender and race and ethnicity of attorneys working in 

private law firms and as in-house counsel. 

3. Reviewed vacancy announcements and relevant written policies and procedures related to the employment of 

attorneys at the SEC.

4. Conducted more detailed research and analysis on attorney labor force demographics by gender, industry, and 

earnings brackets. These data help determine the availability of male attorneys in the applicant pool from which 

the SEC hires. 

5. Analyzed SEC workforce data on the number and participation of permanent attorneys by gender, race, 

ethnicity, Division/Office, and grade starting at SK-11 through SO. 

6. Conducted research to better understand successful recruiting, hiring, lateral transfer, training, promotion, 

and retention processes and practices for attorneys working in private law firms, corporate America, and the 

federal government.

FY 2019 The following provides detail about analytic work OEEO conducted in FY 2019 in support of this analysis:

• Interviewed subject matter experts in OHR and OMWI regarding recruitment and hiring under the attorney 

hiring policy and procedures.

• Analyzed data regarding new hires, promotions, and separations of attorneys.

• Began reviewing records documenting applicant flow and selection decisions for specific attorney vacancy 

postings.

• Began reviewing available Exit Survey data to better understand the reasons attorneys are voluntarily 

separating from the Commission.
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 117

SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR 

THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, 

ADVANCEMENT, AND RETENTION OF 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (PART J)

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.

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

This report presents results for both persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with targeted 

disabilities (PWTD) calculated in cluster results based on the locality adjusted salary specified 

in the revised regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

compared to the locality adjusted salary of a GS-11, step 1, in the Washington, DC area. For 

FY 2019, that salary was $69,581. Participation of PWD and PWTD are presented to assess 

against the specific numerical goals found in EEOC regulations to identify the presence of any 

triggers. A trigger is a trend, difference, variance, outlier, or anomaly that suggests the need for 

further inquiry into a particular policy, practice, procedure, or condition. Statistics are only a 

starting point for analysis, which considers the totality of the circumstances.

For employees with salaries below a GS-11, step 1, the Agency achieved the numerical goal 

for PWD participation; 43.75% of employees in this cluster were PWD compared to the 

12% benchmark. See Table B5-1.

Continued on the next page
118 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In FY 2019, SEC included permanent and temporary employees hired under authorities that 

take disability into account as PWD under hiring authority pursuant to EEOC regulation.

In this report, permanent and temporary employees who are not self-identified on standard 

form 256 (SF-256) and whose personnel record documents veterans’ preference for hiring 

as “CPS—preference based on compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” 

are included in the total PWD workforce data tables. Similarly, permanent and temporary 

employees not self-identified on SF-256 and whose personnel record documents that they 

were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A, part u (5 C.F.R. §

213.3102(u) Appointment of persons with intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, 

or psychiatric disabilities) are included in the total PWD workforce for purposes of utilization 

analysis. This action added 41 permanent employees to the PWD workforce data. The 

workforce data tables included with this report40 and the analyses described in Parts J and 

below reflect this change. Prior year data for such employees was updated for comparison.

For employees with locality adjusted salaries above a GS-11, step 1, the Agency did not 

achieve the numerical goal involving PWD; 8.59% of employees in this cluster were PWD 

compared to the 12% benchmark. While the numerical goal was not achieved, the current 

participation rate represents an increase of 2.24 percentage points since the end of FY 2015.

Between FY 2015 and FY 2019, the participation of PWD in the total workforce increased 

from 6.57% to 8.64%; participation increased in both the lower and higher salary clusters.

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

Applying the same salary clusters to PWTD as previously described, the SEC achieved 

the numerical goal established for PWTD in the lower salary cluster during FY 

2019. In the lower salary cluster, 6.25% of 16 permanent employees are PWTD. The 

numerical goal for PWTD among higher salaried employees was five one hundredths 

of a percent below the goal; 1.95% of higher salaried employees are PWTD.

40 In the workforce data Tables B1 through B9 accompanying this report, such employees are reported under the column 

titled “Other PWD” and combined with self-identified employees in the column titled “Total PWD”. As per guidance 

from EEOC, in EEOC’s data portal, FedSEP, SEC reports such persons in Tables B1 through B9 in the column labeled: 

“Disability (02-03, 06-99).” 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 119

3. Describe how the Agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers 

and/or recruiters.

Hiring goals for PWTD (i.e., 2% of the total workforce) are communicated to hiring managers 

during quarterly Office of Human Resources Steering Committee meetings. Additionally, metrics for 

disability hiring are published monthly and at the end of the year by the SEC’s Office of the Chief 

Operating Officer. The overall percentage of employees who are PWTD is posted in the Diversity 

Dashboard sponsored by OMWI and the Diversity Council.

To augment these information sources, OHR implemented the Human Capital Reporting & 

Analytics (HCRA) dashboard in the second half of FY 2018 and continued to support managers 

in FY 2019. The HCRA provides, among other key human capital metrics, aggregate data on 

the disability status for self-identified PWD and PWTD. A series of data filters enable leaders 

to understand employee gains and losses within their particular Division or Office for specific 

occupations, grades, and duty stations. OHR plans to use this information to support Human 

Capital strategic planning.

Throughout FY 2019 and particularly during National Disability Employment Awareness Month 

in October 2018, the Agency hosted events that focused on inclusion of persons with a disability.

As described later, these events were often sponsored and/or hosted by the Disability Interests 

Advisory Committee (DIAC). In opening and/or closing remarks, leaders noted the Agency’s goals 

for recruiting and hiring PWD, frequently mentioning the high value such employees bring to the 

Agency’s mission.

Relatedly, OHR has developed an updated 2020-2022 Recruitment Strategy, which describes the 

support and collaboration necessary from senior leadership, OEEO, and OMWI to recruit a diverse 

candidate base. The Recruitment Strategy includes the following goals, among others:

n Build a pipeline of qualified Schedule A applicants; and

n Improve Veteran recruitment efforts.

The Recruitment Strategy specifically denotes an objective to “Increase workforce 

representation for people with disabilities and people with targeted disabilities.” Specific 

strategies and tasks in the plan for recruitment explain how this objective will be 

accomplished.

Continued on the next page
120 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

For specific hiring actions, OHR continues to address special hiring authorities, including 

Schedule A, in conversations with hiring managers to reinforce progress toward achieving 

numerical goals. A checklist is used by OHR Staffing specialists when vacant positions are 

identified to ensure hiring managers understand all their options for filling positions, including 

using Schedule A and veterans’ hiring authorities for those applicants with a service-connected 

disability of 30% or more.

OEEO led periodic meetings with a cross-functional working group comprised of 

representatives from OHR and OMWI, including those who support recruiting, to discuss 

MD-715 and the Agency’s progress related to equal employment opportunity, participation, 

and inclusion of employees and applicants for employment. For these meetings, OEEO 

provided up-to-date information from the Agency workforce data tables and highlighted areas 

for discussion, including goals and progress related to the participation and inclusion of PWD 

and PWTD.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 121

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.

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

The Agency designates talent acquisition resources and FTE to Special Programs classification, 

recruitment, and staffing in support of the disability program.

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

Number of Full-Time Equivalent Staff 

by Employment Status

Responsible Official

Full Time Part Time (Name, Title, Office, Email)

Collateral 

Duty

Processing applications from PWD 

and PWTD

13 0 0 Kai Petty, Lead HR Specialist

Office of Human Resources

pettyka@sec.gov

Answering questions from the public 

about hiring authorities that take 

disability into account

13 0 0 Kai Petty, Lead HR Specialist

Office of Human Resources

pettyka@sec.gov

Processing reasonable 

accommodation requests from 

applicants and employees

3 0 0 Dia Gonsalves, 

Disability Program Officer 

Office of Human Resources

gonsalvesd@sec.gov

Section 508 Compliance 1 0 0 Sharvon Jones, Governance Branch,

Office of Information Technology

jonessh@sec.gov

Architectural Barriers Act Compliance 0 0 3 Ray Ferrari, RA, LEED AP, Architect, 

Office of Support Operations (OSO)-Office 

of Building Operations (OBO) 

FerrariR@sec.gov

Jinhee Kim, RA, LEED AP, Architect,

OSO-OBO 

KimJin@sec.gov

Carla Hairston; NCIDQ, COEE, 

OSO-OBO

HairstonC@sec.gov

Special Emphasis Program for PWD 

and PWTD

2 0 0 Xiya Li, Branch Chief

Office of Human Resources

lixiy@sec.gov

Kai Petty, Lead HR Specialist

Office of Human Resources

pettyka@sec.gov
122 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 upcoming year.

Yes X No 0

The two and a half full-time employees who work on the disability program staff came 

to the Agency with significant HR experience in the federal government, but were new to 

reasonable accommodation programs and the responsibilities inherent in responding to 

reasonable accommodation requests. They received on-the-job training from the Disability 

Program Officer and departing Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator and periodically 

attended training programs and reviewed recent case law to stay apprised of the current 

developments in this area. Additionally, the Disability Program Officer, representing the 

half-time employee, also responded to reasonable accommodation requests when possible 

while managing a diverse portfolio of other HR programs. The Disability Program Officer 

completed courses specific to recruiting, accommodating, hiring, and retaining PWD via 

OPM’s HR University and the SEC’s Learning Management System, LEAP, in addition to 

the general training received.

More generally, all of the SEC’s HR specialists have completed training courses related 

to staffing and placement offered by the USDA Graduate School or OPM and through 

various other platforms. The Agency’s training and development office also offers learning 

options that include processing applications for PWD. The Agency will continue these 

practices in the future.

Changes are planned in line with implementation of requirements and recommendations 

under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. Those changes will require more focused and 

specific training on related policy and procedure post implementation for both HR specialists 

and disability program staff.

Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program

1. 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

The Agency was resourced adequately during the reporting period to implement the disability 

program successfully.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 123

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.

Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities

1. Describe the programs and resources the Agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, 

including individuals with targeted disabilities.

OHR continued to take steps toward improving the participation of PWD and PWTD 

in applicant pools. Since focusing on these efforts under OHR’s 2018-2019 Recruitment 

Strategy, the SEC has realized an increase in the overall representation of people with 

disabilities through effective recruitment and outreach efforts that identify the Agency as an 

employer of choice.

Despite the government shutdown, the Agency maintained a physical recruitment presence 

in FY 2019. The SEC attended over 17 career fairs and events supporting efforts in building 

pipelines for future employment.

The SEC is committed to being a model employer for people with disabilities; as such, the 

SEC introduced a more direct and streamlined approach to the general hiring process using 

the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with disabilities. This streamlined approach 

required all external hiring requests be filtered through the Selective Placement Program 

Coordinator (SPPC) for review. The SPPC referred qualified applicants to hiring managers 

prior to or concurrently with the general staffing process. OHR will continue to leverage the 

DIAC for recruitment resources and assistance. Further, OHR will continue to retain and 

review applications from people with disabilities for future openings and will conduct targeted 

outreach to connect with qualified candidates by collaborating with community-based 

partners such as nonprofit organizations, national and local disability organizations, and 

federally funded state and local employment programs.
124 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

2. 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.

The Agency uses a variety of available resources that support hiring through Schedule A 

and other hiring authorities that take disability into account. During FY 2019, the Special 

Programs Manager continued to source potential candidates from available resources such as 

OPM’s Shared List of People with Disabilities. 

The Special Programs Manager receives notifications and newsletters from the following 

groups and transmits information to OHR staff engaged in recruiting:

n EARN—Employer Assistance Resource Network: askearn.org

n JAN—Job Accommodation Network: askjan.org

n ODEP—Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department Of Labor: 

dol.gov/odep/

n OWF—Operation Warfighter Program: warriorcare.dodlive.mil/carecoordination/

operation-warfighter/

3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account 

(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.

The following describes two procedures for processing applications under the Schedule A hiring 

authority for persons with disabilities, one used in response to a specific vacancy posting and the 

other for unsolicited Schedule A applications.

The Office of Human Resources processes Schedule A applications in response to a Job 

Opportunity Announcement (JOA).

Applicants who wish to be considered for a specific vacancy under the Schedule A hiring 

authority must submit the appropriate documentation when applying for a current open JOA.

The SEC defers to the OPM-identified appropriate documentation. Applications are reviewed by 

HR specialists to determine if the applicant is minimally qualified as identified in the JOA. If the 

applicant is minimally qualified, that individual is referred to the hiring manager on a separate 

certificate of eligible candidates. HR specialists provide written guidance to hiring managers via 

email that explains how Schedule A applicants can be selected once the certificate has been issued.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 125

The Office of Human Resources also processes unsolicited Schedule A applications. 

Applicants who wish to be considered under the Schedule A hiring authority, outside the process 

for a specific vacancy posting, must submit the appropriate documentation as identified by OPM 

with their application. The Special Programs Manager will proactively contact the prospective 

applicant if the individual did not submit the required documentation. The application will not be 

processed until the appropriate documentation is received.

Resumes submitted directly to the Special Programs Manager are reviewed to determine the 

potential job series the applicant may be suitable for based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

identified on the applicant’s resume. Building a pool of qualified candidates is important to the 

SEC; as such, the Agency has developed a Schedule A Resume Database.

The SEC process for hiring starts with a Staffing Action Request Form (SARF) submitted by the 

hiring manager. When a SARF is received by OHR, the Special Programs Manager compiles a 

certificate of eligible candidates from the database per the job series and refers candidates to hiring 

managers. In some cases, the Special Programs Manager conducts a one-on-one consultation with 

the hiring manager to discuss the certificate of eligible candidates, as appropriate.

The SEC’s administrative regulations on its Veterans Employment Program provides instruction 

for hiring veterans with disabilities and was last updated in January 2017. The Agency’s 

administrative regulations are available upon request.

4. 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 this training.

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

OHR partnered with the DIAC to host the first Hiring Manager’s Forum on Schedule A 

Disability and Veterans’ hiring authorities in an effort to further educate SEC hiring managers 

and promote the use of such authorities. The event was sponsored by SEC leadership and 

featured an in-depth presentation by the Special Hiring Programs Manager, a panel discussion 

with senior managers from across the Agency who shared their experience using Schedule A 

to hire staff, and a Q&A session.

In FY 2019, periodic training occurred with each hiring manager who requested to fill a 

position. The hiring checklist used by the staffing specialists contains a Schedule A section 

that is discussed in-depth during the one-on-one hiring conversation. The specialist trains the 

hiring manager on the various procedures of the Schedule A hiring process and offers it as a 

course of action where applicable.

Continued on the next page
126 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In FY 2019, the Agency successfully recruited and hired staff through Schedule A following 

two years of no Schedule A hiring. In addition, recruitment under Schedule A procedures 

led to the eventual hire of a veteran with a service-connected disability directly into the 

competitive service. DIAC and the Disability Program Office will continue to promote such 

successful Schedule A hiring to support the Agency’s Strategic Recruitment Plan amongst 

hiring managers.

The Disability Program Manager speaks at DIAC meetings/events on a regular and recurring 

basis on a variety of topics, including the hiring authorities that take disability into account.

Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations

1. Describe the Agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist 

PWD, including PWTD, in securing and maintaining employment.

The SEC’s Special Programs Manager continued to maintain established partnerships 

with organizations that assist PWD in securing and maintaining employment. The Special 

Programs Manager updates the SEC’s list of affinity organizations to maintain contact and 

foster relationships for recruitment events and candidate sourcing.

The SEC is currently exploring a potential partnership with Broad Futures, which is a 

DC-based organization that places students with learning disabilities into government and 

private sector internships. The SEC plans to explore this partnership further in FY 2020.

The Special Programs Manager maintains an ongoing relationship with the SEC’s DIAC 

and the Veterans Committee.

The SEC continued the pilot of the Operation Warfighter Program (OWF) during FY 2019.

OWF is an internship program created by the Department of Defense that matches qualified 

wounded, ill, and injured service members with non-funded federal internships for them 

to gain valuable work experience during recovery and rehabilitation. The SEC is finalizing 

program policies and procedures and plans to implement Agency-wide in FY 2020.

Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) 

1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for 

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 0 No X
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 127

Data from FY 2019 presented in Table B1 were reviewed for evidence of differences in hiring 

into the permanent workforce. The Agency did not achieve a 12% participation rate for PWD 

among new hires in the permanent workforce. The Agency did achieve the numerical goal of 

2% participation of PWTD among permanent new hires. In FY 2019, the Agency hired 53 

permanent employees, among them were five (9.43%) employees who are PWD and three 

(5.66%) PWTD.

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 0 No X

In FY 2019, Table B6 was reviewed for evidence of triggers in the hiring of permanent 

employees into MCO positions. From these data, no PWD or PWTD applicants were found 

qualified for two out of five of the MCO positions, securities compliance examiner and 

economist, and no PWTD were found in the qualified applicant pool for accountants. PWD 

were found in the qualified applicant pools for attorneys, accountants, and IT management 

specialists; qualified applicants for attorney and IT management positions also included 

PWTD. In FY 2019, the SEC hired and onboarded a total of 53 permanent staff employees.

Among these newly hired staff members were 39 persons in MCO positions, 28 attorneys, 

eight IT management specialists, two securities compliance examiners, and one accountant.

Three of those 39 (7.69%) newly onboarded MCO permanent staff were PWD and two 

were also PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] These were the only PWD or PWTD hired 

into MCO positions during FY 2019.

To assess these differences, the percentage of PWD in the permanent new hires for each 

occupation was compared to the qualified applicant pool (QAP). As described above (see 

Part E), the applicant flow data summarizes the phases of the hiring process through selection 

for vacancies that were posted and closed through USAJOBS during the fiscal year. The data 

in Table B6 reflect the pool of qualified applications for permanent vacancies announced 

through USAJOBS during FY 2019. In FY 2019, OPM implemented a number of actions to 

help agencies in their analysis of AFD. OPM: (1) made information about appointment type 

(permanent or temporary) available for each vacancy; (2) created a variable so that agencies 

can more easily identify supervisory versus non-supervisory vacancies; and (3) changed

Continued on the next page
128 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

AFD so that all applications submitted by the same applicant reflected a unique identifier, 

providing valuable data for agencies to analyze and identify demographic trends for successful 

and unsuccessful applicants. In future years’ reports, we anticipate fully leveraging OPM’s 

FY 2019 changes to AFD, namely, the ability to identify trends in successful and unsuccessful 

applicants based on demographic groups.

Table B6 also presents data on permanent new hires on boarded during the course of the fiscal 

year. Some newly hired staff applied for a vacancy posted in a prior fiscal year or may have 

elected not to volunteer demographic information. Differences may be observed in comparing 

the demographic statistics of the QAP and that of new hires on boarded. Triggers comparing 

the composition of PWD and PWTD in applicant flow versus new hire data should be 

interpreted with these differences in mind.

Triggers were observed for PWD in the hiring of permanent staff attorneys and accountants.

For PWTD, triggers were found for the attorney and IT management occupations.

PWD represent 3.57% of 28 newly hired permanent staff attorneys, which is below their 

participation (5.34%) in the QAP. For attorneys, the QAP for PWTD was 1.13%; no PWTD 

(0.00%) were hired as permanent staff attorneys.

One newly hired permanent employee in FY 2019 was an accountant, who was neither 

PWD nor PWTD. Two PWD were found among the QAP for accountant at 1.96%; this 

difference represents a trigger for the accountant occupation amongst PWD. No PWTD 

were found in the QAP for accountants, and none were hired; as such, no difference in 

participation was observed.

For securities compliance examiner vacancies posted in FY 2019, no PWD or PWTD were 

found in the QAP, and none were hired. As such, no difference in participation was observed.

For IT management, eight employees were hired as permanent staff in FY 2019. The QAP 

was 18.96% PWD and 2.68% PWTD, and PWD participation among new hires exceeds 

that of the QAP, and PWTD also exceeded their participation amongst the QAP. [Redacted to 

protect privacy.] 

Finally, for economists, no permanent staff economist positions were posted in FY 2019; as 

such, there was no opportunity to observe triggers in the hiring of permanent staff economists.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 129

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 X No 0

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 0

In the FY 2019 data presented in Table B6, differences were identified in the participation 

of PWD in the qualified internal applicants for competitive promotions as compared to the 

relevant applicant pool (RAP) within four of the SEC’s MCOs, i.e., attorney, accountant, 

securities compliance examiner, and IT management. Differences were also identified between 

the RAP and QAP for PWTD within the internal competitive promotion data for the MCOs 

of attorney, accountant, securities compliance examiner, and IT management.

The RAP was defined for each MCO based on the number of employees holding a qualifying 

occupation series and in the SK-levels encumbered at the Agency between SK-11 and SK-16.

Specifically, for attorneys, the RAP included all employees in the 0905 series. For accountants, 

the RAP included all employees in the 0510 series. For securities compliance examiners, 

the RAP included all employees in the 1831 and the 0501, Financial Administration and 

Program series. For the information technology management occupation, the RAP included 

all employees in the 2210 series, and for the economist occupation, the RAP included all 

employees in the 0110 series.

For attorneys, the RAP for PWD was 5.54%, and PWD represented 4.52% of the qualified 

internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.15%, and PWTD were 0.00% of the qualified 

internal applicants for attorneys. The Agency observed a small difference between the RAP 

and the qualified applicants for attorney internal promotions of PWD and PWTD.

For accountants, the RAP for PWD was 5.51%, and PWD were 13.33% of the qualified 

internal applicants. However, no PWD were referred or selected. The RAP for PWTD was 

0.90%, and no PWTD applied, suggesting a negligible difference.

For securities compliance examiners, the RAP for PWD was 7.45%, and PWD represented 

5.56% of the qualified internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.55%, and no 

PWTD applied.

For IT management, the RAP for PWD was 11.90%. There was a decline in percentage PWD 

from the applied stage (16.71%) to the qualified stage (8.67%) that brought the percentage of 

qualified applicants below the RAP. The RAP for PWTD was 1.12%, and PWTD represented 

0.67% of the qualified internal applicants, suggesting a negligible difference.

For economists, no vacancies were posted for permanent promotion. As such, no PWD or 

PWTD were found in either the RAP or the qualified internal applicant pool; therefore, no 

difference was found in participation for this occupation.
130 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please 

describe the triggers below.

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 0

The selection data indicate a difference for PWD in the attorney, accountant, securities 

compliance examiner, and IT management occupations. No competitive promotions were 

made amongst permanent staff economists in FY 2019. There was no opportunity to observe 

triggers for this MCO.

A difference was observed among PWD attorneys. The QAP for PWD was 4.52%, and PWD 

represented 2.78% of selections. There were no PWTD in the QAP, and as such there was no 

basis for comparison.

For accountants, the QAP for PWD was 13.33% (two applicants), and no PWD were 

selected. There were no PWTD in the QAP, and as such there was no basis for comparison.

For securities compliance examiners, the QAP for PWD was 5.56% (one applicant), and 

no PWD were selected. For IT management specialists, the QAP for PWD was 8.67%, and 

PWD were 11.11% of selections, indicating an increase in percentage PWD from the qualified 

to the selection stage. For PWTD, the QAP for IT management specialists was 0.67% (one 

applicant), and no PWTD were selected.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 131

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 with disabilities.

Advancement Program Plan

1. Describe the Agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities 

for advancement.

To promote equal employment opportunity, the Agency takes a number of steps to ensure 

that opportunities for advancement are open and available to all, including PWD and 

PWTD in the workforce. Information about training, mentoring programs, and career 

development options is widely shared with the workforce. The following describes efforts 

to promote opportunities for advancement.

n OHR updated and maintains a user-friendly, interactive portal, AskHR, on the SEC’s 

intranet, which provides employees with information about hiring, compensation 

and benefits, employee development, performance management, and disability 

accommodations, among a number of other topics. In addition, all employees receive 

a daily communication, SEC Today, which highlights important information about 

events and opportunities for details, training, and SEC staff accomplishments.

n The CHCO is an active member of the SEC Veterans Committee, which hosts a 

website that includes information concerning veterans’ benefits, to include a link to 

the Feds Hire Vets website that highlights special hiring authorities for veterans.

n DIAC regularly communicates with its membership, which includes PWD and 

PWTD, about its own activities, other events, developmental opportunities, and job 

postings or support available to the workforce. These more targeted communications 

help ensure that PWD and PWTD are aware of the available options and any 

processes for requesting participation or enrollment.
132 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Career Development Opportunities

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the Agency provides to its employees.

The SEC provides numerous opportunities for employees to acquire the skills and 

certifications needed to succeed in their technical positions and to progress in their careers.

Classroom-style and e-Learning programs offer an extensive array of learning opportunities 

in technical areas (e.g., courses on Hedge Funds, Mutual Funds, and Credit Derivatives, etc.) 

as well as in leadership development to SEC senior leaders and non-supervisory staff alike.

Among the variety of learning and development offerings, the SEC offers the three career 

development training programs highlighted below. Data on participation in these programs is 

captured along with other training program data below.

n The Women in Leadership program is offered once a year under the auspices of the 

Brookings Institution. Each year, the SEC provides either managers (SK-15 and SK-17 

supervisors) or non-managerial staff (SK-14 and SK-16 levels) the opportunity to 

participate in this leadership development program. Program participants from across 

federal agencies learn how to strengthen leadership qualities and explore key elements of 

senior leadership success while maintaining authenticity and balance.

n The EIG Fellows Program, coordinated by the Partnership for Public Service, strengthens 

the leadership skills of experienced federal employees through a combination of 

innovative coursework, best practices benchmarking, challenging action-learning projects, 

executive coaching, and government-wide networking. This program is offered to SEC 

employees in the SK-14 to SK-17 (a mix of supervisory and non-supervisory) levels.

SEC’s EIG Fellows attend facilitated sessions at SEC Headquarters to share what they are 

learning and to explore how this information can be applied to improve organizational 

performance, workplace relationships, and productivity.

n The Aspiring Leaders program is an interactive blended-learning program designed to 

strengthen the leadership and management skills of SEC non-supervisory (SK-13 and 

SK-14) employees. The program covers: critical leadership skills for effective supervision; 

first-line management responsibilities; understanding government policy, process, and 

regulations relevant to management; and increasing self-awareness through guided selfassessments and feedback.

The SEC’s robust training program also offers seminars targeted to specific audiences, 

including Senior Officers, managers, and employees, covering relevant subject matter. In FY 

2018, OHR continued to implement enhancements to its learning management system, LEAP.

Within this system’s MyCareer@SEC module, employees can find information about career 

paths mapped to their current position, the responsibilities and occupational requirements of 

positions in that career path, and options for training and development that would enable 

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 133

them to progress toward their career goals. SECU established initial career paths in FY 2017 

based on prior projects to define competency requirements for a variety of occupations. In FY 

2019, OHR and SECU also:

n Developed and worked with NTEU to administer a Competency Assessment Survey 

to inform workforce planning efforts and shape the future of SEC-wide training and 

development programs. The survey was launched in September 2018, and data collection 

continued into FY 2019. The data gleaned from the competency survey will be used to 

enhance the value of the new LEAP career path options.

The Agency supports employees in pursuing leadership development through a variety 

of program offerings, including both individual coaching and an Agency-wide mentoring 

program. Since 2012, 144 managers have completed a 12-session coaching engagement with 

an external coach. Coaching with an internal certified executive coach is not tracked, nor is 

demographic information captured, due to confidentiality.

OHR’s Human Capital Strategy Group continued working on a long term, multi-year 

planning effort for a leadership development program similar to the SES Candidate 

Development Programs offered by other federal agencies.

Relatedly, in early FY 2019, the Agency successfully launched a pilot mentoring program 

leading to the first cohort of 30 participants who will receive mentoring throughout FY 

2019. In the first wave, 142 permanent employees submitted a statement of interest in the 

program. On a first come, first serve basis, 30 participants were accepted into the mentoring 

program and matched with volunteer mentors with deep technical expertise and/or leadership 

experience. The SEC held formal events throughout FY 2019 to help guide the mentoring 

relationship toward success. The Inaugural Mentoring Program celebrated its finale event 

on June 26, 2019. Positive feedback about the program informed the Agency’s decision to 

institute the program ongoing. In late FY 2019, OCOO was pleased to announce the launch 

of the next Mentoring Program cohort. On September 23, 2019, 103 employees registered 

interest in participating in the next mentoring cohort. Thirty employees were paired with 

mentors for the next cohort. The SEC’s Mentoring Program will provide career development 

and support to these 30 employees from October of 2019 until the Capstone event scheduled 

for June 16, 2020. Formal program events for both mentors and participants are scheduled 

quarterly and facilitated by OCOO and SECU experts. The SEC held an orientation session 

for both mentors and participants on October 28 and 29, 2019.

Participation among PWD and PWTD in the Agency’s career development opportunities is 

provided on page 150.
134 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

2. In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that require 

competition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate.

Career Development Opportunities1

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applicants 

(#)

Selectees 

(#)

Applicants 

(%)

Selectees 

(%)

Applicants 

(%)

Selectees 

(%)

Internship Programs 103 0 5.83% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00%

Fellowship Programs 183 16 1.64% 0.00% 0.55% 0.00%

Mentoring Programs 931 30 13.98% 13.33% 3.23% 3.33%

Coaching Programs NA NA NA NA NA NA

Training Programs 1,386 1,386 10.68% 10.68% 1.80% 1.80%

Detail Programs 178 16 1.69% 6.25% 1.12% 6.25%

Other Career Development Programs NA NA NA NA NA NA

1 Two applicants for the mentoring program, who are serving under temporary appointments, were not included in this analysis. 

 Training Programs data show demographic data for all permanent employees’ registrations for training in LEAP and completed training 

opportunities during FY 2019. There is no competition for training class registration. All eligible employees who register or apply are 

invited or selected to complete the training course. Applicant and selectee participation records are thus identical. These Applicant 

registration and Selectee participation records may include more than one training opportunity per employee, representing both 

mandatory and elective courses. Therefore, the total registration and participation data exceed the total number of employees. 

 Detail Programs summarize information only for Temporary Promotions announced for competitive selection by the Agency. These data 

do not reflect detail opportunities that do not include a change to the employee’s personnel record, e.g., a detail to a job in the same pay 

grade and location.

Notes: With more limited hiring in FY 2019, there was no recruitment or hiring of applicants for Internship programs. 

The SEC does not currently have Detail Programs or Other Career Development Programs as defined for inclusion here. 

Demographic data on applicants for the Agency’s Fellowship Programs are not currently captured. Neither are such data captured for 

participants in Coaching Programs to protect the confidential relationship between employee and coach.

The SEC’s Mentoring Program was open for registration. Applications for the program were reviewed and paired with volunteers to serve 

as mentors from among the Agency’s leadership cadre. 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 135

3. 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 X No 0

b. Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

From the Career Development Opportunities table above, data on the participation of PWD 

and PWTD in applications or selections for various programs were reviewed.

For the Agency’s economist and accountant Fellows programs, the Agency noted a 

difference in the participation of PWD among (external) applicants for these programs 

and eventual selections for positions. While 1.64% of applicants were PWD, none of the 

Fellows hired were PWD (0.00%).

No selections, of persons with or without disability, were eventually made among applicants 

for a Pathways Student Internship posting.

Within the Agency’s mentoring program, the Agency found no evidence of a trigger in the 

participation rate among those who expressed interest in the next cohort of the mentoring 

program (i.e., applicants) as compared to participation of PWD in the permanent workforce.

While 8.72% of all permanent staff are PWD, PWD represent 13.98% of those employees who 

expressed interest in the mentoring program and 13.33% of those selected for mentoring. The 

participation rate of PWD among those selected to participate in the mentoring program for FY 

2020 (i.e., Selectees) approximates their participation among those expressing interest.

Aggregate PWD participation in training programs approved on standard form 182 through the 

Agency’s learning management system, LEAP, exceeds their participation on rolls; 10.68% of 

training requiring separate approval on SF-182 were completed by PWD, compared to 8.72% of 

permanent employees who are PWD. PWD participation in training was higher than that among 

permanent employees; this difference was statistically significant (X2 = 27.85, p<.0001).

Data about Detailed employees show evidence of a difference disadvantaging PWD among 

those who applied for Temporary Promotion and no trigger among those selected. While 1.69% 

of applicants for temporary promotion were PWD, PWD represent 8.72% of permanent staff 

employees. A larger proportion of persons selected for a Temporary Promotion or Detail were 

PWD (6.25%) than were found among applicants (1.69%).

For other Career Development Opportunities, demographic data specific to disability status are 

not captured or maintained. The Agency will continue to offer such programming and to focus 

communication efforts to encourage participation of PWD and PWTD as described above, supra.
136 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

4. 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 X No 0

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

From the Career Development Opportunities table in Section IV.2 above, data on the participation of PWTD in various programs were reviewed for equality of employment opportunity 

in the applications or selections for these programs.

Similar to the PWD data for the Agency’s economist and accountant Fellows programs combined, the Agency noted a difference in the participation of PWTD among (external) applicants for these programs and eventual selections for positions. While 0.55% of applicants 

were PWTD, none of the Fellows hired (0.00%) were PWTD.

No selections, of persons with or without disability, were eventually made among applicants 

for a Pathways Student Internship posting.

Within the Agency’s mentoring program, the Agency noted no difference that disadvantaged 

PWTD in the participation rate among those who expressed interest in the mentoring program (i.e., applicants), as compared to PWTD among permanent staff. While 1.97% of the 

Agency’s permanent staff are PWTD, PWTD were 3.23% of those employees who expressed 

interest in the mentoring program. The participation of PWTD among employees selected for 

mentoring in FY 2020 (3.33%) exceeds that among applicants. No evidence of triggers were 

found in these data.

In the aggregate, training records show that PWTD participated in training programs 

approved on SF-182 through LEAP at rates below their participation on rolls; 1.88% of training opportunities requiring special approval were completed by PWTD, compared to 1.97% 

of PWTD permanent employees.

Data about Detailed employees show evidence of a difference disadvantaging PWTD among 

those who applied for Temporary Promotion and no trigger among those selected. While 

1.67% of applicants for temporary promotion were PWTD, PWTD represent 1.97% of permanent staff employees. A larger proportion of persons selected for a Temporary Promotion 

or Detail were PWTD (6.25%) than were found among applicants (1.67%).
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 137

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 X No 0

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Table B9-2 presents information on awards distributed to employees during the year as part 

of its employee recognition program. The EEOC has suggested that agencies consider awards 

distribution based on inclusion rates, the degree to which each employee group is distributed 

across workforce indicators, e.g., awarded or separated. Please note this analysis requires 

aggregating data to the person level as presented in Table B9-2. Employees who received at 

least one award in any particular award category are counted once in this table.

Aggregated data enables inclusion to be calculated as the proportion for all PWD and PWTD 

who received each type or category of award. In contrast, Table B9-1 presents participation 

rates among awards distributed. One employee can and often does receive more than one 

award in a year. In Table B9-1, one employee is represented more than once if he or she 

received more than one award in that category. Differences in calculation should be noted 

when interpreting data from Tables B9-1 and B9-2.

The inclusion rate for PWD was calculated by comparing the number and percent of 

employees with disabilities who received at least one award in each applicable program 

element to the number and percent of employees without a disability (this category combines 

persons with no disability and those who did not identify as having a disability) who received 

at least one award in each applicable program element.

The inclusion rate for PWTD was calculated by comparing the number and percent of 

employees with targeted disabilities who received at least one award in each applicable 

program element to the number and percent of employees without a targeted disability (this 

category combines persons with no disability, those who did not identify as having a disability, 

and those with a disability that is not targeted) who received at least one award in each 

applicable program element.

The Agency did not find a trigger in the distribution of time-off awards less than 10 hours.

There was a negligible difference among PWD for time-off awards of 11-40 hours. The 

inclusion rate for PWD at 25.54% was less than half a percentage point lower than the 

inclusion rate for persons with no disability at 25.99%. The inclusion rate for PWTD 

(26.19%) was greater than that of persons with no targeted disability (25.94%).

Continued on the next page
138 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

For cash awards, the Agency found triggers for PWD for cash awards of $1,000-$1,999 and 

$3,000 or more.

For cash awards of $1,000-$1,999, the inclusion rate for PWD was 19.89%, and the 

inclusion rate for people with no disability was 30.23%. For cash awards of $3,000 or more, 

the inclusion rate for PWD was 0.81%, and the inclusion rate for people with no disability 

was 2.18%.

For cash awards, the Agency found triggers for PWTD in the award categories of $1,000 to 

$1,999 and for the category of awards greater than $3,000.

For cash awards of $1,000-$1,999, the inclusion rate for PWTD was 13.10%, and the 

inclusion rate for people with no targeted disability was 29.65%. For cash awards of $3,000 

or more, the inclusion rate for PWTD was 0.00%, and the inclusion rate for people with no 

targeted disability was 2.10%.

The Agency is actively researching the observed differences in the distribution of discretionary 

awards as part of our barrier analysis program, described earlier in Part I of this report, supra.

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 0 No X

To address the question posed here, the following summarizes data from performancebased pay increases distributed under the Agency’s Performance Management Program

and the nature of action (NOA) code 891, Regular Performance Pay, in accordance with 

EEOC instruction for presenting these data. No trigger was found in performance-based 

pay increases.

The inclusion rate was calculated by comparing the number and percent of employees who 

received a performance-based pay increase (NOA 891) among PWD to the number and 

percent of employees with no disability (this group includes those who did not identify as 

having a disability). The inclusion rate for PWD was 100.27%, and for people without 

disabilities and those who did not self-identify with a disability, it was 100.10%. This was 

because some employees separated.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 139

The inclusion rate for PWTD was calculated by comparing the number and percent of 

PWTD who received a performance-based pay increase (NOA 891) to the number and 

percent of employees without a targeted disability (i.e., the combined total of persons with 

no disability, those who do not identify as having a disability, and those with a disability 

that is not targeted) who received such a performance-based pay increase. No difference 

was found in performance rating based pay increases. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 

101.19%, and for people without targeted disabilities (including those with no disability, 

those who did not self-identify as having a disability, and those with a disability that is not 

targeted), it was 100.10%.

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

In FY 2019, the Agency did not offer other formal recognition programs for which 

demographic data, including disability status, are captured in the human resource data 

systems. The Agency recognizes the value of recognition to support PWD and PWTD in the 

workforce; trigger analysis is not conducted for programs such as the SEC Honorary Awards 

program or any of the several honors programs offered by Division Directors.
140 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Promotions

1. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/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

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Grade GS-15

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

c. Grade GS-14

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

d. Grade GS-13

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

The SEC crosswalks the Agency’s SK alternative pay plan’s senior grade levels to the General 

Schedule according to the following equivalencies: SES = SO and EX; GS-15 = SK-15 and 

SK-17; GS-14 = SK-14 and SK-16; GS-13 = SK-13. We note that the relevant applicant pools 

(RAP) for the SK grade equivalencies of the GS-14 and GS-15 levels combine data across 

SK-grade levels. This combination was made to conform analyses to the format provided, 

though the actual RAPs for the individual SK-levels differ.

Table B7 presents the relevant FY 2019 data to assess whether triggers exist with regard 

to promotions to senior grade levels. Of 1,972 qualified internal applications for senior 

grade level positions, 307 (15.57%) were submitted by PWD. The Agency was successful in 

supporting PWD in their interest in and application for senior grade level positions. There 

were no triggers identified among qualified internal applicants to the SES, GS-15, and GS-14 

equivalent senior grades. For the GS-13 equivalent grade level, a difference was observed.

Among internal selections, differences were observed for the SES and GS-15 equivalent levels, 

but not the GS-14 or GS-13 equivalent levels. Of the 86 internal promotions to senior grade 

levels in Table B7, seven (8.14%) were PWD, which is lower than their availability in the QAP 

at 15.57%. The following presents data for each grade level equivalent.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 141

At the SES equivalent level, the RAP, comprised of all employees at grade levels SK-14 and 

higher, was 6.69% PWD, and among qualified internal applicants, a larger proportion 

(10.98%) were PWD. None of the employees selected for SO positions were PWD.

At the GS-15 equivalent level, the RAP, comprised of employees at grades SK-14, SK-15, and 

SK-16, was 6.72%, while the participation of PWD among qualified internal applicants was 

greater at 18.20%. The Agency noted a difference involving internal selections for senior 

grade levels at GS-15 equivalent grade levels; 2.86% of selections were PWD compared to 

their participation among qualified internal applicants at 18.20%.

At the GS-14 equivalent level, PWD exceeded the relevant benchmarks at the qualified 

and selected stages. The RAP, comprised of employees at grades SK-13, SK-14, and SK-15, 

was 8.02%, and the participation of PWD among qualified internal applicants was 13.67%.

On the other hand, 14.29% of selections were PWD compared to 13.67% of qualified 

internal applicants.

At the GS-13 equivalent level, the Agency noted a difference at the qualified and selected 

stages. The RAP, comprised of employees at the SK-12 level, was 16.84%, and the 

participation of PWD among qualified internal applicants was 10.77%. Among selections 

for internal promotions at the SK-13 level, 12.50% were PWD, and 10.77% of the qualified 

internal applicants were PWD.

2. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/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

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Grade GS-15

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

c. Grade GS-14

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

d. Grade GS-13

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0
142 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Applying the same comparisons to PWTD as described above for PWD, the Agency presents 

information on trigger identification for PWTD in promotions to senior grade levels. Of 1,972 

qualified internal applications for senior grade level positions, 38 (1.93%) were submitted by 

PWTD. Of the 86 promotions to senior grade levels in Table B7, none (0.00%) were PWTD.

Overall, the Agency was successful in supporting PWTD in their interest in and application 

for senior grade level positions at the highest levels and was less successful in selecting PWTD 

for those promotions.

Differences were observed in the qualified applicant pools for the GS-13 equivalent senior 

grade level and among selectees at all of the equivalent senior grade levels. No differences 

were observed in the qualified applicant pools for the GS-14, GS-15, or SES equivalent grade 

levels. The following presents data for each grade level.

At the SES equivalent, SO, grade level, the Agency notes that the RAP was 1.35% PWTD, 

and the participation among qualified internal applicants of PWTD was 1.22%. Zero 

selections for SO positions were PWTD among the qualified internal applicants.

At the GS-15 equivalent level, the RAP was 1.36%, and among the qualified internal 

applicants, 1.70% were PWTD. For the internal selections to GS-15 equivalent positions; no 

selections were PWTD.

At the GS-14 equivalent level, the RAP was 1.58% while 2.30% of the qualified internal 

applicants were PWTD. None of the selections were PWTD.

At the GS-13 equivalent level, the Agency observed a difference involving PWTD among 

qualified internal applicants. The RAP was 6.32%, and the participation of PWTD among 

qualified internal applicants was 2.05%. None of the PWTD qualified internal applicants 

were selected.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 143

3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving 

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 text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes X No 0

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes X No 0

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were previously described, the Agency presents 

information on trigger identification for PWD new hires to senior grade levels based on 

reviewing Table B6. Among the 53 newly hired staff members in FY 2019 were 48 persons 

hired into senior grade level positions, three SOs, six into GS-15 equivalent positions, 21 into 

GS-14 equivalent position positions, and 18 into GS-13 equivalent positions. Four of those 48 

(8.33%) newly hired permanent staff in senior grade levels identified as PWD. The following 

evaluates participation of PWD in each senior grade equivalent level.

As described above (see Part E), the QAP from Table B7 summarizes data where the applicant 

self-identified with a disability and qualified for the position. Data in this table describe 

vacancies for permanent positions with the SEC that were posted in USAJOBS with a closing 

date during the fiscal year. In contrast, Table B7 also presents data on new hires onboarded 

during the course of the fiscal year; some of whom applied for a vacancy posted prior to the 

start of the fiscal year. Differences may be observed in the demographic statistics of those 

selected versus those onboarded as new hires. Triggers comparing the composition of PWD 

and PWTD in applicant flow versus new hire data should be interpreted with these difference 

in mind.

At the SES equivalent level, the QAP was 1.37% PWD, and none of the three newly hired 

permanent SOs identified as PWD.

At the GS-15 equivalent level, the QAP was 11.89% PWD, and 33.33% of the permanent 

new hires for those positions identified as PWD. [Redacted to protect privacy.]

At the GS-14 equivalent levels, the QAP was 10.81% PWD while 4.76% newly hired 

permanent staff were PWD. [Redacted to protect privacy.]

At the GS-13 equivalent level, the QAP was 13.27% PWD, while 5.56% of the new hires to 

GS-13 equivalent positions identified as PWD. [Redacted to protect privacy.]
144 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 text box.

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 X No 0

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described above in the section on promotions, 

the Agency presents information on trigger identification for PWTD new hires to senior grade 

levels. 4.17% of the newly hired permanent staff in senior grade levels were PWTD. [Redacted to 

protect privacy.]

For the senior grade level equivalent GS-14 level, the Agency found a trigger in the difference 

in participation of PWTD between qualified applicants and among new hires. Because no 

PWTD were found among the qualified applicants for SES/SO positions, no trigger was 

identified at that level.

More detail about each senior grade level follows in descending order by level.

At the GS-15 equivalent level, the QAP was 1.40%; 16.67% of new hires were PWTD.

[Redacted to protect privacy.] 

At the GS-14 equivalent level, the QAP was 2.01% PWTD; none of the newly hired GS-14 

equivalent staff were PWTD.

At the GS-13 equivalent level, the QAP was 1.76% PWTD, and 5.56% of new hires were 

PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.]

5. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/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

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Managers

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

c. Supervisors

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 145

The SEC cross-walked the Agency’s alternative pay plan supervisory levels to the Executive, 

Manager, and Supervisor levels according to the following equivalencies: Executives = SO; 

Managers = SK-17 and the supervisory Administrative Law Judges in pay plan Administrative 

Law (AL); and Supervisors = employees or positions at SK-levels below SK-17 who hold 

supervisory status. We note that, similar to the senior grade level equivalencies, the relevant 

applicant pools (RAP) for supervisory levels at the Agency combine data across multiple SK 

levels. This combination was made to conform analyses to the format provided, though the 

actual RAPs for the specific leadership levels differ.

FY 2019 data underlying Table B8 are relevant for assessing whether triggers exist with regard 

to promotions to supervisory or managerial positions. Among the promotions in FY 2019 

were 77 persons promoted to a leadership position at the supervisor, manager, or executive 

level, eight SOs, 19 managers, and 50 supervisors. 9.09% of those promoted identified as 

PWD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] The following evaluates participation of PWD in each 

leadership level.

For the executive and manager levels, the participation of PWD in the qualified internal 

applicant pool exceeds that in the RAP. Therefore, no triggers were found in the QAP data for 

executives and managers. There was a slight difference at the supervisor level. The QAP for 

PWD was 7.50%, which fell below the RAP of 8.90%.

Differences were found when comparing PWD selections into leadership positions to the 

qualified internal applicant pools at the executive and manager levels, but not the supervisor 

level. As found for senior grade levels, overall, the Agency was successful in supporting PWD 

in their interest in and application for leadership roles and was less successful in selecting 

PWD for those promotions.

For executives, the Agency had a trigger involving internal selections. The RAP, comprised of 

permanent managers with supervisory status at the SK-17 level, was 6.43% PWD, and the 

qualified internal applicants were 10.98% PWD. Therefore, no trigger was found for qualified 

internal applicants. However, the Agency found lower participation of PWD among selections.

None of the internal selections for SO positions identified as PWD, while 10.98% of the 

qualified internal applicants were PWD.

For managers, the RAP, comprised of permanent supervisors at the SK-13 through SK-15 

levels, was 7.43%, and the qualified internal applicant pool was 16.62%. Among the 

SK-17 manager selections noted in internal competitive promotion data 5.25% were PDW.

[Redacted to protect privacy.].

For supervisors, the RAP, comprised of both supervisory and non-supervisory employees at 

the SK-12 through SK-14 levels, was 8.90% PWD, and the qualified internal applicants were 

17.50% PWD. However, there was a difference found for internal selections. 12.00% PWD 

were among the internal selections for first level supervisor positions compared to 17.50% of 

the QAP. [Redacted to protect privacy.]
146 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

6. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/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

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Managers

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

c. Supervisors

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described previously, the Agency presents 

information on trigger identification for PWTD internal promotions to supervisory positions 

from Table B8. None of the promotions were PWTD. The following evaluates participation of 

PWTD in each leadership level. [Redacted to protect privacy.]

For all three leadership levels, there was no difference between the participation of PWTD in 

the qualified internal applicant pool compared to the RAP. However, differences were found 

when comparing PWTD selections into leadership positions to the qualified internal applicant 

pools for all three leadership levels. As found for senior grade levels, overall, the Agency was 

successful in supporting PWTD in their interest in and application for senior leadership roles 

and was less successful in selecting PWTD for those promotions.

For executives, the RAP was 1.29% PWTD and 1.22% of the qualified internal applicants 

were PWTD. The Agency did identify a difference in participation for PWTD involving 

internal selections; no PWTD were among the eight employees promoted to SO positions.

For managers, the RAP was 1.14% PWTD and 1.36% of the qualified internal applicants 

were PWTD. The Agency identified a difference involving internal selections; no PWTD were 

selected out of 17 manager promotions, though 1.36% of the qualified internal applicants 

were PWTD.

For supervisors, the RAP was 1.94%, and 1.74% of the qualified internal applicants were 

PWTD. None of those selected for supervisory positions were PWTD.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 147

7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

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 X No 0

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Yes X No 0

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described previously, the Agency presents 

information on trigger identification for PWD new hires into leadership positions. Table B8 

is relevant for assessing whether differences exist with regard to applicants and new hires in 

supervisory positions for PWD (this question) and PWTD (see the next question). A difference 

was found in FY 2019 new hire data for PWD at the executive and supervisor levels.

The SEC hired 53 new staff members in FY 2019. 22.22% newly hired permanent staff in 

leadership positions were PWD in manager positions. [Redacted to protect privacy.] The 

following evaluates participation of PWD in each leadership level. Because no permanent 

staff PWD employees were hired into either SO or supervisor positions, participation of 

PWD was higher among the QAP than among newly hired leaders. At the manager level, 

there was no trigger for the permanent new hires for either PWD or PWTD.

As described above (see Part E), the QAP from Table B8 summarizes data where the 

applicant self-identified with a disability and qualified for the position. Data in this pool 

describe vacancies for permanent and temporary positions with the SEC that were posted 

in USAJOBS with a closing date during the fiscal year. In contrast, Table B8 also presents 

data on new hires onboarded during the course of the fiscal year; some of whom applied 

for a vacancy posted prior to the start of the fiscal year. Differences may be observed in 

the demographic statistics of those selected versus those on boarded as new hires. Triggers 

comparing the composition of PWD and PWTD in applicant flow versus new hire data 

should be interpreted with these differences in mind.

For executives, the QAP was 1.37% PWD, and none of the newly-hired permanent 

executives identified as PWD. For managers, PWD participation of 66.67% among newly 

hired managers exceeds their participation in the QAP at 5.83%. [Redacted to protect 

privacy.] For supervisors, no PWD were newly hired into supervisory positions, while 

13.80% of the QAP were PWD.
148 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

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 X No 0

A difference was found in FY 2019 new hire data for PWTD at the supervisor level, but not 

at the executive or manager levels. 11.11% of newly hired permanent staff in leadership 

positions identified as PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.]

For executives, no PWTD (0.00%) were found in the qualified applicant pool, so there was 

no opportunity to observe a trigger. No PWTD were onboarded or selected as new hires for 

executive positions in FY 2019.

For managers, the qualified applicant pool was 0.97% PWTD, and 33.33% of the newlyhired permanent managers was PWTD. For supervisors, the qualified applicant pool was 

1.53% PWTD, and none of the newly-hired permanent supervisors identified as PWTD.

[Redacted to protect privacy.] 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 149

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 to 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.

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 SEC maintains discretion on conversions to a career or career-conditional appointment 

among employees on Schedule A appointments. As a general practice, those Schedule A 

employees who were not converted voluntarily accepted a new Schedule A appointment 

within the Agency. One employee was converted to the competitive service under the Schedule 

A hiring authority during FY 2019 within two years of the Schedule A appointment. A 

review of records for other Schedule A employees, who were hired or transferred to the SEC 

and remain on rolls at the close of FY 2019, confirms that all were converted to competitive 

service within two years of appointment.

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 X No 0

b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes 0 No X

Table B1 provides FY 2019 data on voluntary and involuntary separation by disability. These 

data were used to calculate the inclusion rates. More information about inclusion rates is 

provided above in the analysis of awards. Inclusion rates were calculated as the number of 

PWD who separated among all PWD in the workforce, compared to the same proportion 

among persons with no disability (this category is combined with those who did not selfidentify as having a disability). FY 2019 data show that PWD separated at higher rates than 

those with no disability.

Continued on the next page
150 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

For voluntary separations, the percentage of PWD exceeded that of persons without 

disabilities. The inclusion rate for PWD was 5.11%, and for people without disabilities, 

including those who did not self-identify, the inclusion rate was 3.34%.

For involuntary separations, the percentage of PWD did not exceed that of persons without 

disabilities. There were no separations for PWD (inclusion rate of 0.00%, and for people 

without disabilities, including those who did not self-identify, the inclusion rate was 0.03%).

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.

a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Using data from Table B1 to calculate the inclusion rates for PWTD, the following was found 

in FY 2019 data. Inclusion rates were calculated as the number of PWTD who separated 

among all PWTD in the workforce, compared to that same proportion among persons with 

no disability (this group also includes those who did not self-identify as having a disability and 

those with a disability that is not targeted).

For voluntary separations, the percentage of PWTD exceeded that of persons without 

disabilities. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 5.95%, and for people without disabilities, 

including those who did not self-identify, the inclusion rate was 3.44%. For involuntary 

separations, the percentage of persons without targeted disabilities exceeded that of PWTD.

There were no separations among PWTD, and for people without targeted disabilities, the 

inclusion rate was 0.02%.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 151

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 data sources.

To understand the reasons why PWD were separating from the Agency, voluntary separation 

data were more closely reviewed, combined with other demographic information about 

employees with disabilities. Analysis considered any trends in employee separation by Division 

or Office, by occupation, by grade, and by age. The most influential trend observed in these 

data was a relationship between age and disability. The largest portion of voluntary separations 

for PWD and PWTD were retirements from federal service. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 

has similarly documented the age profile of the U.S. population of PWD (Source: bls.gov/

spotlight/2018/labor-force-characteristics-of-people-with-a-disability/home.htm.).

The very small number of PWD separated under involuntary conditions limits the reliability 

of general conclusions from these data. [Redacted to protect privacy.] At the same time, 

exploring the involuntary separation of this small volume of the PWD employee population 

may be informative. With that caveat, OEEO gathered data in FY 2019 about the reasons 

for involuntarily removing PWD to uncover any preventive action or support needed for 

current and future employees. Specifically, based on technical assistance suggested by EEOC’s 

Office of Federal Operations (OFO), OEEO gathered qualitative data about PWD who were 

involuntarily separated from the Agency during FY 2017 and FY 2018. Data sources included 

records gathered as part of relevant EEO complaint activity filed by separated PWD prior 

to departure and interviews with the supervisors of these former PWD employees. The data 

included a small number of employees. [Redacted to protect privacy.] No patterns in results 

were evident that would form the basis for additional action.

The SEC invites all departing employees to complete an exit survey during their last pay 

period on SEC rolls. This survey asks exiting employees to self-identify if they have a disability 

and whether or not an accommodation was needed or provided. Among 51 employees who 

completed the exit survey in FY 2019, two self-identified as having a disability (3.92%)—and 

both employees reported that they were provided reasonable accommodation.

The small number of separating employees who self-identified with a disability and completed 

the exit survey limits the reliability of conclusions to be drawn from these data about the 

reasons why those employees left the Agency. To this end, in FY 2019 the Agency analyzed 

information from the exit survey across two fiscal years (FY 2018 and FY 2019) to support 

more general conclusions about why employees with disabilities left the SEC.

Continued on the next page
152 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In FY 2019, 56% of employees who separated and reported a disability indicated they 

left the SEC due to retirement. Of note, all departing employees who self-identified as 

having a disability were overwhelmingly more positive when responding to items on the 

exit survey related to diversity and inclusion when compared to employees who did not 

report a disability: 100% agreed that their workgroup was open to diverse viewpoints and 

backgrounds (compared to 73% of employees who did not report a disability); 89% agreed 

that their supervisor/team lead treated them with respect (versus 81%); 100% agreed their 

co-workers fostered an cohesive work environment (versus 77%); and 100% agreed policies 

and programs promoted diversity in the workplace (versus 60%). The results of the exit 

survey suggest employees who separated and indicated a disability were much more satisfied 

with SEC diversity and inclusion efforts than other separated employees.

The analyses described here were completed as part of the in-process barrier analysis for PWD 

and PWTD described more fully in Section VII, infra.

Accessibility of Technology and Facilities

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 notice explaining 

employees’ and applicants’ rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a 

description of how to file a complaint.

Information specific to the accessibility of SEC facilities and technology under Sections 504 

and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is not currently consolidated into one specific notice or 

resource. Such information can be gathered from a variety of sources, including 17 C.F.R.

§§ 200.601 to 200.670, Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap 

in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC 

504 regulations), SEC Administrative Regulation 24-10 (SECR 24-10), Information 

and Communication Technology (ICT) Section 508/Accessibility Program, and SEC 

Administrative Regulation 11-3 (SECR 11-3), Leasing Program.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 153

Information about the SEC’s Accessibility/Disability Program is posted on SEC.gov:

sec.gov/disability/sec_access.htm and sec.gov/accessibility/sec-accommodation-procedures.

pdf. SEC recently updated the Accessibility page of SEC.gov with applicable complaint-filing 

procedures under both Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Architectural 

Barriers Act. Updates included an explanation of the Rehabilitation Act and Architectural 

Barriers Act, informal processes for providing feedback about accessibility of facilities and 

technology to SEC, contact information and specific complaint processes for filing a formal 

claim related to accessibility, and additional resources for individuals to learn more. An SEC 

Administrative Regulation (SECR) and SEC Operating Procedures (SECOP) setting forth the 

complaint process related to Sections 504 and/or 508 and the Architectural Barriers Act is 

drafted, expected to be finalized in FY 2020, and will be posted on SEC.gov thereafter.

Every SEC vacancy announcement posted to USAJOBS includes information about obtaining 

accommodations, including alternative methods to apply. The name of SEC’s Special 

Programs Manager serving as the Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC) is posted 

on OPM’s website. OHR has built a separate page providing more in-depth information 

about hiring PWD (sec.gov/ohr/sec-disability-program-page.html). This page includes a 

link to an online form (sec.gov/forms/ADA4Applicants) for requesting accommodations 

in the technology-enabled job application process and information on alternate methods for 

contacting the Disability Program at the SEC.

The SEC also currently posts information on how to file an EEO complaint under, inter alia, 

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act at sec.gov/eeoinfo/eeocomplaints.htm.

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.

Information is posted on SEC.gov (http://www.sec.gov/disability/sec_access.htm.) This 

page contains the required notice explaining employees’ and applicants’ rights under the 

Architectural Barriers Act, including how to file a complaint.
154 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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.

SEC continues to improve upon current practices in place to ensure all Information 

and Communication Technology (ICT) is accessible to internal and external parties, as 

mandated by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Agency’s testing and validation process 

includes dedicated resources, testing tools, documented test processes, and a remediation 

process. The majority of ICT products and tools are tested before they are deployed. Upon 

completion of testing, project teams are notified of the defects and are instructed to submit, 

for approval, a Remediation Plan, indicating a definitive timeline in which the vendor will 

make the respective product 508 compliant.

The Office of Public Affairs has been instrumental in educating SEC staff on the guidelines 

and importance of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Training courses have been 

offered, as well as “how to” videos that inform staff of the process with making electronic 

information technologies accessible to all parties. Further, all Agency Contracting Officer 

Representatives (CORs) are required to complete Section 508 training in both FY 2019 

and in FY 2020.

The Office of Information Technology will be active in supporting the SEC Administrative 

Regulation that defines roles and responsibilities of SEC staff to address formal Section 

508 Complaint Procedures related to accessibility of IT programs and services.

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 previously approved requests 

with repetitive accommodations, such as interpreting services.)

The SEC has established a reasonable accommodation (RA) processing timeline of 20 business 

days from the day of request to fulfillment, absent extenuating circumstances. Excluding 

the provision of adjustable height tables (AHTs), in FY 2019, 57% of initial requests for 

accommodation were processed within 20 business days.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 155

The overall time frame for processing RA requests in FY 2019 was affected by a number of 

organizational and business process changes that resulted in a 15% decrease from the FY 

2018 timeliness result of 72%. Specifically, in FY 2019, changes to the procurement process 

for the purchase and installation of equipment and assistive technology impacted SECs ability 

to provide accommodations timely. In addition, the SEC initiated more consultations with 

medical experts at the Federal Occupational and Health (FOH) to complete medical reviews 

of employees with a wide range of conditions in an effort to improve their ability to do their 

jobs and maintain a high level of productivity. In FY 2019, medical reviews completed by FOH 

were processed in 37.8 days on average. Implementation of the new RA policy and operational 

procedures have also impacted efforts to implement a case management system in FY 2020.

In FY 2021 an assessment will be conducted to determine whether the FY 2020 acquisition 

review of a new Human Resources Service Delivery (HRSD) module will be a viable option for 

automating the RA workflow and case tracking for RA. The implementation of an automated 

RA system is expected to address timeliness standards set by the new SEC RA policy. Changes 

to the RA policy and operational procedures will likely necessitate updates to training, job 

aids, notices, and other information sources in FY 2020 and beyond. The Agency is currently 

engaged in a review for system design of an automated electronic case management system for 

processing RA requests as described in Part H of this report (supra).

In the meantime, a more structured set of processes and procedures were developed and used 

in FY 2019 for capturing data related to processing RA requests. The time frame for processing 

initial requests for RA during FY 2019 was 22.9 days; RA requests, excluding AHT were 

processed in 28.9 days; and requests for AHTs were processed in 11.7 days, respectively. 

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 for trends.

The interactive portal, AskHR, on the Agency’s intranet provides employees with information 

about reasonable accommodation and the processes for making requests. To support 

employees in making such a request, the Agency will replace the resource guide, “Disability 

Accommodation Procedures,” with a new RA policy and operational procedures in FY 

2020. This new guidance will be available on the interactive portal for everyone involved 

in the accommodations process. It explains how persons with disabilities should request 

accommodations, how requests are processed, and, as applicable, how requestors may seek 

review of decisions where a request has been denied.

Continued on the next page
156 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

The SEC provides temporary accommodations to employees with short-term medical 

conditions even when the condition does not constitute a covered disability when supervisory 

officials and the Disability Program Office decide that it is appropriate to do so. In FY 2019, 

the SEC processed 119 Temporary Medical Telework (TMT) requests, processed 133 RA 

requests, of which 34 were requests for telework as a reasonable accommodation.

All new SEC managers participate in mandatory training regarding the reasonable 

accommodation process as part of the LD 307 Fundamentals of Human Resource 

Management training. Additionally, the SEC’s New Employee Orientation includes a 

presentation on the following programs and processes: RA, TMT, Telework, and Leave 

(i.e., annual/sick, advance leave, and FMLA, etc.). This information is included in the New 

Employee Handbook and made available on the AskHR portal.

The SEC revisited and revised the business requirements to implement an electronic case 

management system that would allow employees to request reasonable accommodations 

personally and privately will continue in FY 2020 and beyond. While the project was 

delayed in FY 2019, OHR did create RA and TMT Request and Agreement forms to 

simplify the process for employees making requests; to ensure current, accurate, and 

complete information is obtained to reduce processing times; and to improve the reliability of 

records indicating customer approval of the reasonable accommodation(s) provided.

Additionally, OHR continues to find ways to strengthen the current manual tracking process, 

including tracking timeliness for processing RA requests, and meeting on a monthly basis 

with the CHCO to review and discuss timeliness and processing of all RA cases. The Agency 

will continue its efforts to implement the business requirements for the electronic case 

management system as further described in Part H of this report, supra.

Requests and information relative to Personal Assistance Services (PAS) remain available on 

AskHR interactive portal. The SEC intends to publish the new RA policy and operational 

procedures approved by the EEOC in FY 2020. During FY 2019, the Agency continued the 

review of the electronic case management system’s business requirements, the new policy, and 

related procedural changes that support RA for employees and applicants for employment.

Furthermore, changes to RA procedures will likely necessitate updates to training, job aids, 

notices, and other information sources in FY 2020 and beyond.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 157

Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate 

in the Workplace

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.

1. 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.

In FY 2018, the Disability Program Office updated the Agency’s Disability Accommodation 

Procedures to include information related to the PAS that was made available on the AskHR

interactive portal. In FY 2019, a new policy and operational procedures was established 

and approved by the EEOC for implementation. The SEC intends to publish the revised RA 

policy and operational procedures in FY 2020 that include information regarding PAS and 

submission requirements that will be made available on AskHR. In addition, the Agency 

modified its current contact for Personal Assistant and Reader Services to enhance the level of 

support and ensure consistent delivery of health care services. In FY 2019, employee usage of 

PAS services increased 25%. [Redacted to protect privacy.] The SEC continues to use the PAS 

form to capture requests. Data from this form will provide information that may be used to 

understand program adoption and effectiveness going forward.
158 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECTION VI: EEO COMPLAINT AND FINDINGS DATA

EEO Complaint Data Involving Harassment

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging 

harassment, as compared to the government-wide average? 

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.

During FY 2019, the Agency did not have any findings of discrimination alleging harassment 

based on disability status.

EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation

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

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable 

accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes X No 0 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 corrective measures taken 

by the Agency.

During FY 2019, the Agency did not have any findings of discrimination involving the failure 

to provide reasonable accommodation.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 159

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 any barriers (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. Identify each trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s), 

objective(s), responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, accomplishments.

Analyses of Persons with Disability and Targeted Disability in the Workforce

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A POTENTIAL BARRIER:

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue. 

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

There was a lower-than-expected participation rate of Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTD) in the total workforce and in promotions 

to higher level positions when this study was initiated based on data from FY 2014. The participation rate of PWTD in the SEC’s workforce 

was less than 1% in FY 2014 based on the then-current Standard Form 256 (SF-256) Self Identification of Disability. Participation of 

PWTD in the permanent workforce has increased based on the revised categories reflected in the new October 2016 version of the 

SF-256 to 2.02% in FY 2018.

In FY 2018 data, the participation rate of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in the total permanent workforce and among higher salaried 

employees as documented in responses to earlier sections of Part J is below the goal of 12% established by Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. The participation rate of higher salaried employees is 8.64%. 

Participation of PWD, and sometimes PWTD, among new hires and internal competitive promotions to mission critical, senior grade level, 

and leadership positions and among those who were selected for career development is below their availability in the relevant or qualified 

applicant pools. Further, the participation rate of PWD and PWTD among employees receiving higher value awards and for PWD among 

those separating from the Agency in both FY 2017 and FY 2018 exceeded that expected based on their participation in the total workforce 

and in comparison to persons with no disability.

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table 

Workforce Data Table (if so identify the table) Tables B1 through B9

EEO Complaint(s)

Grievance(s)

Climate Assessment Survey

Exit Interview(s)
160 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table 

Anecdotal

Other 

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group

Persons with Disability X

Persons with Targeted Disability X

Barrier Analysis Process 

Source of the Trigger

Source 

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Workforce data tables and participation rates for PWD and 

PWTD from FY 2011 – FY 2018

Demographic information related to retention for separated and 

on rolls PWD

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes EEO complaint activity filed between FY 2012 – FY 2017 to 

identify any trends in complaints filed by PWD or PWTD

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., FEVS) Yes Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data to compare 

responses from persons with disabilities to those with no 

disability

Responses from PWD and PWTD to a Workplace Experience 

Survey conducted at the SEC during FY 2018

Exit Interview Data Yes Responses provided by PWD to the Agency’s exit survey data 

from FY 2016 through FY 2018

Focus Groups No

Interviews Yes Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR and OMWI and 

subject matter experts in disabled student service offices at 

Gallaudet University and Rochester Institute of Technology

Interviews with the managers of PWD involuntarily separated 

during FY 2018 to uncover any preventable reasons for 

separation

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, MSPB, GAO, 

OPM)

Yes Reports and regulations related to the employment of PWD and 

PWTD in the federal workforce offered by OPM, EEOC, DOL/

ODEP, EARN, and other agencies and supporting organizations
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 161

Source of the Trigger

Source 

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Other (Please Describe) Yes Laws and federally mandated hiring and promotions policies, 

practices, and procedures applicable to recruitment and retention 

of persons with disabilities

The Agency’s hiring and promotions policies, practices, and 

procedures applicable to people with disabilities, including those 

with targeted disabilities

Selection case files (hiring and promotions) from FY 2014 and 

FY 2015

Research literature, collective bargaining agreement language, 

and reports to better understand career development, promotion, 

retention, or recruiting and hiring processes related to PWD and 

PWTD

Information about best practices in recruiting PWD in the federal 

government and private industry

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) 

Barrier Name* (required) Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

No barrier has yet been identified pending further analysis. While the Agency has not identified specific policies, practices, 

or procedures that represent a “barrier that affects employment 

opportunity for PWD or PWTD,” representatives of OEEO and OHR 

agreed to take action toward enhancing equal employment opportunity 

for persons with targeted disabilities in the following areas:

• Develop and implement policies and procedures specific to the 

recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of persons with 

disabilities (PWD) or persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD) 

that are aligned with the federal government-wide flexibilities and 

requirements for affirmative action;

• Enhance consistency and structure in the posting, screening, and 

interview processes for selection; and

• Create awareness on the part of hiring managers and subject 

matter experts (or others involved in the Agency’s recruitment and 

selection processes) about the requirements for, and flexibilities 

available under, government-wide programs supporting PWD and 

the affirmative action plan for PWTD; and employment programs, 

especially reasonable accommodation and disability programs, 

supportive of PWD and PWTD.
162 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date 

Initiated

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Target 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date From

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Date 

Completed

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Objective

10/01/2015 10/31/2020 Yes 09/30/2020 The objective of these efforts will 

be to continue to implement action 

plans developed to address the 

experience of PWTD and expand 

those plans to cover PWD in line 

with the revised EEOC regulations. 

Additional action will focus on:

• Analysis of quantitative and 

qualitative data, including 

employee perceptions 

among the population of 

PWD and PWTD;

• Implementing the 

recommended and required 

actions under Section 501 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973;

• Implementing, as feasible, 

revisions to the workforce 

data tables presenting 

information on PWD and 

PWTD, as per instruction 

from EEOC; and

• Reviewing and updating 

agreed-upon action plans 

to address the broader 

population of PWD and/or to 

cover Section 501 regulatory 

changes.

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan? 

(Yes or No)

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes

Director, OEEO Peter J. Henry Yes
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 163

Planned Activities toward Completion of Objective 

Target 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned 

Activities

Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date From

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

11/30/2017 OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey

of the Agency workforce to explore employee 

perceptions among the population of PWD and 

PWTD as well as those without disabilities on, 

among other topics, the recruitment, hiring, 

promotion, recognition, and retention of talent.

Yes 11/6/2017

01/31/2018 The Agency will establish a cross-functional working 

group with representatives from OEEO and OHR 

to develop action plans and implement required 

and recommended activity under Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Yes 11/02/2017

03/31/2019 OEEO will gather data to determine the reasons 

for removal of PWD by reviewing data on file 

from any specific EEO activity and interviewing 

the supervisors of PWD who were involuntarily 

separated in FY 2017 and FY 2018.

Yes 3/31/2019

10/31/2020 OEEO will implement feasible changes to the 

workforce data tables providing information on PWD 

and PWTD in collaboration with a shared service 

provider.

Yes 09/30/2019

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2016 OHR engaged in the following recruitment/outreach initiatives:

• Partnered with the Department of the Army’s Wounded Warriors Program and Department of Labor 

to successfully implement a Disability Hiring Event, which resulted in the direct hire of two persons 

with disabilities;

• Participated in two Career Fairs: EOP Career Fair and Veterans’ Resource Expo;

• Partnered with George Mason University and implemented the MASON Life Program at the SEC and 

sponsored internships for students with intellectual and physical disabilities;

• Partnered with DIAC to solicit participation in career fairs and leverage their professional networks/

partnerships with other organizations;

• Explored recruiting strategies among various federal and state rehabilitation centers and affinity 

groups; and

• Attended and sponsored the New Perspectives training conference. 

OHR completed the following:

• Training managers and supervisors to ensure they are aware of how the Schedule A hiring authority is used 

by the SEC to hire persons with severe disabilities and the role of managers/supervisors in the recruitment 

and hiring process;

• Surveying disability organizations at universities near the SEC Home Office and Regional Offices to obtain 

information to improve recruitment of applicants with disabilities;

• Using the Hiring Checklist in strategic conversations with hiring managers to ensure they are aware of 

flexibilities available to hire persons with disabilities;

• Implementing and monitoring compliance with the Agency’s selection policy memorandum outlining the 

requirements for screening and interviewing job candidates (published on September 26, 2016); and

• Developing and refining targeted recruitment strategy and performance metrics to measure effectiveness of 

the Agency’s outreach efforts to applicants with disabilities.
164 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2017 In January 2017, the EEOC issued revised regulations under the federal government’s obligation to engage 

in affirmative action for people with disabilities that modified Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This 

revision addresses the hiring, retention, and career opportunity for persons with disabilities and those with targeted 

disabilities. OEEO had previously initiated barrier analysis focused on persons with targeted disabilities. As the 

Agency prepares for implementation of the revised regulation in FY 2018, OEEO will leverage or expand this prior 

work to include the population of persons with disabilities in the workforce.

Representatives from OEEO and OHR implemented a number of actions responsive to the recommendations from 

the original study of the SEC’s PWTD workforce, including:

• Reviewing best practices and recommendations from OPM and the EEOC regarding the employment of 

PWD and PWTD;

• Publishing revised policy on Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates that requires 

documentation for each hiring action;

• Developing an enhanced communication plan, including open information sessions, on the requirements 

under the revised policy for screening and interviewing job candidates (these sessions improve transparency 

and further educate SEC employees on available career opportunities and resources);

• Conducting training open to all employees and mandatory training for anyone involved in the hiring or 

promotions process;

• Increasing the quality of interaction between HR specialists and hiring managers toward more strategic 

conversation and the consideration of hiring options that take disability into account;

• Reviewing OHR’s FY 2017 Strategic Recruitment Plan;

• Resurveying the workforce in July and August of 2017 to encourage review of employee data and selfidentification of disability;

• Continuing to evaluate workforce and applicant flow data to determine progress towards removing the 

potential barriers for PWTD, including reviewing the impact of revised disability and targeted disability 

categories in the revised SF-256 as they influence participation of PWD and PWTD;

• Verifying the hiring and assignment of a Special Programs Manager within OHR focused on supporting the 

recruitment, hiring, development, and retention of PWD and PWTD; and

• Developing an enhanced communications plan, in concert with DIAC, which included hosting guest 

speakers, events and open information sessions supporting the population of PWD and PWTD.

In Quarter (Q2) and Q4 of FY 2017, representatives from OEEO and OHR worked together on transitioning to the 

new October 2016 version of SF-256 Self-Identification of Disability. OHR recoded employees on rolls against the 

categories of disability on the new form in Q2 of FY 2017. OHR and OEEO jointly sponsored a resurvey of the 

workforce in July and August 2017 (Q4). As part of this resurvey effort, OHR provided each employee individualized 

information showing their current demographic and disability coding. The resurvey encouraged employees to 

verify and update their disability information. Employees could update their personal information through either 

employee self-service or with individualized support from OHR for personnel processing. The resurvey of the 

workforce included a broad-based outreach and communications campaign to all employees, to include messaging 

describing the value of self-identification, as suggested by OPM’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Pre- and postanalysis of the resurvey effort showed that 76 employees had their disability information change in some way with a 

net increase of 20 persons with disabilities (7%) and three persons with targeted disabilities (3%).

Further, to support the accurate reporting of information about PWD and PWTD from FPPS, OEEO contracted 

with a service provider to develop an automated tool that extracts, accurately codes, summarizes, and provides 

reporting on demographic information about employees and applicants for employment. This tool, the Equal 

Employment Opportunity–Analytic Tool (EEO-AT), was used to generate the data for workforce data tables in this 

report as well as the responses to data-related questions. The EEO-AT provides for more efficient and accurate 

summary data, more effective interface with FedSEP, and greater facility for OEEO to respond to anticipated and 

future changes to reporting demographic information. 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 165

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2018 The following provides detail about OEEO’s analytic work in support of this analysis during FY 2018.

1. OEEO conducted a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore employee perceptions 

of, among other topics, promotional opportunity, recruitment, and hiring for leadership positions. OEEO 

analyzed 1,360 responses and narrative comments from 469 employees. Among the respondents were 

90 responses from employees who self-identified as having a disability other than those targeted and 34 

responses from PWTD. Analyses compare responses on a variety of index and item level results. PWD and 

PWTD reported more favorable perceptions in the areas of: interview processes, availability of information 

about the EEO process and related policies, supervisory relations, work team inclusion, and training for 

success within occupation.

2. In line with implementation of Section 501 requirements, OEEO facilitated the Agency’s decision to include 

persons hired under authorities that take disability into account as PWD. This action allowed the Agency to 

target support, development, and retention efforts toward two persons hired under Schedule A, part u and 38 

veterans, who received hiring preference based on a service connected disability, as PWD. 

3. OEEO used a series of self-service workforce data summary tools to review the demographic composition 

and disability status data within specific occupations of the entire workforce, newly hired staff, AFD, and 

separations by critical organizational characteristics.

4. OEEO analyzed the increase in self-identification from five-year trend data. Analysis uncovered the positive 

impact of annual employee demographic resurveys and more inclusive definitions of PWD and PWTD 

between FY 2013 and FY 2018. Specifically, we observed a 0.93% point increase in self-identified PWD 

after the first annual employee resurvey in FY 2015, an additional 0.90% point increase after the changes to 

SF-256, and a 0.66% point increase as a result of the resurvey in FY 2018.

5. OEEO analyzed the number and percent of complaint records filed by PWD between FY 2013 and FY 2017. 

Results were concerning in the relative volume of complaint activity filed by PWD. The inclusion rate of PWD 

among formal or informal EEO complaint related activity was three times that of persons with no disability. 

Further, complaint activity for PWD was more likely to lead to the formal stage. 

6. With respect to retention, OEEO investigated turnover data for PWD and PWTD among those who separated 

the Agency in FY 2016 through FY 2018. These data revealed that PWD separations were more frequently due 

to retirement as compared to separations among persons with no disability; almost half of the PWD separations 

(48.00%) were coded for retirement, compared to about one third (34.75%) of separations among persons 

with no disability. Further review of these data established a correlation between age, disability, and retirement. 

PWD represent more than twice the proportion of the separations for employees over the age of 60 (17.24%) 

as compared to their participation among separations for persons under 40 (6.44%). On average, PWD in the 

Agency workforce are older (PWD average age = 49.32; No Disability average age = 46.88, t = -4.68, p<.001), 

and, therefore, more likely to be eligible for retirement.

As further explored below, OEEO and OHR established a strong cross functional approach to supporting PWD and 

PWTD in the Agency’s workforce, while leveraging OMWI’s EAG network. In recognition of this partnership, leaders 

in OHR and OEEO were invited to share their thoughts in a cross Agency panel discussion at the July meeting of 

the Federal Exchange on Employment with Disabilities (FEED).

OHR and OEEO jointly sponsored a resurvey of the workforce in July and August 2018 following successful 

resurvey efforts in prior years. OHR provided each employee individualized information showing their current 

demographic and disability coding. Pre- and post-analysis of the resurvey effort showed that 57 employees had 

their disability information change in some way with a net increase of 22 PWD (6.8%) and six PWTD (7.4%).

To understand better how the Agency can support PWD and PWTD, OHR updated the exit survey. As of 

September 2018, the Agency’s survey of departing staff, who self-identify as PWD asks: “What accommodations, 

personal assistance, or other support could improve the inclusion and advancement of individuals with disabilities 

at the SEC?” OHR plans to use and share the information with other stakeholders, including OEEO and DIAC in 

support of current and future employees with disabilities.

OHR continued to make significant enhancements to the SEC’s training and development programs, which provide 

support for the career growth of PWD. As described above in Part J, Section IV, the SEC added to the offerings 

within its career development program.

• OHR developed and worked with NTEU to finalize a Competency Assessment Survey to inform workforce 

planning efforts and shape the future of SEC-wide training and development programs. The survey was 

launched in September 2018, and data collection continued into the new fiscal year.

• In early FY 2018, OHR-SECU implemented development plans for specific occupations or combinations 

of occupations in the Agency’s learning management system, LEAP. The development plan for examiners 

and accountants includes suggested developmental activities and training classes focused on specific 

technical knowledge and skill. Further, LEAP provides career path information based on the career ladders 

and occupational series to enable employees to identify the next step in development within occupation or to 

find lateral transfer opportunities based on competency profile similarity. These tools support employees in 

pursuing career growth within the Agency.

• SECU expanded offerings under the Career Horizons program that provide individualized support for 

employees in creating development plans and pursuing career growth.
166 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2018 (continued) In recognition of the critical importance of mentoring to support career development, the Agency considered options 

for and developed a pilot mentoring program. In June and July of 2018, a pilot was successfully launched leading to 

the first cohort of 30 participants. An orientation session for both mentors and participants was held on September 

28, 2018. Throughout FY 2019, mentors will meet with participants on a periodic basis. Formal events are planned 

to help guide the mentoring relationship toward success. To encourage participation among PWD, DIAC shared 

information about the mentoring program with their membership by quarterly meetings and their shared mailing list.

• In total, 142 permanent employees submitted a statement of interest in the program. Among them, eight 

(5.63%) were PWD, for an inclusion rate of 2.09%. By way of comparison, the inclusion rate of persons with 

no disability and those who did not self-identify among applicants was 3.37%.

• On a first come, first serve basis, 30 participants were accepted into the mentoring program (29 permanent 

and one temporary employee) and matched with volunteer mentors with either or both deep technical 

expertise and leadership experience. The 29 permanent employee participants include two (6.90%) PWD, for 

an inclusion rate of 0.52%. The inclusion rate of persons with no disability among participations was 0.68%. 

• OHR will partner with OMWI and DIAC to improve PWD participation in future mentoring program offerings.

2019 The following provides detail about OEEO’s analytic work in support of this analysis during FY 2019.

1. In line with implementation of Section 501 requirements, OEEO facilitated the Agency’s decision to include 

persons hired under authorities that take disability into account as PWD. This action allowed the Agency to 

target support, development, and retention efforts toward two persons hired under Schedule A, Part U, and 

39 veterans who received hiring preference based on a service connected disability, as PWD. 

2. OEEO used a series of self-service workforce data summary tools to review the demographic composition 

and disability status data within specific occupations of the entire workforce, newly hired staff, AFD, and 

separations by critical organizational characteristics. Workforce data demonstrate the steady participation of 

PWD and PWTD meeting the goals established for both PWD and PWTD among lower salaried employees 

and PWTD among employees in the higher salary cluster. More work will be needed to meet the participation 

of PWD in the higher salary cluster.

3. With respect to awards and recognition, OEEO ran multiple regressions to assess the influence of various 

factors on awards distribution outcomes aggregated by award amounts, award hours, and award counts. 

Data were analyzed for five years, FY 2013 through FY 2017. The sample sizes were small, limiting the 

reliability of the inconsistent effects found for PWD. 

4. Based on technical assistance suggested by EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO), OEEO gathered 

qualitative data about the involuntary separation of PWD during FY 2019. Data sources included records 

gathered as part of relevant EEO complaint activity filed by separated PWD prior to departure and interviews 

with the supervisors of former PWD employees. The data included a small number of employees. No 

patterns in results were evident that would form the basis for additional action. 

5. OEEO reviewed separations data among PWD in FY 2019. A larger proportion of the PWD population 

separated from the Agency, as has been found in prior years. More often than is found for persons with no 

disability, PWD separate through voluntary retirement; 60.00% of PWD separations were due to voluntary 

retirement, unfortunately an additional 10.00% of the separated PWD died during FY 2019. By way of 

comparison, among the separated employees identified as having no disability, 28.46% retired and 0.81% 

died during FY 2019. The relationship between age, disability, and retirement is a key explanatory variable to 

understand separation data for PWD.

6. Relatedly, OEEO worked with OHR to evaluate the perceptions of separated employees who are PWD from 

the Agency’s Exit Survey. These analyses are summarized in other sections of this report.

7. OEEO led an inter-Agency working group to support the implementation of changes to procedures required 

or suggested by the revised Section 501 regulation. This working group met two times in FY 2019 and 

continued to provide support for agencies seeking to improve conditions for PWD across the government. 

In total 14 agencies are represented. The working group helps agencies share best practices and support 

their own workforce more effectively. In early FY 2020, OEEO facilitated this working group’s visibility and 

achievement in a presentation at the monthly EEO Director’s meeting, thereby, increasing the group’s 

influence in the EEO community.

8. In FY 2019, OEEO collaborated with cross functional intra-Agency representatives to develop and publish 

a suite of interactive web pages sharing tips for working inclusively with PWD in the workforce. These 

tips include resources both within the Agency and externally hosted focused on helping supervisors and 

coworkers gain a deeper understanding of how their words and actions may impact PWD differently based 

on their particular experiences. This effort involved strong participation from DIAC, OHR, OMWI, and the 

Office of Public Affairs. The resources were compiled between July and September and made available to 

the workforce during National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM).
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 167

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2019 (continued) 9. In concert with launching the disability inclusion tips, DIAC, OHR, OMWI, and OEEO hosted invited speakers 

whose expertise and study focuses on self-identification and support for PWD (among other groups). That 

event closed out a highly successful set of NDEAM events including an eyeglasses donation drive in support 

of the Lion’s Club’s well known program.

10. OPA continued to expand the support for PWD when they are interacting with SEC staff and resources. 

During FY 2019, the external website was modified for increased accessibility to a wider range of members 

of the public.

11. OEEO continued to work on implementing the changes required by OFO’s instructions for MD-715 2.0. 

Working with data experts in other agencies, OEEO leads the community to understand better the implications 

of 2.0 design for reporting and analysis. In particular, OEEO supported work in the following areas:

— Suggested enhancements to the data provided about applicant flow data (AFD) from OPM’s USAStaffing 

systems. These suggestions helped to ensure that the revised reporting from AFD included variables to 

distinguish supervisory roles and the hiring of permanent versus temporary staff.

— Summarized and analyzed differences in self-identification for internal SEC staff from the records of 

applicants, even those who are also SEC staff, filed on the applicant profile in USAStaffing. Among data in 

AFD over the five year period from FY 2012 to FY 2018, more than 30% of the records are coded as “I do 

not wish to identify my disability.” Over the same time period, self-identification among internal employees 

grew so that in FY 2019 more than 85% of staff are specifically identified as to their disability status. 

The differences in results from AFD compared to internal records suggests need for additional work to 

encourage applicants to self-identify in OPM’s records so as to provide a clearer and more accurate 

picture of the government’s efforts to recruit PWD into federal service.

— Engaged with contracted resources to complete the work necessary for updating and expanding the EEOAT for MD-715 2.0. As found in the annual program status report, OEEO completed the 2.0 design. OEEO 

also worked to align workforce analysis by race and gender in Part E of this report with the operational 

definitions that workforce underlie analysis by disability in Part J. Consistent definitions will help ensure 

OEEO’s continued influence through data driven practical analytics going forward.

4. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the Agency from timely completing any of the 

planned activities.

Updates to the EEOC’s timelines, instructions, and requirements under MD-715 2.0 extended 

the timeline for implementing feasible changes to workforce data tables providing information 

on PWD and PWTD in collaboration with a shared service provider. The modified date is 

September 30, 2020.
168 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

5. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those activities 

toward eliminating the barrier(s).

As described in other sections of Part J above, after a steady increase in participation over 

the past seven years, the Agency achieved the goals established under Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act for both PWTD and PWD at the lower salary levels. Because of the 

relatively small size of the PWD and PWTD populations, small changes in workforce 

participation, year over year, can have large impacts on the observed rates of change.

Nonetheless, the SEC notes the following indications of growth within this employee 

population. From FY 2013 to FY 2019:

n The permanent workforce of PWTD experienced net growth of 12 persons or 16.67%, 

which outpaces the 7.13% net growth in the total permanent workforce over that same 

time period. Participation of PWTD in the total permanent workforce rose from 1.81% 

to 1.97%. PWTD among higher salaried employees increased from 1.50% to 1.95% (56 

to 83 PWTD employees).

n The permanent PWD workforce experienced net growth of 141 persons or 66.82%.

Participation of PWD rose from 5.60% in the total workforce to 8.72% and from 4.93% 

to 8.59% among higher salaried employees, with an additional 158 persons in higher 

salaried jobs identified as PWD.

Trend data over time revealed that increased participation resulted from greater selfidentification based on employee resurveys, changes to categories defining PWD, and a 

general increase in the proportion of SEC staff in higher salaried jobs. OEEO will continue 

to monitor the PWD and PWTD workforce participation for signs of continued or 

accelerated growth and consider effects of underreporting on these statistics.

Data from SF-256s collected prior to October 2016 were recharacterized in line with the 

definitions found in the revised form in order to estimate over-time trends. Accordingly, the 

numbers of employees who are reported in this trend analysis as PWTD and/or PWD in 

prior years may underestimate the workforce due to the addition of disability and targeted 

disability categories.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 169

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.

Triggers from the original study of PWTD continue to require focused attention toward 

improvement. Starting in FY 2016 and through FY 2019, representatives of OEEO and OHR 

initiated and completed actions intended to address the recommendations to improve equal 

employment opportunity. These actions were completed in FY 2019. The Agency will be 

implementing additional required and recommended actions during FY 2020 and beyond.

In the meantime, the plan to address identified triggers for PWD and PWTD focuses on 

developing SEC’s capability to generate and review the data called for in this Part. Further 

analysis of the PWD and/or PWTD population will be considered under the framework for 

prioritizing barrier analysis work embedded in our Agile project planning approach that was 

referenced in Part E, supra.
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 171

ATTACHMENT 1.

SEC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Commissioner Commissioner Chairman Office of the Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Enforcement Corporation

Finance

Investment

Management

Economic and

Risk Analysis

Trading and

Markets

Administrative

Law Judges

Advocate for

Small Business

Capital Formation

Chief

Accountant

Chief

Operating

Officer

Credit

Ratings

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Compliance

Inspections and

Examinations

Ethics

Counsel

General

Counsel

Inspector

General

International

Affairs

Investor

Advocate

Investor

Education and

Advocacy

Legislative and

Intergovernmental

Affairs

Minority and

Women

Inclusion

Municipal

Securities

Public

Affairs Secretary

Acquisitions EDGAR Business Office

Financial

Management

Human

Resources

Information

Technology

Support

Operations

Atlanta

Regional Office

Boston

Regional Office

Chicago

Regional Office

Denver

Regional Office

Fort 

Worth

Regional Office

Los Angeles

Regional Office

Miami

Regional Office

New York

Regional Office

Philadelphia

Regional Office

Salt Lake

Regional Office

San Francisco

Regional Office
172 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SEC’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The SEC’s leadership includes a Chairman and four Commissioners located at the SEC’s 

Headquarters in Washington, DC.

The SEC consists of five presidentially-appointed Commissioners with staggered five-year terms.

One of the Commissioners is designated by the President as the Chairman of the Commission—

the Commission’s chief executive. The Agency’s functional responsibilities are organized into five 

Divisions and 25 Offices, each of which is headquartered in Washington, DC. The Commission’s staff 

is located in Washington, DC, and 11 Regional Offices throughout the country. Divisions and Offices 

include:

Five Divisions:

n Corporation Finance

n Enforcement

n Investment Management

n Economic and Risk Analysis

n Trading and Markets

Twenty-five Offices:

n Acquisitions

n Administrative Law Judges

n Advocate for Small Business 

Capital Formation

n Chairman

n Chief Accountant

n Chief Operating Officer

n Compliance Inspections and Examinations

n Credit Ratings

n EDGAR Business Office

n Equal Employment Opportunity

n Ethics Counsel

n Financial Management

n General Counsel

n Human Resources

n Information Technology

n Inspector General

n International Affairs

n Investor Advocate

n Investor Education and Advocacy

n Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

n Minority and Women Inclusion

n Municipal Securities

n Public Affairs

n Secretary

n Support Operations
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 173

The SEC’s Regional Offices report to both the Division of Enforcement and the Office of Compliance 

Inspections and Examinations and operate within the authority of the Commission.

n Atlanta Regional Office

n Boston Regional Office

n Chicago Regional Office

n Denver Regional Office

n Fort Worth Regional Office

n Los Angeles Regional Office

n Miami Regional Office

n New York Regional Office

n Philadelphia Regional Office

n Salt Lake Regional Office

n San Francisco Regional Office

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL OFFICES

Los Angeles 

Regional Office

Southern California,* Arizona, 

Guam, Hawaii, Nevada

SEC Headquarters San Francisco 

Regional Office

Northern California,* 

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, Washington 

Salt Lake 

Regional Office

Utah

Denver 

Regional Office

Colorado, Kansas 

(Exam Program), 

Nebraska, New Mexico, 

North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Wyoming

Fort Worth 

Regional Office

Texas, Arkansas, 

Kansas, Oklahoma

Chicago 

Regional Office

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, 

Ohio, Wisconsin

Boston Regional Office

Massachusetts, Connecticut, 

Maine, New Hampshire, 

Rhode Island, Vermont 

Atlanta Regional Office

Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Tennessee

Miami Regional Office

Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands 

New York 

Regional Office

New York, New Jersey

Philadelphia 

Regional Office

Pennsylvania, Delaware, 

District of Columbia, Maryland, 

Virginia, West Virginia

* Northern California includes ZIP codes 93600 and above, and 93200–93299

 Southern California includes ZIP codes 93599 and below, except 93200–93299

•"'I iJlt 

-
174 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

ATTACHMENT 2. EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY

JAY CLAYTON

DATE

February 13, 2019

Our success in accomplishing the SEC’s mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, 

orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation depends on you and 

your commitment to being fully engaged in what we do. As Chairman of the SEC, I am 

committed to a work environment that helps to achieve this goal—a work environment 

that is respectful, inclusive, and allows you to contribute to the best of your ability.

For this reason and because it is the right thing to do, we must all strongly support our nation’s 

equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws. These laws apply to the SEC’s personnel policies, 

practices, and procedures, including but not limited to: recruitment, hiring, promotion, separation, 

performance evaluation, training and career development, assignment of duties, details, reassignment, 

compensation, awards, and benefits. EEO laws protect all employees, applicants for employment, and 

former employees from discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (which is not limited to conduct 

that is sexual in nature and includes pregnancy, gender identity, sexual orientation, and transgender 

status), age (40 and older), religion, national origin, disability, or genetic information. 

Each of us must support an individual’s right, without fear of retaliation, to (1) participate in the 

EEO process and (2) oppose employment practices which are perceived as discriminatory in the 

workplace. We can all contribute to making the SEC a model EEO employer by ensuring that 

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation are simply not tolerated. We must also seek to resolve 

workplace disputes at the earliest opportunity; to do otherwise would undermine the collegial and 

respectful environment that we expect at the SEC.

All employees must fully participate in investigations into allegations of discrimination, harassment 

and/or retaliation. Managers and supervisors must also participate in the alternative dispute resolution 

program for resolving EEO allegations, Conflict-to-Resolution (C2R), when the use of C2R is approved 

by the EEO Director or Deputy Director.

If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation 

of federal EEO laws or SEC policy, please contact the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity 

(OEEO) or an EEO Counselor within 45 calendar days of the employment action you believe to be 

discriminatory to preserve your right to participate in the formal EEO complaint process. You can reach 

OEEO by telephone (202) 551-6040, fax (202) 772-9316, or in person (SPIII, Suite 2900) to allege 

discrimination and/or obtain additional information regarding your EEO rights and responsibilities. 

TTY users should call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 to be connected with OEEO. 

OEEO’s internal website provides additional information.

Thank you for your continued efforts to make the promise of equal employment opportunity a reality.

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 175

ATTACHMENT 3.

SEC STRATEGIC PLAN

FY 2018—FY 2022

The Agency Strategic Plan is attached for reference.
176 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

ATTACHMENT 4. POLICY ON 

PREVENTING HARASSMENT (PPH)

As Chairman of the SEC, I am committed to a work environment that is respectful, inclusive, and allows you to deliver maximum 

performance in support of the SEC’s mission. Harassment is absolutely prohibited because it is wrong, negatively impacts our 

collegial work environment, and undermines our mission.

The SEC prohibits harassment on each of the following equal employment opportunity (EEO) bases: race, color, sex (which is not 

limited to conduct that is sexual in nature and includes pregnancy, gender identity, sexual orientation, and transgender status), 

age (40 and older), religion, national origin, disability, genetic information, or in retaliation for engaging in protected EEO activity. 

Harassing conduct against or by any employee, intern, contractor, or applicant for employment has no place at the SEC and will not 

be tolerated.

The SEC will address and put an immediate end to conduct—whether verbal, written, or physical—of which it is aware that is offensive 

(i.e., degrading, derogatory, or demeaning) or unwelcome on any EEO basis before it rises to the level of illegal harassment. EEObased harassment may be illegal where: (1) enduring the conduct is a condition of continued employment or is the basis of a decision 

affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; or (2) the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile 

work environment. Lack of intent to offend or harass does not excuse the conduct. Immediate and appropriate corrective and 

disciplinary action will be recommended when it is determined that harassment has occurred.

Among other things, the Policy on Preventing Harassment (PPH) prohibits the use of SEC equipment or networks to access or 

distribute material that is offensive on any of the bases listed above, including, but not limited to, sexually explicit, pornographic, 

sexist, racist, or homophobic material, or material that is offensive to a religious belief. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for 

sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature should never occur at the SEC. In addition, some personal 

relationships (romantic or otherwise) involving SEC employees—particularly between managers/supervisors and their subordinates—

may raise EEO-based harassment concerns. Such relationships may create perceptions of favoritism by other employees that lead 

to allegations of an EEO-based hostile work environment. Consensual relationships, once they end, may also give rise to claims that 

the relationships were not consensual or that continued overtures have become offensive or unwelcome. A supervisor who has a 

romantic or sexual relationship with a subordinate employee or an applicant when the supervisor has a role in the selection process 

must notify his or her supervisor immediately.

The PPH applies in places where SEC employees, interns, and on-site contractors work, and at SEC-sanctioned activities and events, 

including those outside of the workplace. The PPH prohibits the use of social media (e.g., Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, LinkedIn, 

Instagram, Flickr, etc.) to engage in harassment covered by this policy.

Reporting Harassment

Those who believe they are victims of harassment, or are otherwise aware of conduct that is offensive or unwelcome on an EEO basis, 

are encouraged to report the conduct immediately, preferably within three business days from the date of the alleged incident, to the 

Office of EEO (OEEO) and/or any SEC manager/supervisor.

To report harassment or to obtain more information on the SEC’s PPH, EEO Policy, or other EEO-related matters, please contact 

OEEO by telephone (202) 551-6040, fax (202) 772-9316, or in person (SPIII, Suite 2900). OEEO will accept and process anonymous 

allegations to the extent possible. Additional information is also available on OEEO’s internal website. TTY users should call the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 to be connected with OEEO.

Reporting Responsibility of Managers/Supervisors

Managers/supervisors must immediately contact OEEO upon learning of conduct that might be inconsistent with the PPH. Failure to 

do so may result in disciplinary or other corrective action.

Harassment Inquiry

SEC management in coordination with the Offices of General Counsel, Human Resources, and/or OEEO, as appropriate, will conduct 

a prompt, thorough, and impartial inquiry into conduct that may violate the PPH. All SEC employees must fully participate in any 

such inquiry. As part of this inquiry: (1) the rights and obligations under the PPH will be explained to the involved parties and (2) the 

behavior considered objectionable will be explained to the alleged harasser who will be instructed to stop the behavior immediately. 

Retaliation Prohibited

The SEC will not tolerate retaliation against anyone who reports harassing conduct or cooperates with or participates in any inquiry 

into alleged harassing conduct.

PPH Inquiry/EEO Complaint

A harassment inquiry conducted pursuant to the PPH is separate from, and may be conducted at the same time as, a related EEO 

complaint processed under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations set forth in 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1614. An inquiry under 

the PPH process does not satisfy an individual’s responsibility to initiate EEO counseling within 45 calendar days of an act of alleged 

discrimination or retaliation under the EEO complaint process, should the individual choose to pursue an EEO complaint.

Confidentiality

Information provided to SEC officials in connection with a harassment inquiry conducted pursuant to the PPH will be kept confidential 

to the extent possible and will be shared only on a need-to-know basis or as required by law. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential 

information may result in disciplinary action.

Thank you for your continued efforts to make the SEC a workplace that is inclusive, respectful, and free of harassment.

DATE JAY CLAYTON

Policy on Preventing Harassment (PPH)

February 13, 2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 177

ATTACHMENT 5.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 

AND PERSONAL ASSISTANCE 

SERVICES PROCEDURES

To review the SEC’s reasonable accommodation and personal assistance service procedures, please 

visit SEC.gov/ohr/sec-disability-program-page.html.
178 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

ATTACHMENT 6.

SEC’S ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION CONFLICT TO 

RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

SEC OPERATING PROCEDURES

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission SECOP 27-1

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity June 3, 2019

Washington, D.C. 20549

PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THE SEC’S POLICY ON PREVENTING HARASSMENT

These operating procedures implement the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Policy on 

Preventing Harassment (PPH) and apply to all SEC divisions and offices. These operating procedures will 

be reviewed at least every three years to ensure the contents remain relevant and reflect current 

Federal laws, rules, regulations, and SEC policies and procedures and incorporate equal employment 

opportunity best practices. 

________________________________________

Peter J. Henry

Director

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity

________________________________________

Kenneth A. Johnson

Chief Operating Officer

Office of the Chief Operating Officer

PETER HENRY

Digitally signed by PETER 

HENRY 

Date: 2019.06.03 10:21:08 

-04'00'

KENNETH 

JOHNSON

Digitally signed by 

KENNETH JOHNSON 

Date: 2019.06.03 18:30:45 

-04'00'
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 179

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

2

 

SEC OPERATING PROCEDURES

PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THE SEC’S POLICY ON PREVENTING HARASSMENT

1. Purpose and Scope

These procedures supplement the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Policy on 

Preventing Harassment (PPH). The goal of the policy is to prevent or stop conduct that is 

offensive or unwelcome on the basis of a protected equal employment opportunity (EEO) 

category before it rises to the level of illegal harassment.

These procedures establish a consistent and effective protocol for the prompt reporting of 

allegations of harassment; prompt inquiry into allegations of harassment; and prompt and 

appropriate corrective action, as necessary. The goal is to identify and stop potentially offensive 

conduct (even if not unlawful) from occurring at work as swiftly as possible and to prevent it from 

escalating and/or recurring. This is accomplished through open dialogue and education about 

workplace expectations at the SEC and through referral of matters raised under these 

procedures, as necessary under the circumstances, for consideration of appropriate corrective 

action by management.

2. Authorities

• SEC Policy on Preventing Harassment;

• SEC Equal Employment Opportunity Policy;

• SEC Administrative Regulation 6-20, Disciplinary and Adverse Actions;

• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between SEC and the National Employees Treasury 

Union, Art. 34, Disciplinary Actions; 

• CBA, Art. 35, Adverse Actions;

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

• Equal Pay Act of 1963;

• Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

• Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;

• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008;

• 5 U.S.C. §§ 7503(a) & 7513(a);

• Executive Order 11478 of 1969 as amended May 28, 1998 by Executive Order 13087;

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (June 18, 1999); 

• 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity;

• Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: 

Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges (1995); 

• MSPB, Update on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace (March 2018); and

• EEOC , Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, Report of Co-Chairs 

Chai R. Feldblum & Victoria A. Lipnic (June 2016).
180 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

3

3. Effective Date

The provisions of these operating procedures are effective immediately.

4. Applicability

These procedures apply to all SEC employees,1 interns, contractors, Intergovernmental 

Personnel Act staff, detailees, fellows (collectively referred to as SEC personnel), applicants for 

employment, visitors to SEC facilities, and other individuals with whom SEC personnel come into 

contact in the course of their work. They apply in places where SEC personnel conduct official, 

SEC-related work (including when SEC personnel are in travel status), at SEC-sanctioned 

activities and events (including those held off-site), and, if the comments posted thereon 

negatively impact the workplace, on social media (e.g., Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, LinkedIn, 

Instagram, FLICKR, etc.).

5. Harassment Prohibited

The SEC is committed to: (1) providing a work environment that is respectful, inclusive, and 

allows employees to deliver maximum performance in support of SEC’s mission; and (2) 

prohibiting harassment on any of the following equal employment opportunity (EEO) bases: 

race, color, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, sexual orientation, and transgender 

status), religion, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, genetic information, and/or 

retaliation for engaging in protected EEO activity (protected EEO categories).

6. Retaliation Prohibited 

Retaliation for participating in a PPH-related reporting or inquiry is strictly prohibited. 

Retaliation is a violation of both federal law and SEC policy. Violators are subject to appropriate 

corrective action, including discipline.

7. Confidentiality

7.1 The SEC will protect, to the greatest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, 

the identity of those who report harassment and who participate in a PPH inquiry. 

Confidentiality ensures that the focus of PPH inquiries is on the alleged conduct—not 

the person who reported it. Withholding the identity of persons who allege, report, 

and/or provide information about EEO-based harassment also affords protection in 

furtherance of federal anti-retaliation laws and SEC policy and procedures. 

Confidentiality may not be possible in investigations as defined in Section 9.8.

7.2 The identity of the alleged harasser will be shared with that person’s supervisor or other 

appropriate management officials for awareness, assistance in addressing and 

responding to the allegation, and assessment of whether corrective action is warranted 

based on all relevant information.

 1 Under this SECOP, the term SEC employee includes political appointees. 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 181

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

4

8. Cooperation

All parties—the person who reports harassing conduct (and the subject of the alleged conduct, if 

different from the person who reported it), the alleged harasser, management officials to whom 

harassing conduct is reported, and any potential witnesses—must cooperate with these 

procedures.

9. Definitions

The terms and definitions listed below are for the purposes of these operating procedures.

9.1 Alleged harasser. Anyone (including supervisors and non-supervisors) who reportedly 

engages in unwelcome or offensive conduct based on protected EEO categories.

9.2 Bystander. Anyone who witnesses or hears about conduct that might be offensive 

based on a protected EEO category.

9.3 Educational awareness. Technical assistance aimed to educate persons by raising 

awareness of, and sensitivity to, words and actions that could create perceptions of 

offensive, unwelcome EEO-based conduct in the workplace. At management’s request 

and in appropriate circumstances, the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) 

will provide this technical assistance to persons raising concerns, the alleged harasser, 

and other relevant persons in matters raised pursuant to the PPH and these procedures. 

Management and other stakeholders may also provide this technical assistance and 

should seek guidance from OEEO when opting to do so. 

9.4 EEO-Based Harassment.

9.4.1 Any conduct that a reasonable person would consider offensive or unwelcome 

based on a protected EEO category. Not all unwelcome conduct is harassing 

conduct under these procedures. For example, it would not be harassing 

conduct for a supervisor to tell an employee that the employee is not 

performing a job adequately when all employees who are similar in their work 

performance are treated the same.2 Also, occasional and innocuous 

compliments generally do not constitute harassing conduct, but rather reflect 

the reality of human experience and common courtesy.

9.4.2 Offensive or unwelcome conduct may include, but is not limited to:

9.4.2.1 Unwelcome sexual overtures or requests for sexual favors;

9.4.2.2 Caricatures of a particular race, national origin, or religion;

9.4.2.3 Teasing or mimicking based on an individual’s disability or accent;

 2 This example is provided to improve understanding of these procedures and is not intended to determine the 

outcome of any particular matter. Each allegation is processed according to the specific circumstances presented. 
182 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

5

9.4.2.4 Jokes about a person’s sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, 

gender expression or sexual orientation);

9.4.2.5 Obscene comments, slurs, jokes, epithets, suggestions or gestures;

9.4.2.6 Lewd or sexually suggestive comments about a person’s gender-specific 

characteristics;

9.4.2.7 Nude or sexually suggestive objects, pictures, images or cartoons;

9.4.2.8 Continuing to ask someone out on a date after the person has declined 

the invitation;

9.4.2.9 Creation/circulation of emails that contain inappropriate EEO-based 

comments/jokes; or

9.4.2.10 EEO-based comments (e.g., on social media) that negatively impact the 

workplace.

9.4.3 Legal analysis assesses allegations of harassment from both an objective 

(reasonableness) and a subjective (individual perception) perspective. Under 

these procedures, a PPH inquiry will be conducted if the alleged conduct is 

based on a protected EEO category and is unwanted or undesired, viewed 

objectively or subjectively.

9.5 Subject Matter Experts in Harassment Prevention (SMEs). Stakeholders in the Offices 

of Equal Employment Opportunity, General Counsel, Human Resources, and Inspector 

General who assess, respond, and/or assist supervisors and managers respond to 

allegations raised under the PPH and these procedures.

9.6 Illegal Harassment. EEO-based harassment becomes illegal (within the meaning of antidiscrimination laws) where: (1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of 

continued employment, or (2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a 

work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or 

abusive. For a more detailed legal analysis on what does, and does not, constitute 

unlawful harassment, see EEOC’s guidance related to harassment.

9.7 Intake. The process of receiving concerns raised under the PPH and these procedures 

and documenting information received.

9.8 Investigation. Fact-gathering and fact-finding conducted by non-OEEO SEC staff (who 

may use an agreement with a non-SEC entity) in accordance with constitutional, 

statutory, regulatory, and collective bargaining requirements. This investigation is 

separate and apart from any investigation conducted by OEEO staff pursuant to 29 

C.F.R. Part 1614 as set forth in Section 11.2.3.

9.9 PPH Inquiry. The steps taken by SEC to understand and to respond to a concern raised 

under the PPH and these procedures. The nature of the inquiry and response varies 

according to the circumstances. In some instances, the inquiry is expeditious and may 

not require fact-finding or fact-gathering; in other instances, an investigation with fact-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 183

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

6

gathering and fact-finding may be warranted. Any investigation will be conducted by 

non-OEEO SEC staff (who may use an agreement with a non-SEC entity), which is 

tailored to the facts and circumstances in line with the requirements set forth by the 

Supreme Court in the Faragher/Ellerth line of cases.

9.10 Protected EEO categories. Race, color, religion, national origin, sex (including 

pregnancy, gender identity, sexual orientation, and transgender status), age (40 or 

older), disability, genetic information and/or retaliation for engaging in protected EEO 

activity. 

9.11 Retaliation. Any materially adverse action against an individual because of protected 

activity, including that the person participated in an EEO investigation, a PPH inquiry 

and/or otherwise opposed discrimination (including harassment). It includes any 

employer action that might deter a reasonable employee from complaining about 

discrimination. Retaliatory harassment may be unlawful even if it is not severe or 

pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, as long as it might deter a 

reasonable person from asserting their EEO rights.

9.12 Subject. Anyone allegedly subject to EEO-based harassment.

9.13 Workplace. Where SEC personnel perform official, SEC-related duties, including while 

on official travel and/or participating in SEC-sanctioned activities and events. 

10. Obligation to Stop and Report Harassment

10.1 Management has an obligation to implement an effective harassment prevention 

program. Managers/supervisors must report to the Office of Equal Employment 

Opportunity (OEEO) immediately but not later than two business days after witnessing 

or becoming aware of conduct that might violate the PPH, or hearing about a concern 

that could be covered by PPH and these procedures. Managers/supervisors may also 

take immediate steps to correct inappropriate conduct and should report these steps to 

OEEO.

10.2 Non-managers/non-supervisors (subjects and bystanders) are strongly encouraged to

report to any supervisor, manager, or OEEO, any conduct that might violate the PPH, 

preferably within three business days.

10.3 Contract personnel who have been subjected to harassing conduct at a SEC workplace 

or by an SEC employee in connection with SEC work, or who know of such harassing 

conduct directed at others, are encouraged to report the conduct, as soon as possible, 

to the SEC as set forth below in Section 10.4. The contract personnel may also report 

the conduct to their employer, who must notify OEEO as set forth below in Section 10.4 

and the SEC’s Contracting Officer immediately but no later than 48 hours after 

becoming aware of the conduct. 
184 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

7

10.4 Harassment allegations may be reported verbally or in writing.

10.4.1 Harassment allegations can be reported:

• in person (SPIII, Suite 2900);

• by telephone ((202) 551-6040/(800) 877-8339 for TTY users);

• by fax ((202) 772-9316); 

• by mail (100 F St., NE, Washington, DC 20549 Attn: OEEO); and/or

• verbally or by email to anyone who works in OEEO or to any SEC 

supervisor or manager.

10.4.2 Anonymous allegations will be pursued to the extent possible; anonymous 

allegations may limit the information available to understand and/or address 

the issue raised. Harassment allegations may be reported anonymously to 

OEEO: 

• by telephone ((202) 551-6040/(800) 877-8339 for TTY users);

• by fax ((202) 772-9316); and/or 

• by mail (100 F St., NE, Washington, DC 20549 Attn: OEEO).

Harassment allegations may also be reported anonymously to the Office of 

Inspector General (OIG):

• by telephone 1-833-SEC-OIG1 (732-6441); or

• through the OIG’s Online Hotline https://sec.govcomhotline.com/.

10.6 A supervisor’s or manager’s obligation to report shall apply even if the person who 

reports the allegations asks that the information be kept confidential and/or that there 

be no action taken. It must be explained that SEC takes seriously its responsibility to 

stop harassing conduct in the workplace, and that the supervisor or manager has a 

responsibility to report the conduct to keep individuals safe and free from harassing 

conduct. The supervisor or manager can assure the individual who requested 

anonymity that SEC handles these matters confidentially to the maximum extent 

possible.

11. Roles and Responsibilities

11.1 Supervisors/Managers 

11.1.1 SEC management retains ultimate responsibility at all times to prevent and 

correct inappropriate workplace conduct. 

11.1.2 Appropriate corrective action, up to and including removal, shall be taken 

against any supervisor/manager who fails to perform supervisory obligations as set forth 

in these procedures regarding allegedly harassing conduct that the official knew or 

should have known about. 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 185

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

8

11.1.3 Appropriate positive reinforcement, up to and including awards and positive 

feedback on performance appraisals, shall be provided to any supervisor/manager who 

handles harassing conduct in an exemplary manner.

11.1.4 SEC management must document all actions taken to address allegations raised 

under the PPH and these procedures, including appropriate remedial action as 

applicable.

11.2 Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO)

11.2.1 OEEO is a subject matter expert on the PPH and offers education to SEC 

personnel about requirements and risk factors under the PPH both proactively and in 

response to specific situations. A Merit Systems Protection Board research brief

assessing harassment concluded that a decline in sexual harassment incidents in federal 

workplaces is related to raising awareness of behavior that could create hostile 

environments and making clear that such behaviors are not acceptable at work.

11.2.2 OEEO performs the duties outlined in Sections 12.1, 12.2. and 12.3 of these 

procedures without reaching a conclusion as to whether unlawful discrimination 

occurred.

11.2.3 OEEO also processes EEO complaints through the administrative complaint 

process set forth in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (Part 1614), which is separate and distinct from 

the processing of alleged harassment under the PPH. Both processes may proceed 

simultaneously. 

11.2.3.1 At the conclusion of the Part 1614 administrative process, a decision as 

to whether illegal discrimination occurred will be made by OEEO, EEOC, or 

another adjudicator, whichever entity the complainant elects. 

11.2.3.2 OEEO personnel who process complaints under Part 1614 do not 

perform the duties set forth in these procedures (except for referring concerns 

that come to their attention).

11.2.3.3 Subjects of alleged harassment who believe the conduct in question 

rises to the level of illegal harassment under federal law may pursue the 

allegation(s) through the EEO administrative complaint process (in addition to 

the PPH), but must do so within 45 calendar days of the most recent incident to 

preserve their rights.

11.2.4 OEEO has no authority to impose disciplinary action and does not recommend or 

impose specific corrective action pursuant to these procedures except with respect to 

OEEO employees.

11.3 Office of Human Resources (OHR)

11.3.1 OHR is a subject matter expert regarding questions of misconduct and the 

imposition of disciplinary action.
186 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

9

11.3.2 OHR, together with OGC, advises SEC management with regard to any 

questions/concerns about whether the alleged harassment also constitutes misconduct, 

warranting disciplinary action.

11.3.3 OHR may opt to conduct an investigation into allegations raised under the PPH 

as warranted under the circumstances. 

11.4 Office of General Counsel (OGC)

11.4.1 OGC advises and counsels OHR and SEC management regarding their obligations 

under these procedures.

11.4.2 OGC also represents the SEC in civil and/or administrative litigation arising from 

matters pursued under federal EEO laws.

11.5 Office of Inspector General (OIG)

11.5.1 OIG is the exclusive office within the SEC that handles issues involving fraud, 

waste and abuse, and criminal misconduct.

11.5.2 OIG may be involved in PPH inquiries to the extent that the alleged harassment 

fits within the OIG’s jurisdiction.

11.6 Office of Information Technology (OIT)

11.6.1 OIT handles questions involving inappropriate use of SEC technology.

11.6.2 OIT is involved in PPH inquiries to the extent the alleged harassment involves SEC 

technology.

11.7 Office of Support Operations (OSO)

11.7.1 OSO is the primary office within the SEC that handles workplace violence, 

physical security, and facilities.

11.7.2 OSO is involved in PPH inquiries to the extent there are questions/concerns 

regarding workplace violence or physical security.

11.8 Office of Acquisition (OA): OA will be involved in PPH inquiries to the extent that 

matters involve allegations of harassment by or against contractor personnel.

12. Processing 

12.1 Intake Responsibilities Upon Notification of Alleged Harassment

12.1.1 SEC has designated Subject Matter Experts in Harassment Prevention (SMEs). 

12.1.2 SMEs provide guidance, as appropriate, to assist SEC personnel to comply with 

these procedures.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 187

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

10

12.1.3 OEEO, OGC, OHR, or OIG personnel who serve as SMEs will document the 

allegations raised during the intake process. This intake summary is not the PPH 

inquiry report described in Section 12.7, and may be included in the PPH inquiry 

report when requested by the preparer of the PPH inquiry report. Information, 

to the extent available, that must be documented by the Office that receives the 

allegations from an alleged subject, bystander, harasser, or supervisor who 

received the initial contact, includes but is not limited to:

12.1.3.1 the person making the report, the individuals who may be involved, 

e.g., name, position, employment status (i.e., staff or contract personnel), the 

office/work location of the person making the report, the subject(s) of the 

alleged conduct (if different from the person making the report), the alleged 

harasser(s), and any witness(es) or others who may have knowledge of the 

conduct;

12.1.3.2 the alleged conduct at issue, the date(s) the conduct occurred, and the 

alleged protected EEO category(s) at issue;

12.1.3.3 any initial steps taken in response to the alleged conduct; and

12.1.3.4 any other relevant information.

12.1.4 OEEO, OGC, OHR, or OIG personnel serving as SMEs will contact other relevant 

SMEs as soon as practicable after intake so that next steps can be assessed as 

set forth in Section 12.2.

12.2 Assessing Next Steps for Allegations Covered by PPH

12.2.1 As soon as practicable after intake, the SMEs will determine based on available 

information whether the allegations are covered by the PPH. 

12.2.2 If the SMEs determine that the allegations are covered by the PPH, and 

personnel action is a reasonably possible outcome (including counseling), the SMEs, as 

appropriate, will determine how to conduct the PPH inquiry as described in Section 

12.4. OEEO’s involvement in conducting an inquiry is limited to sharing any relevant 

information from any education awareness activity it conducts and being informed that 

management is assessing the situation and taking steps, as appropriate and required.

12.2.2.1 The nature of the PPH inquiry will vary depending on the 

circumstances. These determinations are fact-specific and shall be made on a 

case-by-case basis.

12.2.2.2 If additional or new information becomes available that requires 

reassessing how to process the harassment allegation, the SMEs, as 

appropriate, will re-assess next steps as set forth in Section 12.2.

12.2.3 If the SMEs determine that the allegations are covered by the PPH, and 

personnel action is not reasonably possible (including counseling), an investigation as 

described in Section 12.4 may not be necessary. Intervention by management and/or 
188 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

11

educational awareness by OEEO or other stakeholders may be a sufficient response 

under the circumstances as set forth in Sections 12.3, 12.5.2 and 12.5.3. As set forth in 

12.6.1, management determines when to close a matter.

12.2.4 If the SMEs do not reach consensus on whether or not the allegations are 

covered by the PPH and/or whether personnel action is reasonably possible, OHR with 

the assistance of relevant management personnel will make these determinations. 

12.3 Educational Awareness

In matters received under these procedures, and as appropriate or requested, OEEO will 

conduct educational awareness to ensure persons understand the requirements of PPH, 

their rights and responsibilities, how their conduct or words might have affected others, 

and expectations of workplace behavior. 

12.3.1 OEEO will create a written summary for its internal records of the educational 

awareness it conducts. This summary will be included in the PPH inquiry report by the 

preparer of the PPH inquiry report. The summary will set forth awareness efforts to 

relay rights and responsibilities under the PPH, how the alleged harasser’s behavior was 

perceived and why that behavior may not be appropriate for the workplace, and antiretaliation reminders. 

12.3.2 Management and other stakeholders may also conduct and document 

educational awareness. If management opts to conduct educational awareness, it 

should consult with OEEO regarding content, document its educational awareness 

efforts as set forth in 12.3.1, and provide a copy of its written summary to OEEO. 

12.4 Conducting an Investigation

12.4.1 PPH inquiries must be prompt, thorough, and fair. PPH inquiries are tailored to 

the circumstances and may vary in length and complexity.

12.4.2 When personnel action is reasonably possible, management will determine 

whether the PPH inquiries will include an investigation and require interim relief as set 

forth in Section 12.5.4. Investigations will be conducted in accordance with applicable 

SEC policy and procedures, collective bargaining agreements, and governing laws and 

regulations related to misconduct, employee investigations, and due process in Federal 

Executive agencies.

12.4.3 To conduct an investigation, the assigned investigator, OHR or OGC 

representative, or management representative must:

12.4.3.1 initiate contact with the person who made the initial contact promptly 

after deciding how to handle the allegations as described in Section 12.2 if 

additional information is required;

12.4.3.2 initiate contact with the alleged harasser promptly after deciding how 

to handle the allegations as described in Section 12.2;
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 189

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

12

12.4.3.3 explain to the alleged harasser that the allegedly offensive conduct 

must stop immediately and explain, as warranted, that, if the conduct alleged is 

true, it could violate SEC policy or law;

12.4.3.4 explain to the person who made the complaint and alleged harasser 

what will happen throughout the course of the investigation, including an 

assurance that the investigation will be as timely as possible, depending on the 

complexity of the case and available resources, as well as an assurance that the 

report and investigation, as well as all related information, will be maintained 

on a confidential basis, as set forth in Section 7;

12.4.3.5 review the PPH thoroughly with all interviewees (each of whom will be 

given a copy of the PPH and/or directed to the text on-line) including a reminder 

of the anti-retaliation prohibitions and protections; 

12.4.3.6 collect relevant evidence, and determine who else may have relevant 

information and interview them;

12.4.3.7 document if any person refuses to cooperate in the PPH inquiry and 

alert responsible management officials for appropriate action;

12.4.3.8 prepare a report at the conclusion of the investigation, documenting 

the alleged harassment and the scope of fact-gathering (including witnesses 

interviewed and documents reviewed) and findings made; 

12.4.3.9 share the investigative report with appropriate management officials, 

the Director(s) of the office(s) implicated, OHR, and OGC so they may assess the 

need to pursue any personnel-related corrective action such as counseling, 

discipline, and/or removal; and

12.4.3.10 be sensitive to the needs of the alleged subject of the harassment, 

including any trauma the alleged subject may have experienced from the 

alleged harassment, including by requesting information from the alleged 

subject as little as practicable.

12.4.4 If a PPH inquiry exceeds 30 calendar days from the date the decision regarding 

how to handle the allegations as described in Section 12.2 was made, the person who 

made the complaint and alleged harasser, and any other parties involved, shall be 

provided with regular updates on the status of the investigation. Such updates shall 

include an explanation of any delay to the investigation (e.g., due to unavailability of 

witnesses), and such explanations shall be included in the investigation report described 

in Section 12.7.

12.4.5 To comply with EEOC guidance, OEEO’s role is exclusively educational. OEEO 

personnel will neither conduct an investigation nor recommend or impose corrective 

action in order to ensure no conflict of interest exists with the Part 1614 case processing 

responsibilities of OEEO as described in Section 11.2.3. 
190 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

13

12.5 Proactive Preventive and/or Corrective Action

12.5.1 Proportionate proactive preventive and/or corrective action shall be taken 

promptly by management in accordance with SEC policy and procedures, applicable 

collective bargaining agreements, and applicable law and regulations.

12.5.2 In some instances, management may address inappropriate conduct 

immediately and that immediate management intervention is all that management 

determines is warranted under the circumstances.

12.5.3 In some instances, the educational awareness conducted by OEEO or others will 

be the only action that management determines is warranted under the circumstances. 

12.5.4 SEC management officials may unilaterally, or upon the recommendation of OHR 

and/or OGC, provide prompt and appropriate interim relief.

12.5.4.1 Interim relief may include:

12.5.4.1.1 Temporary reassignment or transfer, including to a different 

physical location;

12.5.4.1.1 Work Schedule adjustment, including expanded telework 

options;

12.5.4.1.1 Administrative leave; or

12.5.4.1.1 Other appropriate action, as deemed necessary under the 

circumstances.

12.5.4.2 Interim relief shall be applied in a manner so as not to unduly burden 

the subject or bystander. Except in very limited circumstances, the alleged 

harasser, rather than the subject or bystander shall be the person who is 

temporarily reassigned or transferred, placed in telework status, or placed on 

administrative leave. 

12.5.5 Office-wide training offered by OEEO or another provider may be an appropriate 

responsive action in certain circumstances. For example, office-wide training is likely 

appropriate if more than one employee in the office has engaged in inappropriate 

conduct, if employees in the office do not know what conduct is appropriate and 

permissible, or if employees in the office appear unaware of how to properly respond to 

harassing conduct. OEEO also provides office-wide training as part of its proactive 

prevention program.

12.5.5 Proportionate preventive and/or corrective action may include disciplinary 

action, as called for by the facts of the case and applicable conduct rules. The penalty 

imposed for harassing conduct shall be selected the same as for any other violation of 

workplace rules, considering the severity and frequency of the conduct, the response 

required to end such conduct and prevent it from recurring, the offender’s 

disciplinary/conduct history, and other relevant factors. The penalty may include 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 191

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

14

suspension, demotion, or removal. Discipline may be challenged through any available 

process including an EEO complaint, negotiated or administrative grievance procedures 

or a Merit Systems Protection Board appeal.

12.5.5.1 The severity and frequency of harassing conduct shall be considered 

when determining the level of preventive and/or corrective action. More 

egregious harassing conduct shall merit more severe action. For example, the 

use of an epithet, a threat or other intimidation, or a sexual or physical assault 

would very likely warrant more severe action than a first-time inappropriate 

comment or joke. 

12.5.5.2 Proportionate preventive and/or corrective action may include 

counseling. An employee shall be counseled for harassing conduct consistent 

with these procedures and applicable conduct rules. After counseling has been 

imposed, the counseled employee’s supervisors shall monitor the counseled 

employee’s conduct to ensure that the conduct does not continue.

12.5.5.3 For the most serious harassing conduct, corrective action shall include 

disciplinary action applicable to violations of conduct standards, such as 

suspension, demotion, or termination. Such corrective action shall be in 

proportion to the seriousness of the harassing conduct.

12.6 Closing the Matter

12.6.1 Management determines when to close a matter. Management may consult 

with OHR or OGC is making this determination.

12.6.2 The individual who reported the matter will be informed when the matter has 

been reviewed and will be assured that appropriate action, as necessary, will have been 

taken by management to address the alleged harassment. 

12.6.3 In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, as amended, OEEO 

and/or the assigned investigator will advise that SEC may not discuss any specific 

preventive or corrective action taken unless otherwise permitted or required by law. 

12.7 PPH Inquiry Report 

12.7.1 At the conclusion of a PPH inquiry, the responsible management officials with 

the support of OGC and OHR will prepare a PPH Inquiry Report that documents 

educational awareness steps taken, the investigation, and/or any management 

response, including personnel action taken, as appropriate. 

12.7.2 Any intake summary prepared by OEEO or others and/or summary of 

educational awareness efforts conducted by OEEO or others will not serve as the PPH 

Inquiry Report. These materials may, however, be included in the PPH Inquiry Report.

12.7.3 A summary of management’s response as documented in the PPH Inquiry Report 

will be provided to OEEO.
192 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECOP 27-1

 June 3, 2019

15

13. Conflicts of Interest

If harassing conduct is alleged against a high-ranking agency or OEEO official, allegations raised 

under the PPH and these procedures will be handled as described in EEOC Management 

Directive 110, Chapter 1, Section IV.B.

14. Training 

All SEC employees must complete No FEAR Act anti-discrimination (including anti-harassment) 

training every two years. A course entitled Preventing EEO-Based Harassment is also available 

to all personnel in LEAP,3 the SEC’s e-learning management system. Additional harassment 

prevention training may be requested by contacting OEEO.

15. PPH Reporting Is Not A Substitute for Other Legal Protections and Processes

Reporting concerns under the PPH is in addition to, not instead of, protections that are available 

under federal EEO law and regulation. These procedures apply solely to PPH inquiries. They do 

not extend, modify or alter in any way procedures for other processes that might be available to 

subjects of EEO-based harassment.

Subjects of alleged EEO harassment may pursue their rights simultaneously through the EEO 

complaint process, any applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and/or any applicable 

administrative grievance process.

Those who opt to enter the EEO complaint process must do so within 45 calendar days of the 

last incident of alleged harassment to preserve their rights. These procedures do not satisfy the 

requirements for filing an EEO complaint or for obtaining remedies pursuant to the laws and 

regulations governing the EEO complaint process. Using these procedures does not delay the 

EEO complaint process time limits. The EEO complaint process is designed to determine whether 

Illegal employment discrimination occurred and, if so, to remedy the injury. EEO complaint 

investigations, unlike PPH inquiries, can also address non-harassment discrimination (e.g., 

disparate treatment claim based on membership in a protected class with respect to nonselections and performance appraisals). 

Those who opt to use grievance procedures must file a grievance in accordance with the 

requirements and timeframes in the applicable CBA or other procedures.

16. Additional Information

Persons seeking further information regarding the PPH or the procedures set forth herein 

should contact OEEO in person (SPIII, Suite 2900), by telephone (202) 551-6040/(800) 877-8339 

for TTY users, by mail (100 F St., NE, Washington, DC 20549 Attn: OEEO), or by fax (202) 772-

9316. SEC personnel can also find additional information on the Exchange.

 3 LEAP stands for “learn. engage. achieve. perform.”
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 193

ATTACHMENT 7.

POLICY MEMORANDUM: STANDARDS 

FOR EEO, WORKFORCE DIVERSITY, 

AND WORKPLACE INCLUSION 

Relevant policies are attached for reference. The Joint Standards on Diversity Policies and Practices is 

available on the SEC website SEC.gov/rules/policy/2015/34-75050.pdf.
194 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

ATTACHMENT 8. 

WORKFORCE DATA TABLES41

The SECs workforce data tables are attached.

The SEC previously submitted the FY 2019 462 Report to the EEOC.

41 The SEC sought guidance on how to report data about employees and applicants who are considered persons 

with disability under Section 501 of the revised regulation. In this year’s report, those employees and applicants 

who are considered persons with disability outside self-identification on SF-256 are included in a new column 

in Tables B1 through B9 developed for this report in the column titled “Other PWD”. In FedSEP, SEC includes 

such persons in Tables B1 through B9 in the column labeled “Disability (02-03, 06-99).” As such, the data 

presented on PWD within the tables for this report may not match those submitted to the EEOC through the 

FedSEP data portal.
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 195

TABLE A1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPAY PERIOD 201822 TO 201921

EMPLOYMENT TENURE

TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native Two or More Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

CLF (2010) % 100% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.03% 5.49% 6.53% 1.97% 1.93% 0.07% 0.07% 0.55% 0.53% 0.26% 0.28%

TOTAL WORKFORCEPrior FY

# 4,448 2,405 2,043 132 114 1,774 1,147 207 484 275 270 0 2 12 5 5 21

% 100% 54.07% 45.93% 2.97% 2.56% 39.88% 25.79% 4.65% 10.88% 6.18% 6.07% 0.00% 0.04% 0.27% 0.11% 0.11% 0.47%

Current FY

# 4,365 2,348 2,017 134 112 1,719 1,132 205 475 273 270 0 2 12 5 5 21

% 100% 53.79% 46.21% 3.07% 2.57% 39.38% 25.93% 4.70% 10.88% 6.25% 6.19% 0.00% 0.05% 0.27% 0.11% 0.11% 0.48%

Difference # -83 -57 -26 2 -2 -55 -15 -2 -9 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.28% 0.28% 0.10% 0.01% -0.50% 0.14% 0.05% 0.00% 0.07% 0.12% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%

Net Change % -1.87% -2.37% -1.27% 1.52% -1.75% -3.10% -1.31% -0.97% -1.86% -0.73% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

EMPLOYEE GAINSTOTALNew Hires

# 85 42 43 5 1 29 26 5 6 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 49.41% 50.59% 5.88% 1.18% 34.12% 30.59% 5.88% 7.06% 3.53% 10.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.18%

EMPLOYEE LOSSESTOTALSeparations

# 172 98 74 3 3 83 43 7 16 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 56.98% 43.02% 1.74% 1.74% 48.26% 25.00% 4.07% 9.30% 2.91% 6.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.58%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-f-- -f-- -f--

-f-- -f--

-f-- -f-- -f--
196 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PAY PERIOD 201822 TO 201921 continued EMPLOYMENT TENURE TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female PERMANENT Prior FY # 4,359 2,352 2,007 132 112 1,732 1,122 206 482 265 264 0 1 12 5 5 21

% 100% 53.96% 46.04% 3.03% 2.57% 39.73% 25.74% 4.73% 11.06% 6.08% 6.06% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.11% 0.11% 0.48%

Current FY # 4,266 2,294 1,972 133 110 1,674 1,099 204 473 266 264 0 1 12 5 5 20

% 100% 53.77% 46.23% 3.12% 2.58% 39.24% 25.76% 4.78% 11.09% 6.24% 6.19% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.12% 0.12% 0.47%

Difference # -93 -58 -35 1 -2 -58 -23 -2 -9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1

Ratio Change

% 0.00% -0.19% 0.18% 0.09% 0.01% -0.49% 0.02% 0.06% 0.03% 0.16% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% -0.01%

Net Change

% -2.13% -2.47% -1.74% 0.76% -1.79% -3.35% -2.05% -0.97% -1.87% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -4.76%

EMPLOYEE GAINSPermanent New Hires

# 53 25 28 4 0 15 18 4 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 47.17% 52.83% 7.55% 0.00% 28.30% 33.96% 7.55% 7.55% 3.77% 11.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

EMPLOYEE LOSSESTOTALSeparations

# 150 84 66 3 3 73 37 6 15 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 56.00% 44.00% 2.00% 2.00% 48.67% 24.67% 4.00% 10.00% 1.33% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-f-- -f--

-f-- -f--

-f-- -f--
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 197

TABLE A1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPAY PERIOD 201822 TO 201921 continued

EMPLOYMENT TENURE

TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native Two or More Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

TEMPORARYPrior FY

# 89 53 36 0 2 42 25 1 2 10 6 0 1 0 0 0 0

% 100% 59.55% 40.45% 0.00% 2.25% 47.19% 28.09% 1.12% 2.25% 11.24% 6.74% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Current FY

# 99 54 45 1 2 45 33 1 2 7 6 0 1 0 0 0 1

% 100% 54.55% 45.45% 1.01% 2.02% 45.45% 33.33% 1.01% 2.02% 7.07% 6.06% 0.00% 1.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01%

Difference # 10 1 9 1 0 3 8 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Ratio Change % 0.00% -5.00% 5.01% 1.01% -0.23% -1.74% 5.24% -0.11% -0.23% -4.17% -0.68% 0.00% -0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01%

Net Change % 11.24% 1.89% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 32.00% 0.00% 0.00% -30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

EMPLOYEE GAINSTemporary New Hires

# 32 17 15 1 1 14 8 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 53.13% 46.88% 3.13% 3.13% 43.75% 25.00% 3.13% 6.25% 3.13% 9.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.13%

EMPLOYEE LOSSESTOTALSeparations

# 22 14 8 0 0 10 6 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 63.64% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 45.45% 27.27% 4.55% 4.55% 13.64% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

- f--f-- f---

f--f-- f---

- f--f-- f---
198 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A2: REGIONAL OFFICES AND HEADQUARTERS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 REGIONAL STAFF Permanent TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female CLF (2010)

% 100% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.03% 5.49% 6.53% 1.97% 1.93% 0.07% 0.07% 0.55% 0.53% 0.26% 0.28%

TOTAL

WORKFORCE

# 4,266 2,294 1,972 133 110 1,674 1,099 204 473 266 264 0 1 12 5 5 20

% 100% 53.77% 46.23% 3.12% 2.58% 39.24% 25.76% 4.78% 11.09% 6.24% 6.19% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.12% 0.12% 0.47%

HQ # 2,720 1,420 1,300 67 59 1,012 690 150 372 180 160 0 1 9 3 2 15

% 100% 52.21% 47.79% 2.46% 2.17% 37.21% 25.37% 5.51% 13.68% 6.62% 5.88% 0.00% 0.04% 0.33% 0.11% 0.07% 0.55%

NYRO # 369 197 172 13 13 153 102 5 26 26 30 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 53.39% 46.61% 3.52% 3.52% 41.46% 27.64% 1.36% 7.05% 7.05% 8.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.27%

CHRO # 220 134 86 5 4 115 53 6 21 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 60.91% 39.09% 2.27% 1.82% 52.27% 24.09% 2.73% 9.55% 3.64% 3.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

LARO # 158 80 78 9 7 44 38 3 13 23 20 0 0 0 0 1 0

% 100% 50.63% 49.37% 5.70% 4.43% 27.85% 24.05% 1.90% 8.23% 14.56% 12.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00%

BRO # 144 80 64 2 3 66 46 5 4 6 11 0 0 0 0 1 0

% 100% 55.56% 44.44% 1.39% 2.08% 45.83% 31.94% 3.47% 2.78% 4.17% 7.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.69% 0.00%

PLRO # 126 75 51 3 3 57 39 9 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 59.52% 40.48% 2.38% 2.38% 45.24% 30.95% 7.14% 4.76% 4.76% 2.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

FWRO # 105 61 44 3 2 48 36 7 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

% 100% 58.10% 41.90% 2.86% 1.90% 45.71% 34.29% 6.67% 2.86% 2.86% 0.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90%

SFRO # 116 58 58 4 2 38 27 2 6 12 20 0 0 1 1 1 2

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 3.45% 1.72% 32.76% 23.28% 1.72% 5.17% 10.34% 17.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.86% 0.86% 0.86% 1.72%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 199

TABLE A2: REGIONAL OFFICES AND HEADQUARTERS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

REGIONAL STAFFPermanent

TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

ARO

# 100 64 36 4 1 46 18 13 15 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0% 100% 64.00% 36.00% 4.00% 1.00% 46.00% 18.00% 13.00% 15.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MIRO

# 96 60 36 23 12 33 11 3 7 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 62.50% 37.50% 23.96% 12.50% 34.38% 11.46% 3.13% 7.29% 1.04% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

DRO

# 96 57 39 0 3 55 33 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 59.38% 40.63% 0.00% 3.13% 57.29% 34.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.13% 0.00% 0.00% 2.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SLRO

# 16 8 8 0 1 7 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 6.25% 43.75% 37.50% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
200 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A3: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female PERMANENT WORKFORCE # 4,266 2,294 1,972 133 110 1,674 1,099 204 473 266 264 0 1 12 5 5 20 % 100% 53.77% 46.23% 3.12% 2.58% 39.24% 25.76% 4.78% 11.09% 6.24% 6.19% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.12% 0.12% 0.47% 1. Management Executives # 121 71 50 2 0 63 41 4 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 % 100% 58.68% 41.32% 1.65% 0.00% 52.07% 33.88% 3.31% 3.31% 1.65% 2.48% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83% Managers # 389 241 148 16 2 196 109 9 18 19 18 0 0 1 0 0 1 % 100% 61.95% 38.05% 4.11% 0.51% 50.39% 28.02% 2.31% 4.63% 4.88% 4.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26%

Supervisors

# 352 221 131 16 8 157 76 15 28 32 19 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 62.78% 37.22% 4.55% 2.27% 44.60% 21.59% 4.26% 7.95% 9.09% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTALMANAGEMENT

# 862 533 329 34 10 416 226 28 50 53 40 0 1 2 0 0 2% 100% 61.83% 38.17% 3.94% 1.16% 48.26% 26.22% 3.25% 5.80% 6.15% 4.64% 0.00% 0.12% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23%

2. Professional 

Workers

# 3,233 1,722 1,511 97 88 1,242 829 159 355 210 218 0 0 9 4 5 17% 100% 53.26% 46.74% 3.00% 2.72% 38.42% 25.64% 4.92% 10.98% 6.50% 6.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.12% 0.15% 0.53%

3. Technical 

Workers and Technologists

# 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 201

TABLE A3: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

4. Sales Workers

# 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

5. Administrative 

Support Workers

# 157 30 127 1 11 10 41 16 67 2 6 0 0 1 1 0 1% 100% 19.11% 80.89% 0.64% 7.01% 6.37% 26.11% 10.19% 42.68% 1.27% 3.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.64% 0.00% 0.64%

6. Skilled Craft 

and Repair Workers

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

7. Operative and 

Transportation Operative Workers

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

8. Laborers

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

9. Service 

Workers

# 9 5 4 1 0 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 55.56% 44.44% 11.11% 0.00% 22.22% 33.33% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
202 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4P: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Permanent Workforce # 4,266 2,294 1,972 133 110 1,674 1,099 204 473 266 264 0 1 12 5 5 20 % 100% 53.77% 46.23% 3.12% 2.58% 39.24% 25.76% 4.78% 11.09% 6.24% 6.19% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.12% 0.12% 0.47% SK-02 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-03 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-04 # 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-05 # 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-06

# 6 2 4 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-07

# 51 9 42 1 3 4 11 3 26 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 17.65% 82.35% 1.96% 5.88% 7.84% 21.57% 5.88% 50.98% 1.96% 3.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-08

# 20 0 20 0 1 0 2 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00%

SK-09

# 26 5 21 0 2 2 3 3 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2% 100% 19.23% 80.77% 0.00% 7.69% 7.69% 11.54% 11.54% 50.00% 0.00% 3.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69%

SK-10

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 84 18 66 3 12 8 11 7 39 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 21.43% 78.57% 3.57% 14.29% 9.52% 13.10% 8.33% 46.43% 0.00% 3.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.19%

SK-12

# 190 44 146 0 8 15 37 25 89 3 9 0 0 1 1 0 2% 100% 23.16% 76.84% 0.00% 4.21% 7.89% 19.47% 13.16% 46.84% 1.58% 4.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 0.53% 0.00% 1.05%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 203

TABLE A4P: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

SK-13

# 350 159 191 15 8 79 69 33 89 26 24 0 0 3 0 3 1% 100% 45.43% 54.57% 4.29% 2.29% 22.57% 19.71% 9.43% 25.43% 7.43% 6.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00% 0.86% 0.29%

SK-14

# 2,145 1,192 953 70 62 881 586 88 135 147 160 0 0 4 2 2 8% 100% 55.57% 44.43% 3.26% 2.89% 41.07% 27.32% 4.10% 6.29% 6.85% 7.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.09% 0.09% 0.37%

SK-15

# 359 233 126 17 7 168 78 15 24 32 17 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 64.90% 35.10% 4.74% 1.95% 46.80% 21.73% 4.18% 6.69% 8.91% 4.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 515 314 201 9 5 253 149 15 16 35 26 0 0 2 2 0 3% 100% 60.97% 39.03% 1.75% 0.97% 49.13% 28.93% 2.91% 3.11% 6.80% 5.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 0.39% 0.00% 0.58%

SK-17

# 391 243 148 16 2 198 109 9 18 19 18 0 0 1 0 0 1% 100% 62.15% 37.85% 4.09% 0.51% 50.64% 27.88% 2.30% 4.60% 4.86% 4.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 4 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 121 71 50 2 0 63 41 4 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1% 100% 58.68% 41.32% 1.65% 0.00% 52.07% 33.88% 3.31% 3.31% 1.65% 2.48% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
204 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4T: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Temporary Workforce # 99 54 45 1 2 45 33 1 2 7 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 % 100% 54.55% 45.45% 1.01% 2.02% 45.45% 33.33% 1.01% 2.02% 7.07% 6.06% 0.00% 1.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01% SK-02 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-03 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-04 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-05 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-06

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-07

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-08

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-09

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 7 3 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 42.86% 57.14% 0.00% 14.29% 14.29% 14.29% 0.00% 14.29% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 205

TABLE A4T: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

SK-13

# 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 23 12 11 1 0 8 9 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 52.17% 47.83% 4.35% 0.00% 34.78% 39.13% 0.00% 0.00% 13.04% 8.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 34 21 13 0 0 19 9 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 61.76% 38.24% 0.00% 0.00% 55.88% 26.47% 2.94% 0.00% 2.94% 8.82% 0.00% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 30 17 13 0 0 16 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 56.67% 43.33% 0.00% 0.00% 53.33% 40.00% 0.00% 3.33% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
206 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A5P: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 SALARY RANGE TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Permanent Workforce

# 4,266 2,294 1,972 133 110 1,674 1,099 204 473 266 264 0 1 12 5 5 20% 100% 53.77% 46.23% 3.12% 2.58% 39.24% 25.76% 4.78% 11.09% 6.24% 6.19% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.12% 0.12% 0.47%

$20,001 – $30,000 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$30,001 – $40,000 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$40,001 – $50,000 # 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$50,001 – $60,000 # 4 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$60,001 – $70,000 # 11 5 6 0 1 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 45.45% 54.55% 0.00% 9.09% 36.36% 0.00% 9.09% 36.36% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$70,001 – $80,000 # 30 6 24 1 3 1 7 4 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 20.00% 80.00% 3.33% 10.00% 3.33% 23.33% 13.33% 40.00% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.33%

$80,001 – $90,000 # 57 7 50 0 3 4 9 3 35 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 12.28% 87.72% 0.00% 5.26% 7.02% 15.79% 5.26% 61.40% 0.00% 3.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.75%

$90,001 – $100,000 # 44 13 31 2 2 5 2 6 24 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 29.55% 70.45% 4.55% 4.55% 11.36% 4.55% 13.64% 54.55% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.27%

$100,001 – $110,000 # 43 8 35 0 3 4 7 3 21 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

% 100% 18.60% 81.40% 0.00% 6.98% 9.30% 16.28% 6.98% 48.84% 2.33% 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.65%

$110,001 – $120,000 # 72 26 46 4 4 12 13 5 25 2 4 0 0 2 0 1 0

% 100% 36.11% 63.89% 5.56% 5.56% 16.67% 18.06% 6.94% 34.72% 2.78% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 1.39% 0.00%

$120,001 – $130,000 # 138 48 90 4 8 17 32 19 44 7 5 0 0 1 0 0 1

% 100% 34.78% 65.22% 2.90% 5.80% 12.32% 23.19% 13.77% 31.88% 5.07% 3.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.72%

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 207

TABLE A5P: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SALARY RANGE

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

$130,001 – $140,000

# 128 63 65 6 8 42 19 8 29 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 49.22% 50.78% 4.69% 6.25% 32.81% 14.84% 6.25% 22.66% 5.47% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.78%

$140,001 – $150,000

# 164 80 84 6 5 52 39 10 19 11 19 0 0 0 1 1 1% 100% 48.78% 51.22% 3.66% 3.05% 31.71% 23.78% 6.10% 11.59% 6.71% 11.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61%

$150,001 – $160,000

# 196 86 110 5 5 57 43 12 49 11 12 0 0 0 1 1 0% 100% 43.88% 56.12% 2.55% 2.55% 29.08% 21.94% 6.12% 25.00% 5.61% 6.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51% 0.51% 0.00%

$160,001 – $170,000

# 179 90 89 6 4 60 48 13 22 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 50.28% 49.72% 3.35% 2.23% 33.52% 26.82% 7.26% 12.29% 6.15% 7.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.56%

$170,001 – $180,000

# 186 104 82 3 6 78 40 8 20 14 15 0 0 1 0 0 1% 100% 55.91% 44.09% 1.61% 3.23% 41.94% 21.51% 4.30% 10.75% 7.53% 8.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.54%

$180,001 and Greater

# 3,013 1,756 1,257 96 58 1,337 839 112 167 201 179 0 1 8 3 2 10% 100% 58.28% 41.72% 3.19% 1.92% 44.37% 27.85% 3.72% 5.54% 6.67% 5.94% 0.00% 0.03% 0.27% 0.10% 0.07% 0.33%

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
208 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A5P: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SALARY RANGE TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female $180,001 – $190,000 # 265 148 117 8 7 108 62 11 27 18 20 0 0 2 0 1 1

% 100% 55.85% 44.15% 3.02% 2.64% 40.75% 23.40% 4.15% 10.19% 6.79% 7.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.38% 0.38%

$190,001 – $200,000 # 228 144 84 9 6 98 47 16 19 21 12 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 63.16% 36.84% 3.95% 2.63% 42.98% 20.61% 7.02% 8.33% 9.21% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$200,001 – $210,000 # 343 207 136 16 10 145 95 18 16 27 15 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 60.35% 39.65% 4.66% 2.92% 42.27% 27.70% 5.25% 4.66% 7.87% 4.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$210,001 – $220,000 # 953 499 454 29 25 378 297 35 55 55 72 0 0 1 1 1 4

% 100% 52.36% 47.64% 3.04% 2.62% 39.66% 31.16% 3.67% 5.77% 5.77% 7.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.42%

$220,001 – $230,000 # 275 184 91 9 2 142 57 11 16 20 12 0 0 2 2 0 2

% 100% 66.91% 33.09% 3.27% 0.73% 51.64% 20.73% 4.00% 5.82% 7.27% 4.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.73% 0.73% 0.00% 0.73%

$230,001 – $240,000 # 211 127 84 7 3 93 58 5 7 22 15 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 60.19% 39.81% 3.32% 1.42% 44.08% 27.49% 2.37% 3.32% 10.43% 7.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.47%

$240,001 – $250,000 # 627 380 247 16 5 314 188 12 23 36 30 0 0 2 0 0 1

% 100% 60.61% 39.39% 2.55% 0.80% 50.08% 29.98% 1.91% 3.67% 5.74% 4.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.16%

$250,001 – $260,000 # 110 66 44 2 0 58 35 4 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1

% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 1.82% 0.00% 52.73% 31.82% 3.64% 3.64% 1.82% 2.73% 0.00% 0.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.91%

$260,001 – $270,000 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$270,001 – $280,000 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$280,001 – $290,000 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$300,000 or More # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 209

TABLE A5T: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921

SALARY RANGE

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

TemporaryWorkforce

# 99 54 45 1 2 45 33 1 2 7 6 0 1 0 0 0 1% 100% 54.55% 45.45% 1.01% 2.02% 45.45% 33.33% 1.01% 2.02% 7.07% 6.06% 0.00% 1.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01%

$20,001 – $30,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$30,001 – $40,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$40,001 – $50,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$50,001 – $60,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$60,001 – $70,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$70,001 – $80,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$80,001 – $90,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$90,001 – $100,000

# 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$100,001 – $110,000

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$110,001 – $120,000

# 4 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00%

$120,001 – $130,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
210 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A5T: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SALARY RANGE TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female $130,001 – $140,000 # 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$140,001 – $150,000 # 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$150,001 – $160,000 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$160,001 – $170,000 # 9 5 4 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 55.56% 44.44% 11.11% 11.11% 44.44% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$170,001 – $180,000 # 5 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$180,001 and Greater # 71 40 31 0 0 35 25 1 1 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0

% 100% 56.34% 43.66% 0.00% 0.00% 49.30% 35.21% 1.41% 1.41% 5.63% 5.63% 0.00% 1.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 211

TABLE A5T: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SALARY RANGE

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

$180,001 – $190,000

# 7 2 5 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$190,001 – $200,000

# 4 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$200,001 – $210,000

# 11 8 3 0 0 7 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 72.73% 27.27% 0.00% 0.00% 63.64% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$210,001 – $220,000

# 13 4 9 0 0 3 6 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 30.77% 69.23% 0.00% 0.00% 23.08% 46.15% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 15.38% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$220,001 – $230,000

# 8 7 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 87.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$230,001 – $240,000

# 4 3 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$240,001 – $250,000

# 5 4 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$250,001 – $260,000

# 19 10 9 0 0 9 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 52.63% 47.37% 0.00% 0.00% 47.37% 42.11% 0.00% 5.26% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$260,001 – $270,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$270,001 – $280,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$280,001 – $290,000

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

$300,000 or More

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
212 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0905 General Attorney Occupational CLF % 100% 66.70% 33.30% 2.52% 1.85% 59.68% 26.68% 2.13% 2.60% 1.82% 1.74% 0.02% 0.01% 0.31% 0.23% 0.22% 0.18% SK-09 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-10 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-11 # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-12 # 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 26 13 13 1 0 10 8 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 3.85% 0.00% 38.46% 30.77% 3.85% 0.00% 3.85% 15.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.85%

SK-14

# 1,014 542 472 27 29 423 323 35 47 55 70 0 0 2 1 0 2

% 100% 53.45% 46.55% 2.66% 2.86% 41.72% 31.85% 3.45% 4.64% 5.42% 6.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20%

SK-15

# 80 44 36 2 1 40 28 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 55.00% 45.00% 2.50% 1.25% 50.00% 35.00% 1.25% 3.75% 1.25% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 355 198 157 4 3 169 119 9 13 16 18 0 0 0 2 0 2

% 100% 55.77% 44.23% 1.13% 0.85% 47.61% 33.52% 2.54% 3.66% 4.51% 5.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.56% 0.00% 0.56%

SK-17

# 239 141 98 9 1 122 74 2 10 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 59.00% 41.00% 3.77% 0.42% 51.05% 30.96% 0.84% 4.18% 3.35% 5.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 78 45 33 1 0 40 30 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 57.69% 42.31% 1.28% 0.00% 51.28% 38.46% 3.85% 1.28% 1.28% 2.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 1,797 988 809 44 34 808 582 52 74 82 111 0 0 2 3 0 5

% 100% 54.98% 45.02% 2.45% 1.89% 44.96% 32.39% 2.89% 4.12% 4.56% 6.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.17% 0.00% 0.28%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 213

TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Internal Competitive Promotions1Job Series of Vacancy: General Attorney (0905)Relevant Pool2 % 100% 54.19% 45.81% 2.30% 2.23% 43.65% 32.30% 3.18% 4.26% 4.93% 6.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.20% 0.00% 0.34%TOTAL Received # 245TOTALApplications Received

# 245 169 76 3 5 139 54 9 6 18 10 0 0 0 1 0 0% 100% 68.98% 31.02% 1.22% 2.04% 56.73% 22.04% 3.67% 2.45% 7.35% 4.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 221 153 68 3 5 127 50 7 4 16 8 0 0 0 1 0 0% 100% 69.23% 30.77% 1.36% 2.26% 57.47% 22.62% 3.17% 1.81% 7.24% 3.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred

# 62 38 24 0 2 30 18 2 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 61.29% 38.71% 0.00% 3.23% 48.39% 29.03% 3.23% 0.00% 9.68% 6.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 36 24 12 0 0 19 9 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 52.78% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.89% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
214 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female New Hires General Attorney (0905): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, 28 attorney external applications were marked selected.3 TOTAL Received # 1,875 Voluntarily Identified

# 1,103 706 397 116 43 421 158 86 139 70 55 0 0 6 0 7 2% 100% 64.01% 35.99% 10.52% 3.90% 38.17% 14.32% 7.80% 12.60% 6.35% 4.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.63% 0.18%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 922 603 319 102 34 370 141 70 103 55 40 0 0 1 0 5 1% 100% 65.40% 34.60% 11.06% 3.69% 40.13% 15.29% 7.59% 11.17% 5.97% 4.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.54% 0.11%

Referred of ThoseQualified

# 154 99 55 9 0 74 34 7 11 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 64.29% 35.71% 5.84% 0.00% 48.05% 22.08% 4.55% 7.14% 5.84% 6.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 15 7 8 2 0 4 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 46.67% 53.33% 13.33% 0.00% 26.67% 40.00% 0.00% 13.33% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 28 13 15 2 0 10 11 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 46.43% 53.57% 7.14% 0.00% 35.71% 39.29% 3.57% 3.57% 0.00% 10.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 215

TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0510 AccountantOccupational CLF % 100% 39.91% 60.09% 2.19% 3.93% 31.79% 44.23% 2.49% 5.66% 3.06% 5.49% 0.02% 0.06% 0.19% 0.43% 0.17% 0.29%SK-09

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 5 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 20.00% 80.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 606 313 293 21 21 240 175 24 38 27 56 0 0 1 1 0 2% 100% 51.65% 48.35% 3.47% 3.47% 39.60% 28.88% 3.96% 6.27% 4.46% 9.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.17% 0.17% 0.00% 0.33%

SK-15

# 110 84 26 4 0 65 20 4 4 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 76.36% 23.64% 3.64% 0.00% 59.09% 18.18% 3.64% 3.64% 10.00% 1.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 60 39 21 1 1 32 17 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 65.00% 35.00% 1.67% 1.67% 53.33% 28.33% 5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.67%

SK-17

# 59 41 18 2 0 33 15 1 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 69.49% 30.51% 3.39% 0.00% 55.93% 25.42% 1.69% 0.00% 6.78% 5.08% 0.00% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 6 4 2 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 846 482 364 28 22 374 230 32 44 46 64 0 0 2 1 0 3% 100% 56.97% 43.03% 3.31% 2.60% 44.21% 27.19% 3.78% 5.20% 5.44% 7.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
216 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Internal Competitive Promotions1 Job Series of Vacancy: Accounting (0510) Relevant Pool2 % 100% 55.95% 44.05% 3.33% 2.82% 43.15% 27.40% 3.97% 5.51% 5.38% 7.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% 0.13% 0.00% 0.38% TOTAL Received # 18 TOTAL Applications Received

# 18 10 8 0 0 9 5 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 55.56% 44.44% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 27.78% 0.00% 16.67% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 15 8 7 0 0 7 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 53.33% 46.67% 0.00% 0.00% 46.67% 33.33% 0.00% 13.33% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred # 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 217

TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresAccounting (0510): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, nine accountant external applications were marked selected.3TOTAL Received # 194Voluntarily Identified

# 119 66 53 10 5 19 13 25 20 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 2% 100% 55.46% 44.54% 8.40% 4.20% 15.97% 10.92% 21.01% 16.81% 10.08% 10.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.68%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 56 32 24 3 1 11 5 13 10 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 2% 100% 57.14% 42.86% 5.36% 1.79% 19.64% 8.93% 23.21% 17.86% 8.93% 10.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.57%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 32 21 11 1 0 7 3 9 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 65.63% 34.38% 3.13% 0.00% 21.88% 9.38% 28.13% 18.75% 12.50% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
218 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1831 Securities Compliance Examining Occupational CLF % 100% 54.75% 45.25% 3.06% 3.65% 44.11% 28.34% 3.57% 8.71% 3.69% 3.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.31% 0.24% 0.27% SK-09 # 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% SK-10 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-11 # 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-12 # 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 30 11 19 2 1 5 7 1 3 2 8 0 0 0 0 1 0

% 100% 36.67% 63.33% 6.67% 3.33% 16.67% 23.33% 3.33% 10.00% 6.67% 26.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.33% 0.00%

SK-14

# 156 107 49 7 0 80 30 7 7 12 11 0 0 0 0 1 1

% 100% 68.59% 31.41% 4.49% 0.00% 51.28% 19.23% 4.49% 4.49% 7.69% 7.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.64%

SK-15

# 58 42 16 5 1 27 10 0 2 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 72.41% 27.59% 8.62% 1.72% 46.55% 17.24% 0.00% 3.45% 17.24% 5.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 42 33 9 2 0 26 5 1 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 78.57% 21.43% 4.76% 0.00% 61.90% 11.90% 2.38% 2.38% 9.52% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 35 20 15 2 1 14 9 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 57.14% 42.86% 5.71% 2.86% 40.00% 25.71% 5.71% 8.57% 5.71% 5.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 326 214 112 18 4 153 61 11 18 30 27 0 0 0 0 2 2

% 100% 65.64% 34.36% 5.52% 1.23% 46.93% 18.71% 3.37% 5.52% 9.20% 8.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.61% 0.61%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 219

TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Internal Competitive Promotions1Job Series of Vacancy: Securities Compliance Examining (1831)Relevant Pool2 % 100% 62.73% 37.27% 5.28% 1.24% 44.10% 18.63% 3.73% 9.32% 9.01% 7.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.62% 0.31%TOTAL Received # 21TOTALApplications Received

# 21 13 8 2 1 11 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 61.90% 38.10% 9.52% 4.76% 52.38% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 18 11 7 1 1 10 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 61.11% 38.89% 5.56% 5.56% 55.56% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred

# 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
220 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female New Hires Securities Compliance Examining (1831): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, one external securities compliance examiner application was marked selected.3 TOTAL Received # 103 Voluntarily Identified

# 37 28 9 3 1 17 5 3 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 75.68% 24.32% 8.11% 2.70% 45.95% 13.51% 8.11% 5.41% 13.51% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 34 27 7 2 0 17 5 3 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 79.41% 20.59% 5.88% 0.00% 50.00% 14.71% 8.82% 2.94% 14.71% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 5 3 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 221

TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

2210 Information Technology ManagementOccupational CLF % 100% 70.36% 29.64% 5.39% 2.17% 52.21% 20.89% 6.61% 4.50% 5.14% 1.55% 0.10% 0.05% 0.53% 0.29% 0.38% 0.18%SK-09

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 85 56 29 5 1 24 7 11 16 13 5 0 0 1 0 2 0% 100% 65.88% 34.12% 5.88% 1.18% 28.24% 8.24% 12.94% 18.82% 15.29% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 1.18% 0.00% 2.35% 0.00%

SK-14

# 113 90 23 9 1 43 8 10 8 27 6 0 0 0 0 1 0% 100% 79.65% 20.35% 7.96% 0.88% 38.05% 7.08% 8.85% 7.08% 23.89% 5.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.88% 0.00%

SK-15

# 45 29 16 2 1 12 7 5 5 9 3 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 64.44% 35.56% 4.44% 2.22% 26.67% 15.56% 11.11% 11.11% 20.00% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 21 17 4 0 0 10 1 0 1 6 2 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 80.95% 19.05% 0.00% 0.00% 47.62% 4.76% 0.00% 4.76% 28.57% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 11 9 2 0 0 8 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 81.82% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 72.73% 9.09% 0.00% 9.09% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 4 3 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 284 206 78 16 3 99 25 29 34 56 16 0 0 3 0 3 0% 100% 72.54% 27.46% 5.63% 1.06% 34.86% 8.80% 10.21% 11.97% 19.72% 5.63% 0.00% 0.00% 1.06% 0.00% 1.06% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
222 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Internal Competitive Promotions1 Job Series of Vacancy: Information Technology Management (2210) Relevant Pool2 % 100% 72.12% 27.88% 5.95% 1.12% 33.09% 8.55% 10.41% 12.27% 20.45% 5.95% 0.00% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% TOTAL Received # 587 TOTAL Applications Received

# 587 462 125 39 12 138 24 112 43 167 41 1 0 2 1 3 4% 100% 78.71% 21.29% 6.64% 2.04% 23.51% 4.09% 19.08% 7.33% 28.45% 6.98% 0.17% 0.00% 0.34% 0.17% 0.51% 0.68%

Qualified # 136 106 30 6 1 36 3 13 12 51 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 77.94% 22.06% 4.41% 0.74% 26.47% 2.21% 9.56% 8.82% 37.50% 10.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred # 67 54 13 2 1 15 1 8 3 29 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 80.60% 19.40% 2.99% 1.49% 22.39% 1.49% 11.94% 4.48% 43.28% 11.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 9 6 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 44.44% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 223

TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresInformation Technology Management (2210): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, 13 information technology management external applications were marked selected.3TOTAL Received # 1,765VoluntarilyIdentified

# 1,307 1,031 276 110 30 290 54 323 142 291 46 2 0 5 0 10 4% 100% 78.88% 21.12% 8.42% 2.30% 22.19% 4.13% 24.71% 10.86% 22.26% 3.52% 0.15% 0.00% 0.38% 0.00% 0.77% 0.31%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 1,220 971 249 104 28 272 49 300 129 280 39 1 0 5 0 9 4% 100% 79.59% 20.41% 8.52% 2.30% 22.30% 4.02% 24.59% 10.57% 22.95% 3.20% 0.08% 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% 0.74% 0.33%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 60 47 13 4 3 17 2 12 8 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 78.33% 21.67% 6.67% 5.00% 28.33% 3.33% 20.00% 13.33% 23.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 6 4 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 8 5 3 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 62.50% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 37.50% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
224 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0110 Economist Occupational CLF % 100% 67.07% 32.93% 3.34% 1.85% 55.79% 25.20% 2.84% 2.66% 4.46% 3.02% 0.00% 0.05% 0.47% 0.13% 0.18% 0.02% SK-09 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-10 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-11 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-12 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 12 8 4 1 1 3 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 8.33% 8.33% 25.00% 8.33% 25.00% 0.00% 8.33% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 42 31 11 0 2 25 4 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 73.81% 26.19% 0.00% 4.76% 59.52% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 11.90% 11.90% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15

# 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 16 12 4 1 0 7 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 6.25% 0.00% 43.75% 25.00% 6.25% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 8 6 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 84 62 22 2 3 45 11 4 0 9 8 0 0 2 0 0 0

% 100% 73.81% 26.19% 2.38% 3.57% 53.57% 13.10% 4.76% 0.00% 10.71% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 225

TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Internal Competitive Promotions1Job Series of Vacancy: Economist (0110)Relevant Pool2 % 100% 74.32% 25.68% 2.70% 4.05% 52.70% 12.16% 5.41% 0.00% 10.81% 9.46% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%TOTAL Received # 0TOTALApplicationsReceived

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
226 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female New Hires Economist (0110): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, no economist external applications were marked selected.3 TOTAL Received # 0 Voluntarily Identified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 227

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0905 General AttorneyOccupational CLF % 100% 66.70% 33.30% 2.52% 1.85% 59.68% 26.68% 2.13% 2.60% 1.82% 1.74% 0.02% 0.01% 0.31% 0.23% 0.22% 0.18%SK-09

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 11 8 3 0 0 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 72.73% 27.27% 0.00% 0.00% 63.64% 27.27% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 27 14 13 0 0 13 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 51.85% 48.15% 0.00% 0.00% 48.15% 44.44% 0.00% 3.70% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 41 23 18 0 0 20 16 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 56.10% 43.90% 0.00% 0.00% 48.78% 39.02% 2.44% 2.44% 4.88% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
228 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Internal Competitive Promotions1 Job Series of Vacancy: General Attorney (0905) Relevant Pool2 % 100% 54.19% 45.81% 2.30% 2.23% 43.65% 32.30% 3.18% 4.26% 4.93% 6.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.20% 0.00% 0.34% TOTAL Received # 54 TOTAL Applications Received

# 54 25 29 3 4 18 15 2 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 3% 100% 46.30% 53.70% 5.56% 7.41% 33.33% 27.78% 3.70% 5.56% 3.70% 7.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.56%

Qualified # 49 23 26 3 3 16 15 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2

% 100% 46.94% 53.06% 6.12% 6.12% 32.65% 30.61% 4.08% 4.08% 4.08% 8.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.08%

Referred # 10 4 6 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00%

Selected # 10 4 6 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 229

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresGeneral Attorney (0905): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, 64 attorney applications were marked as selected.TOTAL Received # 107VoluntarilyIdentified

# 61 41 20 5 2 23 10 8 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% 100% 67.21% 32.79% 8.20% 3.28% 37.70% 16.39% 13.11% 13.11% 6.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 29 22 7 1 0 17 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 75.86% 24.14% 3.45% 0.00% 58.62% 17.24% 3.45% 6.90% 10.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 11 10 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 90.91% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 72.73% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 11 7 4 0 0 5 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 63.64% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 45.45% 36.36% 9.09% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
230 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0510 Accountant Occupational CLF % 100% 39.91% 60.09% 2.19% 3.93% 31.79% 44.23% 2.49% 5.66% 3.06% 5.49% 0.02% 0.06% 0.19% 0.43% 0.17% 0.29% SK-09 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-10 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-11 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-12 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 15 8 7 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 53.33% 46.67% 0.00% 0.00% 53.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 19 11 8 0 0 11 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 57.89% 42.11% 0.00% 0.00% 57.89% 31.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 231

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Internal Competitive Promotions1Job Series of Vacancy: Accounting (0510)Relevant Pool2 % 100% 55.95% 44.05% 3.33% 2.82% 43.15% 27.40% 3.97% 5.51% 5.38% 7.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% 0.13% 0.00% 0.38%TOTAL Received # 6TOTALApplications Received

# 6 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 6 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
232 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female New Hires Accounting (0510): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, 12 accountant applications were marked as selected.2 TOTAL Received # 21 Voluntarily Identified

# 9 3 6 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 11.11% 44.44% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 4 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 8 5 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 62.50% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 62.50% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 233

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

1831 Securities Compliance ExaminingOccupational CLF % 100% 54.75% 45.25% 3.06% 3.65% 44.11% 28.34% 3.57% 8.71% 3.69% 3.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.31% 0.24% 0.27%SK-09

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
234 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Internal Competitive Promotions1 Job Series of Vacancy: Securities Compliance Examining (1831) Relevant Pool2 % 100% 62.73% 37.27% 5.28% 1.24% 44.10% 18.63% 3.73% 9.32% 9.01% 7.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.62% 0.31% TOTAL Received # 0 TOTAL Applications Received

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 235

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresSecurities Compliance Examining (1831): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, 4 applications were marked as selected.TOTAL Received # 0VoluntarilyIdentified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
236 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 2210 Information Technology Management Occupational CLF

% 100% 70.36% 29.64% 5.39% 2.17% 52.21% 20.89% 6.61% 4.50% 5.14% 1.55% 0.10% 0.05% 0.53% 0.29% 0.38% 0.18%

SK-09 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12 # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16 # 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population # 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 237

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Internal Competitive Promotions1Job Series of Vacancy: Information Technology Management (2210)Relevant Pool2 % 100% 72.12% 27.88% 5.95% 1.12% 33.09% 8.55% 10.41% 12.27% 20.45% 5.95% 0.00% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00%TOTAL Received # 0

TOTALApplications Received

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
238 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female New Hires Information Technology Management (2210): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, 21 information technology management applications were marked as selected. TOTAL Received # 0 Voluntarily Identified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4 # 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 239

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0110 EconomistOccupational CLF % 100% 67.07% 32.93% 3.34% 1.85% 55.79% 25.20% 2.84% 2.66% 4.46% 3.02% 0.00% 0.05% 0.47% 0.13% 0.18% 0.02%SK-09

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 12 6 6 1 0 3 5 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 8.33% 0.00% 25.00% 41.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Population

# 13 7 6 1 0 3 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 53.85% 46.15% 7.69% 0.00% 23.08% 38.46% 0.00% 0.00% 23.08% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019 
240 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX— TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES Temporary Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Internal Competitive Promotions1 Job Series of Vacancy: Economist (0110) Relevant Pool2 % 100% 74.32% 25.68% 2.70% 4.05% 52.70% 12.16% 5.41% 0.00% 10.81% 9.46% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL Received # 6 TOTAL Applications Received

# 6 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 241

TABLE A6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS: DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADESTemporary Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresEconomist (0110): In FY 2019 Applicant Flow Data, no economist external applications were marked selected.3TOTAL Received # 162VoluntarilyIdentified

# 61 42 19 6 0 27 12 2 3 6 4 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 68.85% 31.15% 9.84% 0.00% 44.26% 19.67% 3.28% 4.92% 9.84% 6.56% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of ThoseIdentified

# 52 34 18 3 0 23 12 1 2 6 4 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 65.38% 34.62% 5.77% 0.00% 44.23% 23.08% 1.92% 3.85% 11.54% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 1.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of ThoseQualified

# 51 33 18 3 0 23 12 1 2 5 4 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 64.71% 35.29% 5.88% 0.00% 45.10% 23.53% 1.96% 3.92% 9.80% 7.84% 0.00% 0.00% 1.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of ThoseReferred3

# 6 3 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Onboarded4

# 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding an occupational series that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully onboarded.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
242 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Upward Mobility Benchmark 100% 55.31% 44.69% 3.14% 2.39% 41.06% 25.93% 4.30% 9.42% 6.41% 6.35% 0.00% 0.03% 0.28% 0.10% 0.13% 0.46% GS Equivalent Senior Grade Levels TOTAL Senior Grades

# 3,881 2,212 1,669 129 84 1,642 1,032 164 286 261 248 0 1 11 4 5 14

% 100% 57.00% 43.00% 3.32% 2.16% 42.31% 26.59% 4.23% 7.37% 6.73% 6.39% 0.00% 0.03% 0.28% 0.10% 0.13% 0.36%

Internal Competitive Promotions1

Total All Senior Grade LevelsTOTAL Received # 3,605

TOTALApplications Received

# 2,744 1,626 1,118 156 107 715 323 426 516 302 132 2 2 12 11 13 27

% 100% 59.26% 40.74% 5.69% 3.90% 26.06% 11.77% 15.52% 18.80% 11.01% 4.81% 0.07% 0.07% 0.44% 0.40% 0.47% 0.98%

Qualified # 1,544 887 657 82 62 450 211 208 290 136 72 1 2 5 8 5 12

% 100% 57.45% 42.55% 5.31% 4.02% 29.15% 13.67% 13.47% 18.78% 8.81% 4.66% 0.06% 0.13% 0.32% 0.52% 0.32% 0.78%

Referred # 1,048 591 457 62 43 262 134 173 222 85 41 1 2 3 5 5 10

% 100% 56.39% 43.61% 5.92% 4.10% 25.00% 12.79% 16.51% 21.18% 8.11% 3.91% 0.10% 0.19% 0.29% 0.48% 0.48% 0.95%

Selected # 80 43 37 1 4 29 21 2 5 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 53.75% 46.25% 1.25% 5.00% 36.25% 26.25% 2.50% 6.25% 13.75% 7.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.25%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

f--f--

f--f--

f--f--

f--f--
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 243

TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresTOTAL All Senior Grade LevelsTOTAL Received # 4,494VoluntarilyIdentified

# 2,953 2,003 950 261 103 812 284 492 413 402 137 2 0 14 1 20 12% 100% 67.83% 32.17% 8.84% 3.49% 27.50% 9.62% 16.66% 13.99% 13.61% 4.64% 0.07% 0.00% 0.47% 0.03% 0.68% 0.41%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 2,533 1,762 771 226 79 720 246 427 333 363 102 1 0 9 0 16 11% 100% 69.56% 30.44% 8.92% 3.12% 28.42% 9.71% 16.86% 13.15% 14.33% 4.03% 0.04% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00% 0.63% 0.43%

Referred of ThoseQualified

# 269 180 89 15 4 106 45 29 26 29 14 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 66.91% 33.09% 5.58% 1.49% 39.41% 16.73% 10.78% 9.67% 10.78% 5.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of ThoseReferred3

# 25 12 13 2 0 7 10 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 48.00% 52.00% 8.00% 0.00% 28.00% 40.00% 4.00% 12.00% 8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL ONBOARDED4

# 48 21 27 4 0 14 17 1 4 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 43.75% 56.25% 8.33% 0.00% 29.17% 35.42% 2.08% 8.33% 4.17% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for All Senior Grade Level JobsSlots5 # 0Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
244 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female SES Equivalent Senior Grade Levels Exec SES Equivalent

# 121 71 50 2 0 63 41 4 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1% 100% 58.68% 41.32% 1.65% 0.00% 52.07% 33.88% 3.31% 3.31% 1.65% 2.48% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83%

Internal Competitive Promotions1Grade of Vacancy: SO-01Relevant Pool2 % 100% 58.12% 41.88% 3.28% 2.23% 43.99% 27.04% 3.72% 5.66% 6.83% 6.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.12% 0.06% 0.35%TOTAL Received # 144TOTALApplications Received

# 107 52 55 3 5 37 27 11 17 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 48.60% 51.40% 2.80% 4.67% 34.58% 25.23% 10.28% 15.89% 0.93% 4.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.93%

Qualified # 61 30 31 2 2 23 18 4 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 49.18% 50.82% 3.28% 3.28% 37.70% 29.51% 6.56% 13.11% 1.64% 3.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64%

Referred # 51 22 29 2 2 17 16 3 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 43.14% 56.86% 3.92% 3.92% 33.33% 31.37% 5.88% 15.69% 0.00% 3.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.96%

Selected # 8 4 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 245

TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresSES Equivalent Grade LevelTOTAL Received # 146VoluntarilyIdentified

# 94 67 27 3 1 44 11 11 9 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 71.28% 28.72% 3.19% 1.06% 46.81% 11.70% 11.70% 9.57% 9.57% 6.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 44 31 13 0 0 25 9 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 70.45% 29.55% 0.00% 0.00% 56.82% 20.45% 6.82% 2.27% 6.82% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 44 31 13 0 0 25 9 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 70.45% 29.55% 0.00% 0.00% 56.82% 20.45% 6.82% 2.27% 6.82% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Exec Onboarded4

# 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for SES Equivalent JobsSlots5 # 0Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
246 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female GS-15 Equivalent Senior Grade Levels GS-15 Equivalent # 750 476 274 33 9 366 187 24 42 51 35 0 0 2 0 0 1

% 100% 63.47% 36.53% 4.40% 1.20% 48.80% 24.93% 3.20% 5.60% 6.80% 4.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13%

Internal Competitive Promotions1Grades of Vacancies: SK-15 & SK-17Relevant Pool2 % 100% 57.60% 42.40% 3.18% 2.45% 43.13% 26.93% 3.91% 5.80% 7.09% 6.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.13% 0.07% 0.36%TOTAL Received # 1,593TOTALApplications Received

# 1,231 798 433 83 41 367 130 197 184 144 66 1 0 2 5 4 7% 100% 64.83% 35.17% 6.74% 3.33% 29.81% 10.56% 16.00% 14.95% 11.70% 5.36% 0.08% 0.00% 0.16% 0.41% 0.32% 0.57%

Qualified # 785 485 300 52 26 247 98 113 131 68 37 1 0 2 4 2 4

% 100% 61.78% 38.22% 6.62% 3.31% 31.46% 12.48% 14.39% 16.69% 8.66% 4.71% 0.13% 0.00% 0.25% 0.51% 0.25% 0.51%

Referred # 558 338 220 44 21 139 63 106 111 44 17 1 0 2 4 2 4

% 100% 60.57% 39.43% 7.89% 3.76% 24.91% 11.29% 19.00% 19.89% 7.89% 3.05% 0.18% 0.00% 0.36% 0.72% 0.36% 0.72%

Selected # 30 14 16 1 1 10 10 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 46.67% 53.33% 3.33% 3.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.33% 10.00% 6.67% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 247

TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresGS-15 Equivalent Grade LevelTOTAL Received # 533

Voluntarily Identified

# 363 257 106 31 6 108 34 66 40 50 24 0 0 2 0 0 2

% 100% 70.80% 29.20% 8.54% 1.65% 29.75% 9.37% 18.18% 11.02% 13.77% 6.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.55%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 292 215 77 27 2 91 29 50 27 45 17 0 0 2 0 0 2

% 100% 73.63% 26.37% 9.25% 0.68% 31.16% 9.93% 17.12% 9.25% 15.41% 5.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.68% 0.00% 0.00% 0.68%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 50 31 19 3 0 19 8 7 9 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 62.00% 38.00% 6.00% 0.00% 38.00% 16.00% 14.00% 18.00% 4.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of ThoseReferred3

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

GS-15 Onboarded4

# 6 2 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for SK 15 – 17Relevant Pool % 100% 62.45% 37.55% 3.32% 1.11% 48.93% 26.56% 3.08% 4.58% 6.80% 4.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.16% 0.00% 0.32%

Slots5 # 0

Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019 

-----
248 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female GS-14 Equivalent Senior Grade Levels GS-14 Equivalent # 2,660 1,506 1,154 79 67 1,134 735 103 151 182 186 0 0 6 4 2 11

% 100% 56.62% 43.38% 2.97% 2.52% 42.63% 27.63% 3.87% 5.68% 6.84% 6.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.15% 0.08% 0.41%

Internal Competitive Promotions1Grades of Vacancies: SK-14 & SK-16Relevant Pool2 % 100% 55.50% 44.50% 3.57% 2.70% 39.52% 25.68% 4.77% 8.69% 7.18% 7.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.07% 0.18% 0.32%TOTAL Received # 1,389TOTALApplications Received

# 1,051 584 467 51 44 259 130 150 233 111 43 0 2 8 3 5 12% 100% 55.57% 44.43% 4.85% 4.19% 24.64% 12.37% 14.27% 22.17% 10.56% 4.09% 0.00% 0.19% 0.76% 0.29% 0.48% 1.14%

Qualified # 556 316 240 23 25 156 70 75 112 56 23 0 2 3 2 3 6

% 100% 56.83% 43.17% 4.14% 4.50% 28.06% 12.59% 13.49% 20.14% 10.07% 4.14% 0.00% 0.36% 0.54% 0.36% 0.54% 1.08%

Referred # 370 198 172 14 18 92 44 57 87 31 15 0 2 1 1 3 5

% 100% 53.51% 46.49% 3.78% 4.86% 24.86% 11.89% 15.41% 23.51% 8.38% 4.05% 0.00% 0.54% 0.27% 0.27% 0.81% 1.35%

Selected # 34 24 10 0 1 14 5 1 2 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 70.59% 29.41% 0.00% 2.94% 41.18% 14.71% 2.94% 5.88% 26.47% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 249

TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresGS-14 Equivalent Grade LevelsTOTAL Received # 2,715

VoluntarilyIdentified

# 1,749 1,216 533 154 51 514 175 265 230 256 74 1 0 11 0 15 3

% 100% 69.53% 30.47% 8.81% 2.92% 29.39% 10.01% 15.15% 13.15% 14.64% 4.23% 0.06% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00% 0.86% 0.17%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 1,501 1,083 418 132 38 467 146 234 177 233 54 0 0 6 0 11 3

% 100% 72.15% 27.85% 8.79% 2.53% 31.11% 9.73% 15.59% 11.79% 15.52% 3.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 0.73% 0.20%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 132 91 41 8 1 53 24 11 8 18 8 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 68.94% 31.06% 6.06% 0.76% 40.15% 18.18% 8.33% 6.06% 13.64% 6.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 13 8 5 2 0 4 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 61.54% 38.46% 15.38% 0.00% 30.77% 38.46% 7.69% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

GS-14 Onboarded4

# 21 11 10 2 0 8 6 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 52.38% 47.62% 9.52% 0.00% 38.10% 28.57% 0.00% 9.52% 4.76% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for SK 13 – 14Relevant Pool % 100% 54.15% 45.85% 3.41% 2.81% 38.48% 26.25% 4.85% 8.98% 6.93% 7.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.08% 0.20% 0.36%

Slots5 # 0

Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

t--

t--

t--

t--
250 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female GS-13 Equivalent Senior Grade Levels GS-13 Equivalent # 350 159 191 15 8 79 69 33 89 26 24 0 0 3 0 3 1

% 100% 45.43% 54.57% 4.29% 2.29% 22.57% 19.71% 9.43% 25.43% 7.43% 6.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.86% 0.00% 0.86% 0.29%

Internal Competitive Promotions1Grade of Vacancy: SK-13Relevant Pool2 % 100% 23.16% 76.84% 0.00% 4.21% 7.89% 19.47% 13.16% 46.84% 1.58% 4.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 0.53% 0.00% 1.05%TOTAL Received # 479TOTALApplications Received

# 355 192 163 19 17 52 36 68 82 46 18 1 0 2 3 4 7% 100% 54.08% 45.92% 5.35% 4.79% 14.65% 10.14% 19.15% 23.10% 12.96% 5.07% 0.28% 0.00% 0.56% 0.85% 1.13% 1.97%

Qualified # 142 56 86 5 9 24 25 16 39 11 10 0 0 0 2 0 1

% 100% 39.44% 60.56% 3.52% 6.34% 16.90% 17.61% 11.27% 27.46% 7.75% 7.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.41% 0.00% 0.70%

Referred # 69 33 36 2 2 14 11 7 16 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 47.83% 52.17% 2.90% 2.90% 20.29% 15.94% 10.14% 23.19% 14.49% 10.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 8 1 7 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 12.50% 87.50% 0.00% 25.00% 12.50% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019 
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 251

TABLE A7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

SENIOR GRADE LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresGS-13 Equivalent Grade LevelTOTAL Received # 1,100

VoluntarilyIdentified

# 747 463 284 73 45 146 64 150 134 87 33 1 0 1 1 5 7

% 100% 61.98% 38.02% 9.77% 6.02% 19.54% 8.57% 20.08% 17.94% 11.65% 4.42% 0.13% 0.00% 0.13% 0.13% 0.67% 0.94%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 696 433 263 67 39 137 62 140 128 82 28 1 0 1 0 5 6

% 100% 62.21% 37.79% 9.63% 5.60% 19.68% 8.91% 20.11% 18.39% 11.78% 4.02% 0.14% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.72% 0.86%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 43 27 16 4 3 9 4 8 8 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 62.79% 37.21% 9.30% 6.98% 20.93% 9.30% 18.60% 18.60% 13.95% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 6 2 4 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

GS-13 Onboarded4

# 18 7 11 1 0 4 5 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 38.89% 61.11% 5.56% 0.00% 22.22% 27.78% 5.56% 11.11% 5.56% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for SK 13 – 14Relevant Pool % 100% 54.15% 45.85% 3.41% 2.81% 38.48% 26.25% 4.85% 8.98% 6.93% 7.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.08% 0.20% 0.36%

Slots5 # 0

Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded. 

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each GS-equivalent grade level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the 

table’s definition.

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-----
252 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Upward Mobility Benchmark 100% 56.44% 43.56% 3.17% 2.28% 42.48% 26.55% 4.11% 7.78% 6.28% 6.45% 0.00% 0.03% 0.25% 0.11% 0.14% 0.36% Leadership Levels TOTAL Management

# 862 533 329 34 10 416 226 28 50 53 40 0 1 2 0 0 2% 100% 61.83% 38.17% 3.94% 1.16% 48.26% 26.22% 3.25% 5.80% 6.15% 4.64% 0.00% 0.12% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23%

Internal Competitive Promotions1TOTAL Leadership LevelsTOTAL Received # 2,012TOTALApplications Received

# 1,613 1,028 585 96 52 510 198 228 240 185 81 1 0 3 6 5 8% 100% 63.73% 36.27% 5.95% 3.22% 31.62% 12.28% 14.14% 14.88% 11.47% 5.02% 0.06% 0.00% 0.19% 0.37% 0.31% 0.50%

Qualified # 1,076 662 414 62 34 357 151 133 173 104 46 1 0 3 5 2 5

% 100% 61.52% 38.48% 5.76% 3.16% 33.18% 14.03% 12.36% 16.08% 9.67% 4.28% 0.09% 0.00% 0.28% 0.46% 0.19% 0.46%

Referred # 684 404 280 47 26 184 94 113 130 55 21 1 0 2 4 2 5

% 100% 59.06% 40.94% 6.87% 3.80% 26.90% 13.74% 16.52% 19.01% 8.04% 3.07% 0.15% 0.00% 0.29% 0.58% 0.29% 0.73%

Selected # 72 41 31 1 2 28 20 2 4 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 56.94% 43.06% 1.39% 2.78% 38.89% 27.78% 2.78% 5.56% 13.89% 5.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.39%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 253

TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresTOTAL All Leadership LevelsTOTAL Received # 679VoluntarilyIdentified

# 457 324 133 34 7 152 45 77 49 59 30 0 0 2 0 0 2% 100% 70.90% 29.10% 7.44% 1.53% 33.26% 9.85% 16.85% 10.72% 12.91% 6.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.44%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 336 246 90 27 2 116 38 53 28 48 20 0 0 2 0 0 2% 100% 73.21% 26.79% 8.04% 0.60% 34.52% 11.31% 15.77% 8.33% 14.29% 5.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60%

Referred of ThoseQualified

# 94 62 32 3 0 44 17 10 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 65.96% 34.04% 3.19% 0.00% 46.81% 18.09% 10.64% 10.64% 5.32% 5.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of ThoseReferred3

# 6 2 4 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL LEADERSHIPONBOARDED4

# 9 3 6 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 11.11% 0.00% 22.22% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for All Leadership JobsSlots5 # 0Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
254 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Executive Level Executive # 121 71 50 2 0 63 41 4 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1

% 100% 58.68% 41.32% 1.65% 0.00% 52.07% 33.88% 3.31% 3.31% 1.65% 2.48% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83%

SK-17 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer # 121 71 50 2 0 63 41 4 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1

% 100% 58.68% 41.32% 1.65% 0.00% 52.07% 33.88% 3.31% 3.31% 1.65% 2.48% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83%

Internal Competitive Promotions1

ExecutiveRelevant Pool2 % 100% 61.95% 38.05% 4.11% 0.51% 50.39% 28.02% 2.31% 4.63% 4.88% 4.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26%

TOTAL Received # 144TOTALApplications Received

# 107 52 55 3 5 37 27 11 17 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 48.60% 51.40% 2.80% 4.67% 34.58% 10.28% 15.89% 0.93% 4.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.93%

Qualified # 61 30 31 2 2 23 18 4 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 49.18% 50.82% 3.28% 3.28% 37.70% 29.51% 6.56% 13.11% 1.64% 3.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.64%

Referred # 51 22 29 2 2 17 16 3 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 43.14% 56.86% 3.92% 3.92% 33.33% 31.37% 5.88% 15.69% 0.00% 3.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.96%

Selected # 8 4 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 255

TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

New HiresExecutive Vacancy LevelTOTAL Received # 146Voluntarily Identified

# 94 67 27 3 1 44 11 11 9 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 71.28% 28.72% 3.19% 1.06% 46.81% 11.70% 11.70% 9.57% 9.57% 6.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 44 31 13 0 0 25 9 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 70.45% 29.55% 0.00% 0.00% 56.82% 20.45% 6.82% 2.27% 6.82% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 44 31 13 0 0 25 9 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 70.45% 29.55% 0.00% 0.00% 56.82% 20.45% 6.82% 2.27% 6.82% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Executive Onboarded4

# 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for Executive LevelsSlots5 # 0Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
256 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Manager Level Manager # 389 241 148 16 2 196 109 9 18 19 18 0 0 1 0 0 1

% 100% 61.95% 38.05% 4.11% 0.51% 50.39% 28.02% 2.31% 4.63% 4.88% 4.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26%

SK-17 # 389 241 148 16 2 196 109 9 18 19 18 0 0 1 0 0 1

% 100% 61.95% 38.05% 4.11% 0.51% 50.39% 28.02% 2.31% 4.63% 4.88% 4.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Internal Competitive Promotions1

ManagerRelevant Pool2 % 100% 63.14% 36.86% 4.57% 2.29% 44.86% 21.71% 4.29% 7.43% 9.14% 5.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Received # 484TOTALApplications Received

# 390 263 127 24 9 164 54 45 42 27 20 0 0 1 0 2 2

% 100% 67.44% 32.56% 6.15% 2.31% 42.05% 13.85% 11.54% 10.77% 6.92% 5.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.51% 0.51%

Qualified # 304 210 94 19 5 140 44 26 30 23 14 0 0 1 0 1 1

% 100% 69.08% 30.92% 6.25% 1.64% 46.05% 14.47% 8.55% 9.87% 7.57% 4.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.33% 0.33%

Referred # 144 98 46 13 2 55 20 23 19 5 4 0 0 1 0 1 1

% 100% 68.06% 31.94% 9.03% 1.39% 38.19% 13.89% 15.97% 13.19% 3.47% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.69% 0.00% 0.69% 0.69%

Selected # 17 9 8 0 0 7 5 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 52.94% 47.06% 0.00% 0.00% 41.18% 29.41% 0.00% 5.88% 11.76% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 257

TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Manager Vacancy LevelTOTAL Received # 104VoluntarilyIdentified

# 57 34 23 4 0 21 11 5 6 3 6 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 59.65% 40.35% 7.02% 0.00% 36.84% 19.30% 8.77% 10.53% 5.26% 10.53% 0.00% 0.00% 1.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 57 34 23 4 0 21 11 5 6 3 6 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 59.65% 40.35% 7.02% 0.00% 36.84% 19.30% 8.77% 10.53% 5.26% 10.53% 0.00% 0.00% 1.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 6 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Manager Onboarded4

# 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for ManagersRelevant Pool % 100% 62.45% 37.55% 3.32% 1.11% 48.93% 26.56% 3.08% 4.58% 6.80% 4.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.16% 0.00% 0.32%Slots5 # 0Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
258 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Supervisor Level Supervisor # 352 221 131 16 8 157 76 15 28 32 19 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 62.78% 37.22% 4.55% 2.27% 44.60% 21.59% 4.26% 7.95% 9.09% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-09 # 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11 # 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13 # 8 2 6 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14 # 8 2 6 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 37.50% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15 # 333 216 117 16 7 152 71 15 22 32 17 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 64.86% 35.14% 4.80% 2.10% 45.65% 21.32% 4.50% 6.61% 9.61% 5.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019 

-

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 259

TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Internal Competitive Promotions1SupervisorRelevant Pool2 % 100% 51.96% 48.04% 3.17% 2.91% 36.31% 25.77% 5.44% 11.66% 6.55% 7.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.11% 0.19% 0.41%TOTAL Received # 1,384TOTALApplications Received

# 1,116 713 403 69 38 309 117 172 181 157 56 1 0 2 6 3 5% 100% 63.89% 36.11% 6.18% 3.41% 27.69% 10.48% 15.41% 16.22% 14.07% 5.02% 0.09% 0.00% 0.18% 0.54% 0.27% 0.45%

Qualified

# 711 422 289 41 27 194 89 103 135 80 30 1 0 2 5 1 3% 100% 59.35% 40.65% 5.77% 3.80% 27.29% 12.52% 14.49% 18.99% 11.25% 4.22% 0.14% 0.00% 0.28% 0.70% 0.14% 0.42%

Referred

# 489 284 205 32 22 112 58 87 103 50 15 1 0 1 4 1 3% 100% 58.08% 41.92% 6.54% 4.50% 22.90% 11.86% 17.79% 21.06% 10.22% 3.07% 0.20% 0.00% 0.20% 0.82% 0.20% 0.61%

Selected

# 47 28 19 1 2 17 12 2 3 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 59.57% 40.43% 2.13% 4.26% 36.17% 25.53% 4.26% 6.38% 17.02% 4.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
260 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCE Permanent Employees TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female New Hires Supervisor Vacancy Level TOTAL Received # 429 Voluntarily Identified

# 306 223 83 27 6 87 23 61 34 47 18 0 0 1 0 0 2% 100% 72.88% 27.12% 8.82% 1.96% 28.43% 7.52% 19.93% 11.11% 15.36% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.65%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 235 181 54 23 2 70 18 45 21 42 11 0 0 1 0 0 2% 100% 77.02% 22.98% 9.79% 0.85% 29.79% 7.66% 19.15% 8.94% 17.87% 4.68% 0.00% 0.00% 0.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85%

Referred of Those Qualified

# 44 29 15 3 0 17 6 7 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 65.91% 34.09% 6.82% 0.00% 38.64% 13.64% 15.91% 15.91% 4.55% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Referred3

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Supervisor Onboarded4

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for permanent vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019 (i.e., between 10/1/2018 and 09/30/2019). Internal Competitive 

Promotions data includes vacancies posted for internal SEC-only and Merit Promotion (MP) government-wide consideration following EEOC instruction. Other methods of progressing to higher graded positions are not presented.

2 The Relevant Pool includes all employees holding a grade level and supervisory status that would qualify them for the position posted.3 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019, including those who chose not to voluntarily self-identify their race, 

ethnicity, or gender. As such, the number selected may exceed the number selected of those referred.

4 Onboarded includes all newly hired staff with an effective date of hire during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2019. The number onboarded may not equal the number selected from a vacancy posted during the fiscal 

year because some new hires applied during a prior fiscal year and some vacancy selections may not materialize into new hires successfully Onboarded.

5 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 261

TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201921 continued

LEADERSHIP LEVEL WORKFORCEPermanent Employees

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African

American Asian

Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Career Development ProgramsCareer Development Programs for SupervisorsRelevant Pool % 100% 54.15% 45.85% 3.41% 2.81% 38.48% 26.25% 4.85% 8.98% 6.93% 7.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.08% 0.20% 0.36%Slots1 # 0Applied

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 Slots shows the total number of available training slots for career development programs targeted each leadership level. During FY 2019, no career development programs were offered meeting the table’s definition.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos Applicant Flow Data System, Datamart FPPS Application, and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
262 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A9P: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—PARTICIPATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) AWARDS Permanent TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Time-Off Awards Time-Off Awards: 1 – 10 hours TOTAL Time-Off Awards Given # 1,590 776 814 45 34 564 471 75 223 86 71 0 0 5 5 1 10 % 100% 48.81% 51.19% 2.83% 2.14% 35.47% 29.62% 4.72% 14.03% 5.41% 4.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.31% 0.06% 0.63% TOTAL Hours 10,983 5,520 5,463 312 238 4,019 3,149 499 1,495 640 487 0 0 42 26 8 68 Average Hours 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 8 5 8 7 Time-Off Awards: 11 – 20 hours

TOTAL Time-OffAwards Given

# 844 439 405 28 24 319 235 25 85 63 56 0 0 2 1 2 4

% 100% 52.01% 47.99% 3.32% 2.84% 37.80% 27.84% 2.96% 10.07% 7.46% 6.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.12% 0.24% 0.47%

TOTAL Hours 13,316 6,923 6,393 438 378 5,015 3,722 386 1,342 1,020 871 0 0 32 16 32 64

Average Hours 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 16 16 16 0 0 16 16 16 16

Time-Off Awards: 21 – 30 hoursTOTALTime-OffAwards Given

# 388 187 201 11 13 138 134 13 28 22 25 0 0 1 1 2 0

% 100% 48.20% 51.80% 2.84% 3.35% 35.57% 34.54% 3.35% 7.22% 5.67% 6.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.26% 0.52% 0.00%

TOTAL Hours 9,325 4,494 4,831 264 312 3,318 3,219 312 678 528 598 0 0 24 24 48 0

Average Hours 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0 0 24 24 24 0

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

--
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 263

TABLE A9P: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—PARTICIPATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) continued

AWARDSPermanent

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native 

Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian or Alaska 

Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Time-Off Awards: 31 – 40 hoursTOTALTime-OffAwards Given

# 96 41 55 2 4 34 40 1 1 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 42.71% 57.29% 2.08% 4.17% 35.42% 41.67% 1.04% 1.04% 4.17% 10.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Hours 3,626 1,551 2,075 75 151 1,288 1,503 40 32 148 389 0 0 0 0 0 0Average Hours 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 40 32 37 39 0 0 0 0 0 0Time-Off Awards: 41 + hoursTOTALTime-OffAwards Given

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Average Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Time-Off Awards: 11 – 40 hrsTOTALTime-OffAwards Given

# 1,328 667 661 41 41 491 409 39 114 89 91 0 0 3 2 4 4% 100% 50.23% 49.77% 3.09% 3.09% 36.97% 30.80% 2.94% 8.58% 6.70% 6.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.15% 0.30% 0.30%

TOTAL Hours 26,267 12,968 13,299 777 841 9,621 8,444 738 2,052 1,696 1,858 0 0 56 40 80 64Average Hours 20 19 20 19 21 20 21 19 18 19 20 0 0 19 20 20 16

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
264 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A9P: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—PARTICIPATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) continued AWARDS Permanent TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Cash Awards Cash Awards: $500 and Under TOTAL Cash Awards Given

# 685 314 371 14 33 223 156 49 144 23 31 0 0 5 1 0 6

% 100% 45.84% 54.16% 2.04% 4.82% 32.55% 22.77% 7.15% 21.02% 3.36% 4.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.73% 0.15% 0.00% 0.88%

TOTALAmount $285,910 $136,050 $149,860 $6,600 $14,195 $96,075 $64,856 $20,725 $54,176 $10,550 $13,658 $0 $0 $2,100 $500 $0 $2,475

Average Amount $417 $433 $404 $471 $430 $431 $416 $423 $376 $459 $441 $0 $0 $420 $500 $0 $413

Cash Awards: $501 to $999TOTALCashAwards Given

# 525 290 235 19 16 214 132 27 59 29 24 0 0 1 0 0 4

% 100% 55.24% 44.76% 3.62% 3.05% 40.76% 25.14% 5.14% 11.24% 5.52% 4.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.76%

TOTAL Amount $388,845 $214,986 $173,859 $14,027 $12,405 $158,876 $97,694 $19,964 $43,203 $21,369 $17,698 $0 $0 $750 $0 $0 $2,859

Average Amount $741 $741 $740 $738 $775 $742 $740 $739 $732 $737 $737 $0 $0 $750 $0 $0 $715

Cash Awards: $1000 to $1999TOTALCashAwards Given

# 1,341 776 565 50 25 593 353 40 105 88 75 0 0 3 2 2 5

% 100% 57.87% 42.13% 3.73% 1.86% 44.22% 26.32% 2.98% 7.83% 6.56% 5.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.22% 0.15% 0.15% 0.37%

TOTALAmount $1,680,941 $982,267 $698,674 $66,403 $32,130 $748,362 $434,663 $49,777 $125,948 $111,925 $98,183 $0 $0 $3,000 $2,000 $2,800 $5,750

Average Amount $1,253 $1,266 $1,237 $1,328 $1,285 $1,262 $1,231 $1,244 $1,200 $1,272 $1,309 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,400 $1,150

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

-
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 265

TABLE A9P: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—PARTICIPATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) continued

AWARDSPermanent

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native 

Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian or Alaska 

Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Cash Awards: $2000 to $2999

TOTALCashAwards Given

# 217 122 95 9 1 95 66 3 16 15 11 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 56.22% 43.78% 4.15% 0.46% 43.78% 30.41% 1.38% 7.37% 6.91% 5.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.46%

TOTAL Amount $476,378 $270,421 $205,957 $19,650 $2,000 $210,463 $144,620 $6,695 $33,587 $33,613 $23,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500Average Amount $2,195 $2,217 $2,168 $2,183 $2,000 $2,215 $2,191 $2,232 $2,099 $2,241 $2,114 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500Cash Awards: $3000 or MoreTOTALCashAwards Given

# 98 59 39 2 1 50 30 0 5 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 60.20% 39.80% 2.04% 1.02% 51.02% 30.61% 0.00% 5.10% 7.14% 3.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Amount $323,345 $186,000 $137,345 $7,500 $6,000 $157,500 $96,345 $0 $19,000 $21,000 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Average Amount $3,299 $3,153 $3,522 $3,750 $6,000 $3,150 $3,212 $0 $3,800 $3,000 $5,333 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Other AwardsPerformance Based Pay IncreaseTOTALPerf BasedAward

# 4,271 2,299 1,972 129 111 1,688 1,104 202 472 263 259 0 1 12 5 5 20% 100% 53.83% 46.17% 3.02% 2.60% 39.52% 25.85% 4.73% 11.05% 6.16% 6.06% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.12% 0.12% 0.47%

TOTAL Benefit $16,345,601 $9,009,115 $7,336,486 $498,819 $389,317 $6,605,697 $4,285,367 $752,571 $1,558,886 $1,087,810 $1,006,228 $0 $3,400 $46,582 $20,305 $17,636 $72,983Average Benefit $3,827 $3,919 $3,720 $3,867 $3,507 $3,913 $3,882 $3,726 $3,303 $4,136 $3,885 $0 $3,400 $3,882 $4,061 $3,527 $3,649

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
266 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A9-2: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—INCLUSION WITHIN THE PERMANENT WORKFORCE BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) AWARDS Permanent TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Time-Off Awards Time-Off Awards: 1 – 10 hours TOTAL Awarded Time-Off # 1,161 577 584 37 28 417 329 57 154 63 63 0 0 2 2 1 8 Inc. 27.22% 25.15% 29.61% 27.82% 25.45% 24.91% 29.94% 27.94% 32.56% 23.68% 23.86% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 40.00% 20.00% 40.00% TOTAL Hrs Awarded 10,983 5,520 5,463 312 238 4,019 3,149 499 1,495 640 487 0 0 42 26 8 68 Avg. Hours per Emp. 9 10 9 8 9 10 10 9 10 10 8 0 0 21 13 8 9 Time-Off Awards: 11 – 20 hours

TOTALAwardedTime-Off

# 748 394 354 28 21 281 200 24 78 58 51 0 0 2 1 1 3

Inc. 17.53% 17.18% 17.95% 21.05% 19.09% 16.79% 18.20% 11.76% 16.49% 21.80% 19.32% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 20.00% 20.00% 15.00%

TOTAL Hrs Awarded 13,316 6,923 6,393 438 378 5,015 3,722 386 1,342 1,020 871 0 0 32 16 32 64

Avg. Hours per Emp. 18 18 18 16 18 18 19 16 17 18 17 0 0 16 16 32 21

Time-Off Awards: 21 – 30 hoursTOTALAwardedTime-Off

# 343 163 180 11 13 118 119 12 25 19 22 0 0 1 1 2 0

Inc. 8.04% 7.11% 9.13% 8.27% 11.82% 7.05% 10.83% 5.88% 5.29% 7.14% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 20.00% 40.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Hrs Awarded 9,325 4,494 4,831 264 312 3,318 3,219 312 678 528 598 0 0 24 24 48 0

Avg. Hours per Emp. 27 28 27 24 24 28 27 26 27 28 27 0 0 24 24 24 0

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

----
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 267

TABLE A9-2: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—INCLUSION WITHIN THE PERMANENT WORKFORCE BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) continued

AWARDSPermanent

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native 

Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian or Alaska 

Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Time-Off Awards: 31 – 40 hours

TOTALAwardedTime-Off

# 88 39 49 2 4 32 35 1 1 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inc. 2.06% 1.70% 2.48% 1.50% 3.64% 1.91% 3.18% 0.49% 0.21% 1.50% 3.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Hrs Awarded 3,626 1,551 2,075 75 151 1,288 1,503 40 32 148 389 0 0 0 0 0 0Avg. Hours per Emp. 41 40 42 38 38 40 43 40 32 37 43 0 0 0 0 0 0

Time-Off Awards: 41 + hours

TOTALAwardedTime-Off

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Inc. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Hours per Emp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Avg. Hours per Emp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Time-Off Awards: 11 – 40 hrsTOTALAwardedTime-Off

# 1,107 559 548 39 36 405 330 34 98 75 79 0 0 3 2 3 3Inc. 25.95% 24.37% 27.79% 29.32% 32.73% 24.19% 30.03% 16.67% 20.72% 28.20% 29.92% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 40.00% 60.00% 15.00%

TOTAL Hrs Awarded 26,267 12,968 13,299 777 841 9,621 8,444 738 2,052 1,696 1,858 0 0 56 40 80 64

Avg. Hours per Emp. 24 23 24 20 23 24 26 22 21 23 24 0 0 19 20 27 21

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
268 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A9-2: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—INCLUSION WITHIN THE PERMANENT WORKFORCE BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX—FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) continued AWARDS Permanent TOTAL Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaska Native Two or More Races All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Cash Awards Cash Awards: $500 and Under TOTAL Awarded Cash # 581 271 310 13 30 190 128 42 122 22 24 0 0 4 1 0 5 Inc. 13.62% 11.81% 15.72% 9.77% 27.27% 11.35% 11.65% 20.59% 25.79% 8.27% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 20.00% 0.00% 25.00% TOTAL Cash Awarded $285,910 $136,050 $149,860 $6,600 $14,195 $96,075 $64,856 $20,725 $54,176 $10,550 $13,658 $0 $0 $2,100 $500 $0 $2,475 Avg. Cash per Emp. $492 $502 $483 $508 $473 $506 $507 $493 $444 $480 $569 $0 $0 $525 $500 $0 $495 Cash Awards: $501 to $999

TOTALAwardedCash

# 504 279 225 18 15 207 127 26 57 27 22 0 0 1 0 0 4

Inc. 11.81% 12.16% 11.41% 13.53% 13.64% 12.37% 11.56% 12.75% 12.05% 10.15% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00%

TOTAL Cash Awarded $388,845 $214,986 $173,859 $14,027 $12,405 $158,876 $97,694 $19,964 $43,203 $21,369 $17,698 $0 $0 $750 $0 $0 $2,859

Avg. Cash per Emp. $772 $771 $773 $779 $827 $768 $769 $768 $758 $791 $804 $0 $0 $750 $0 $0 $715

Cash Awards: $1000 to $1999TOTALAwardedCash

# 1,251 723 528 48 25 552 327 37 96 81 74 0 0 3 2 2 4

Inc. 29.32% 31.52% 26.77% 36.09% 22.73% 32.97% 29.75% 18.14% 20.30% 30.45% 28.03% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 40.00% 40.00% 20.00%

TOTAL Cash Awarded $1,680,941 $982,267 $698,674 $66,403 $32,130 $748,362 $434,663 $49,777 $125,948 $111,925 $98,183 $0 $0 $3,000 $2,000 $2,800 $5,750

Avg. Cash per Emp. $1,344 $1,359 $1,323 $1,383 $1,285 $1,356 $1,329 $1,345 $1,312 $1,382 $1,327 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,400 $1,438

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

--
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 269

TABLE A9-2: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—INCLUSION WITHIN THE PERMANENT WORKFORCE BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX–FY 2019 (10/1/2018 THROUGH 9/30/2019) continued

AWARDSPermanent

TOTAL

Hispanic or 

Latino White

Black or African 

American Asian

Native 

Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian or Alaska 

Native

Two or More 

Races

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Cash Awards: $2000 to $2999

TOTALAwardedCash

# 215 122 93 9 1 95 65 3 15 15 11 0 0 0 0 0 1

Inc. 5.04% 5.32% 4.72% 6.77% 0.91% 5.68% 5.91% 1.47% 3.17% 5.64% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00%

TOTAL Cash Awarded $476,378 $270,421 $205,957 $19,650 $2,000 $210,463 $144,620 $6,695 $33,587 $33,613 $23,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500Avg. Cash per Emp. $2,216 $2,217 $2,215 $2,183 $2,000 $2,215 $2,225 $2,232 $2,239 $2,241 $2,114 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500Cash Awards: $3000 or MoreTOTALAwardedCash

# 88 51 37 2 1 44 28 0 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0Inc. 2.06% 2.22% 1.88% 1.50% 0.91% 2.63% 2.55% 0.00% 1.06% 1.88% 1.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Cash Awarded $323,345 $186,000 $137,345 $7,500 $6,000 $157,500 $96,345 $0 $19,000 $21,000 $16,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Avg. Cash per Emp. $3,674 $3,647 $3,712 $3,750 $6,000 $3,580 $3,441 $0 $3,800 $4,200 $5,333 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Other AwardsPerformance Based Pay IncreaseTOTALAwardedPerf. Based

# 4,271 2,299 1,972 129 111 1,688 1,104 202 472 263 259 0 1 12 5 5 20Inc. 100.12% 100.22% 100% 96.99% 100.91% 100.84% 100.45% 99.02% 99.79% 98.87% 98.11% 0.00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL Perf. Based $16,345,601 $9,009,115 $7,336,486 $498,819 $389,317 $6,605,697 $4,285,367 $752,571 $1,558,886 $1,087,810 $1,006,228 $0 $3,400 $46,582 $20,305 $17,636 $72,983Avg. Benefit per Emp. $3,827 $3,919 $3,720 $3,867 $3,507 $3,913 $3,882 $3,726 $3,303 $4,136 $3,885 $0 $3,400 $3,882 $4,061 $3,527 $3,649

Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
270 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 201822 TO 201921

EMPLOYMENT 

TENURE

TOTAL

No Disability [05]

Not Identified [01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-99]

Other PWD

Total PWD

1 PWTD

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic Brain 

Injury [03]

Deaf or Serious 

Difficulty Hearing [19]

Blind or Serious 

Difficulty Seeing [20]

Missing Extremities 

[31]

Significant Mobility 

Impairment [40]

Partial or Complete 

Paralysis [60]

Epilepsy or Other 

Seizure Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual Disability 

[90]

Significant Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism [92]

Significant 

Disfigurement [93]

TOTAL WORKFORCEPrior FY # 4,448 3,844 219 345 40 385 89 0 1 38 9 2 6 7 3 1 18 1 3

% 100% 86.42% 4.92% 7.76% 0.90% 8.66% 2.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.85% 0.20% 0.04% 0.13% 0.16% 0.07% 0.02% 0.40% 0.02% 0.07%

Current FY # 4,365 3,776 212 336 41 377 85 0 1 38 8 3 5 6 3 1 16 1 3

% 100% 86.51% 4.86% 7.70% 0.94% 8.64% 1.95% 0.00% 0.02% 0.87% 0.18% 0.07% 0.11% 0.14% 0.07% 0.02% 0.37% 0.02% 0.07%

Difference # -83 -68 -7 -9 1 -8 -4 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 -1 0 0 -2 0 0Ratio Change

% 0.00% 0.09% -0.06% -0.06% 0.04% -0.02% -0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% -0.02% 0.03% -0.02% -0.02% 0.00% 0.00% -0.03% 0.00% 0.00%

Net Change

% -1.87% -1.77% -3.20% -2.61% 2.50% -2.08% -4.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -11.11% 50.00% -16.67% -14.29% 0.00% 0.00% -11.11% 0.00% 0.00%

1 “Other PWD” include employees, who did not self-identify on SF-256, and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or 

more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u).

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2019 | 271

TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 201822 TO 201921 continued

EMPLOYMENT 

TENURE

TOTAL

No Disability [05]

Not Identified [01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-99]

Other PWD

Total PWD 1 PWTD

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic Brain 

Injury [03]

Deaf or Serious 

Difficulty Hearing [19]

Blind or Serious 

Difficulty Seeing [20]

Missing Extremities 

[31]

Significant Mobility 

Impairment [40]

Partial or Complete 

Paralysis [60]

Epilepsy or Other 

Seizure Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual Disability 

[90]

Significant Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism [92]

Significant 

Disfigurement [93]

PERMANENTPrior FY

# 4,359 3,765 212 342 40 382 88 0 1 38 8 2 6 7 3 1 18 1 3% 100% 86.37% 4.86% 7.85% 0.92% 8.76% 2.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.87% 0.18% 0.05% 0.14% 0.16% 0.07% 0.02% 0.41% 0.02% 0.07%

Current FY

# 4,266 3,686 208 331 41 372 84 0 1 38 7 3 5 6 3 1 16 1 3% 100% 86.40% 4.88% 7.76% 0.96% 8.72% 1.97% 0.00% 0.02% 0.89% 0.16% 0.07% 0.12% 0.14% 0.07% 0.02% 0.38% 0.02% 0.07%

Difference # -93 -79 -4 -11 1 -10 -4 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 -1 0 0 -2 0 0Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.03% 0.01% -0.09% 0.04% -0.04% -0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% -0.02% 0.02% -0.02% -0.02% 0.00% 0.00% -0.04% 0.00% 0.00%Net Change % -2.13% -2.10% -1.89% -3.22% 2.50% -2.62% -4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -12.50% 50.00% -16.67% -14.29% 0.00% 0.00% -11.11% 0.00% 0.00%Federal Goal % 12.00% 2.00%

1 “Other PWD” include employees, who did not self-identify on SF-256, and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or 

more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u).

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019
272 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 201822 TO 201921 continued

EMPLOYMENT 

TENURE

TOTAL

No Disability [05]

Not Identified [01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-99]

Other PWD

Total PWD

1 PWTD

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic Brain 

Injury [03]

Deaf or Serious 

Difficulty Hearing [19]

Blind or Serious 

Difficulty Seeing [20]

Missing Extremities 

[31]

Significant Mobility 

Impairment [40]

Partial or Complete 

Paralysis [60]

Epilepsy or Other 

Seizure Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual Disability 

[90]

Significant Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism [92]

Significant 

Disfigurement [93]

TEMPORARYPrior FY # 89 79 7 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 88.76% 7.87% 3.37% 0.00% 3.37% 1.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Current FY # 99 90 4 5 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 90.91% 4.04% 5.05% 0.00% 5.05% 1.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Difference # 10 11 -3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ratio Change

% 0.00% 2.15% -3.82% 1.68% 0.00% 1.68% -0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Net Change

% 11.24% 13.92% -42.86% 66.67% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 “Other PWD” include employees, who did not self-identify on SF-256, and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or 

more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u).

2 Schedule A Employees in the Permanent Workforce are those currently serving under an appointment type covered by Schedule A(u). Employees previously converted to the permanent workforce are not counted.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File V for pay period 201921, downloaded on 11/12/2019

OFFICE OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549