U.S. SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FISCAL YEAR 2018

ANNUAL 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM 

STATUS REPORT

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715

FISCAL YEAR 2018 | i

CONTENTS

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PART E).

Mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissio

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

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Commission Leadership.

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

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability.

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination.

Essential Element E: Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance.  

Analysis of Workforce Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

SEC Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Applicant Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

New Hires.  

Participation Rates for SEC Major Occupations.  

Demographics of Employees from SK-14 to Senior Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Internal Competitive Promotions.  

Career Ladder Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Employee Recognition and Awards.  

Separations.  

Summary of EEO Plan Objectives Planned to Eliminate Identified Barriers or 

Correct Program Deficiencies.  

Overview of the Barrier Analysis Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Agency Accomplishments.  

Outreach and Recruitment of Diverse Talent.  

Employee Engagement: Employee Affinity Groups.  

Work-Life Programs.  

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results by Demographic Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Training and Leadership Development.  

Career Development Programs.  

Training on EEO, Diversity & Inclusion, and Team Effectiveness.  

CERTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTINUING 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS (PART F).  

AGENCY EEO PLAN TO ATTAIN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A 

MODEL EEO PROGRAM (PART H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency

Section I.  

Prepared by

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

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

Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier 

Section I.  

Section II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Section III   

Section IV   

Section V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, ADVANCEMENT, 

AND RETENTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (PART J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals.  

Section II: Model Disability Program.  

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

Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

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

Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring)   

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

Advancement Program Plan.  

Career Development Opportunities.  

Awards.  

Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Voluntary and Involuntary Separations.  

Accessibility of Technology and Facilities.  

Reasonable Accommodation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the Workplace . . . . 107

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

EEO Complaint Data Involving Harassment.  

EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation.  

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY.  

POLICY ON PREVENTING HARASSMENT (PPH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

FISCAL YEAR 2018 462 REPORT.  

SEC’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

SEC Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Headquarters and Regional Offices.

WORKFORCE DATA TABLES.  
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 1

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION INFORMATION 

(PARTS A, B, C, D)

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

Total Employment

Total Employment Permanent Workforce Temporary Workforce Total Workforce

Number of Employees 4,359 89 4,448

Agency Leadership—Head of Agency and Head of Agency Designee 

Agency Leadership Name Title

Head of Agency Jay Clayton Chairman

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

Affirmative 

Employment 

Program 

Manager

Peter J. 

Henry

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

Complaint 

Processing 

Program 

Manager

M. Stacey 

Bach

Deputy 

Director

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

Diversity & 

Inclusion Officer

Pamela 

Gibbs

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

Hispanic 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)

Pamela 

Gibbs

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

Disability 

Program 

Manager 

(SEPM)1

Pamela 

Gibbs

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

Special 

Placement 

Program 

Coordinator 

(Individuals with 

Disabilities)

Kai Petty Team Lead 0201 SK-14 202-551-6344 pettyka@sec.gov

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

Program 

Manager

Dia 

Gonsalves

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

AntiHarassment 

Program 

Manager2

Ilene Citrin Attorney 0905 SK-14 202-551-6025 citrine@sec.gov

ADR Program 

Manager

M. Stacey 

Bach

Deputy 

Director

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

Compliance 

Manager

M. Stacey 

Bach

Deputy 

Director

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

Principal 

MD-715 

Preparer

Martha 

Hennen

Management 

and Program 

Analyst

0343 SK-14 202-551-8885 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, 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 Harassment prevention program is a shared responsibility. The OEEO subject matter expert is identified here due to he

leadership in the SEC’s proactive harassment prevention dialogues and because management resolves most harassment 

prevention matters through raising awareness
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 3

Subordinate Components and Documents

List of Subordinate Components Covered in this Report

Please identify the subordinate components within the agency (e.g., bureaus, regions, et

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

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 must 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 2018 | 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, 2017 to September 30, 2018

This Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program Status Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 

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

Management Directive 715 (MD-715) and accompanying instructions and guidance

MISSION OF THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, Commission, or Agency) is t

protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation

The SEC oversees approximately $97 trillion in securities trading annually on U.S. equity market

and the activities of over 27,000 registered market participants, including investment advisers, 

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

The Agency also oversees 22 national securities exchanges, ten 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)

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, effectiveness, teamwork, and

fairness. 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 h

11 Regional Offices located throughout the country. As of September 30, 2018, the SEC had total

workforce of 4,448 employees, including 4,359 permanent employees and 89 temporary employees

3

See Table A1

3 Data for this report was pulled on November 16, 2018, from DataMart, the SEC’s Human Resource Information System 

(HRIS), for pay period 22 of 2018
6 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

COMMISSION’S ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT AGAINST MD-715 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

Essential Element A:

Demonstrated Commitment from Commission Leadership

The SEC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity is evident in Chairman Clayton’s

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, dated February 13, 2019, which reads, in part:

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.

Thank you for your continued efforts to make the promise of equal employment 

opportunity a reality.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 7

Notably, three SEC Offices—OEEO, the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI), and the 

Office of Human Resources (OHR)—have specific and interrelated responsibilities to work to ensure 

equal employment opportunity and to focus on diversity-related efforts in the Agency’s workforce, and 

each office is supported by senior leadership in these efforts

4

 For example, SEC announced and filled 

both the OEEO Director and Deputy Director positions in FY 2018. Filling these positions during

a period when Agency complement has contracted exemplifies the strong commitment of Agency 

leadership to the EEO program. In addition, Commissioners and Senior Officers actively sponsor

one or more of the nine Employee Affinity Groups (EAGs). 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. Further, the SEC has an active Diversity Council comprised of

members of the EAGs, management, Union, and representatives from Headquarters and the 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 Chairman will chair the Diversity Counci

In addition, the Chairman presents a Diversity and Inclusion Award through an OHR-sponsored 

honorary award program each year to a member of the SEC staff or a group of staff members 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

Essential Element B:

Integration of EEO into the Commission’s Strategic Mission

The SEC’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018 – 2022 underscores the Commission’s commitment to 

attract and retain a highly effective and diverse workforce. The plan states

Strategic Goal 3: Elevate the SEC’s performance by enhancing our analytical capabilities and 

human capital development

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.

To support the SEC’s commitment to its workforce, the SEC developed a three-year (FY 2016 – FY 

2018) Human Capital Strategic Plan with input from OHR, OMWI, OEEO, and Division and Office 

Senior Leadership. The Human Capital Strategic Plan emphasizes increasing employee engagement

and retention, enhancing employee development programs, and delivering a comprehensive 

leadership development program

4 While OEEO maintains the primary responsibility for many aspects of the Agency’s overall EEO program, it collaborates 

with both OMWI and OHR to ensure fairness and equality under the law for all employees and applicants for employment. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, OMWI must develop certain standards

for EEO and diversity at the Commission, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5452(b)(2)(A)(f), which OHR incorporates into its hum

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 EEO

and diversity and inclusion (D&I) programs Agency-wide. For example, OMWI is responsible for SEC’s diversity efforts

for the recruitment of women and minorities. OMWI and OEEO work with OHR on recruitment strategies, training, and

providing career development opportunities. Additional information about the SEC and its diversity efforts can be found

at sec.gov/page/omwi-section-landin
8 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Essential Element C:

Management and Program Accountability

During FY 2018, the SEC engaged in numerous actions to promote accountability of its EEO 

program, including, but not limited to, the following

n Pursuant to EEOC’s Management Directive 715 (MD-715), the SEC made progress towards 

conducting six barrier analyses in FY 2018 and continued work on actions and evaluation based 

on prior barrier analysis work

n Consistent with EEOC regulations and Management Directive 110 (MD-110), the SEC’s EEO 

compliance program provided timely counseling, alternative dispute resolution, investigation, and 

final adjudication processes to individuals raising complaints of discrimination

n The SEC posted EEO complaint processing data on its internal and public websites, consistent 

with the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (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 SEC managers and supervisors were evaluated on various competencies, including EEO and 

diversity and inclusion elements

n SEC re-issued EEO and Harassment Prevention policy statements from the Chairman

As required by EEOC regulations and directives, the EEO Director is under the direct supervision 

of the Chairman of the Commission. In FY 2018, to support the Agency’s EEO programmatic

responsibilities, OEEO staff consisted of nine attorneys (including the Director and Deputy Director), 

two EEO specialists, and three management and program analysts (MPA). The Agency substantially

strengthened its EEO program by devoting significant resources to filling the key leadership positions 

in OEEO at a time of declining total employee complement. In addition, in FY 2018, OEEO had the

assistance of three contract data analysts who supported the barrier analysis and reporting functions

OEEO also leveraged the talents of SEC employees in the Home and Regional Offices who, in 

addition to performing their primary duties and responsibilities, volunteered to serve as EEO 

Counselors in a collateral duty capacity. In FY 2018, OEEO welcomed more than 50 EEO

Counselors, including full-time and collateral-duty EEO Counselors from other agencies and the 

Agency’s own collateral duty employees to attend a full day training session to meet their mandatory 

eight-hour refresher course training requirement. Experts from the Small Agency Council’s EEO and

Diversity and Inclusion (SAC EEO&DI) Committee’s Interagency Training Initiative, including one 

of OEEO’s Senior Counsels, developed and delivered new interactive course content for this session

The SEC remained an active participant in the SAC EEO&DI Committee, and its OEEO Director 

continued to serve as Vice Chair of the Committee
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 9

Essential Element D:

Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

The SEC proactively reviews, revises, and publishes (internal/public websites) EEO policies relating to 

harassment prevention, reasonable accommodation, and permissible religious expression

OEEO has developed a proactive harassment prevention program pursuant to the SEC’s Policy on 

Preventing Harassment (PPH), which is grounded in training and early intervention. Program efforts

are designed to reduce the incidence and impact of EEO-based harassment. Under this program,

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

supervisors, and non-supervisory employees. These dialogues raise awareness of behaviors that could

be offensive on an EEO basis regardless of intent, encourage prompt reporting of potential concerns 

allowing for expeditious resolution, and introduce participants to the value of bystander awareness 

toward prevention. Interactive sessions help educate parties as to how behavior was perceived and

why it could be problematic and inappropriate at work. 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. In FY 2018, leaders from six Divisions or

Offices in Headquarters and three Regional offices reached out to engage with OEEO in such 

dialogue. In total, 717 individuals participate

OEEO also received numerous contacts regarding potential PPH concerns in FY 2018, and several 

led to pre-emptive resolution because corrections were made to avoid or resolve the potential PPH 

issue at the onset before there was any negative impact. Over the past three years, the volume of

proactive outreach to OEEO has increased from fewer than 30 in FY 2015 to 72 in FY 2018. Greater

societal awareness and the PPH program’s positive reputation for confidential (to the extent possible), 

quality consultation, and coaching has encouraged and led to wider adoption among leaders and 

employees of proactive prevention

In April 2018, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) released the results of an anonymous 

survey it conducted at 23 agencies, including the SEC, regarding sexual harassment. The 2016 survey

asked whether employees experienced one of twelve behaviors, from derogatory terms related to 

gender, to unwelcome invasion of personal space, to sexual coercion in the previous two years. SEC

employees reported the lowest incidence of the sexually harassing behaviors among the agencies 

surveyed. As discussed above, the SEC has continued to expand and deepen efforts to proactively

prevent harassment on any basis

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

of OEEO. EEO posters are 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. In

FY 2018, OEEO redesigned and launched an internally developed No FEAR Act training module 

delivered to the entire workforce during the calendar year. The SEC’s buildings and offices are

accessible to persons with physical disabilities in compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968, as amended
10 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

OEEO regularly conducts research under its barrier analysis program to understand equality of 

employment opportunity for different employee groups or for specific employment processes. As

described more fully below, the barrier analysis program has developed significantly over the last 

two fiscal years. As the office shares research results based on the program’s work with internal and

external stakeholder groups, OEEO has taken the opportunity to encourage concrete, measurable 

actions toward improvement. The program’s strong reputation, careful analysis, and synthesis of

research results provides a strong, data-driven basis for much of the Agency’s efforts under this 

Essential Element and helps to further the affirmative employment program. For example, OEEO has

expanded its barrier analysis to support and assess progress under the Agency’s Affirmative Action 

Plan for persons with disabilities. See Parts E, I, and J of this report

Essential Element E:

Efficiency

In FY 2018, OEEO continued to collaborate with the federal government EEO community to share 

best practices in processing EEO complaints and continued to have systems in place to accurately 

collect, monitor, and analyze data related to the EEO program. To comply with Part 1614 and

MD-715 requirements, OEEO remains neutral and impartial. This helps to prevent institutional

conflicts of interest that otherwise could arise and to instill confidence in the integrity of the 

Commission’s EEO complaint program

In FY 2018, 35 counseling matters were initiated, 12 formal EEO complaints were filed, and six 

final agency decisions (no discrimination found) were issued

5

 The most frequently alleged bases 

in the formal EEO complaints were claims of reprisal, race, sex, and age discrimination. Common

issues raised in the formal EEO complaints were harassment (non-sexual), performance evaluation/

appraisal, and promotion/non-selection. OEEO issued reports of investigation, final agency decisions,

and final agency orders in a timely fashion

In FY 2018, OEEO offered its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, Conflict-to-Resolution 

(C2R), to resolve allegations of discrimination. C2R primarily offers mediation. In FY 2018, OEE

processed a total of 38 informal complaints (informal complaints carried over from FY 2017 and 

new informal complaints initiated in FY 2018). Among these 38 informal complaints, the option

to pursue ADR in lieu of traditional EEO counseling was routinely explained to counselees. Five

individuals (13.89% of the 36 FY 2018 counselees) expressed interest in participating in AD

OEEO offered ADR to all five individuals, and all five participated in ADR through C2R. In FY

2018, through C2R, OEEO conducted seven mediations during both the formal and informal 

process; four or approximately 57.14% of these matters settled or resulted in the counselee not

filing a formal EEO complaint. SEC is taking steps to enhance marketing of ADR to participants in

the EEO process, including through an updated ADR Policy, updated Frequently Asked Questions 

(FAQs), and an ADR training course launched in FY 2019. OEEO will monitor whether these

efforts increase ADR participation and/or resolution rates and therefore advance SEC’s goal of early 

resolution of workforce disputes

5 SEC FY 2018 462 Report: Part I, D.2; Part II, B; and Part VI, B
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 11

Essential Element F:

Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

SEC has in place processes and management controls to ensure timely and full compliance with 

EEOC regulations, management directives, orders, and settlement agreements. The SEC has

conducted an annual self-assessment against the essential elements prescribed by the EEOC’s 

MD-715. In those instances where the Commission found opportunities to better comply with the

MD-715 requirements, the SEC developed a plan for addressing the areas for enhancement as further 

discussed in Part H of this report. See Part H, infra. SEC also complies with requirements to submi

an annual Form 462 Report, the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report, 

the Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) Report, the OMWI annual report, and 

quarterly and annual No FEAR Act reports

ANALYSIS OF WORKFORCE PROFILES

The SEC analyzed its workforce profiles to identify triggers that may require further inquiry as to 

whether or not barriers to equal employment opportunity based on race, ethnicity, sex, or disability 

exist. 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. The EEO Tabulation,

produced using the 2006 – 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) survey data, is the primary 

external benchmark for conducting comparisons between the racial, ethnic, 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).” For brevity, benchmark data from the 2006 – 2010 EEO Tabulation is referred to as the 

2010 civilian labor force (CLF) or the occupational civilian labor force (OCLF) in this report and 

accompanying 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 healt

care) or specialization (e.g., securities versus employment law). Please refer to Part I of this repor

infra, for the SEC’s plans for analyzing data anomalies and enhancing equality of opportunity for 

SEC employees and applicants

6 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 Managemen

(OPM). According to the U.S. Census Bureau which produces the EEO Tabulation, the ACS “produces period estimat

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-mont

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 census.gov/topics/employment/equal-employment-opportunitytabulation/ about/faq.html (Note: This page has been moved.) on February 15, 2
12 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SEC Workforce

At the end of FY 2018, the SEC had 4,448 employees, 4,359 permanent and 89 temporary. Of

the 4,359 permanent employees, there were 2,352 (53.96%) males and 2,007 (46.04%) femal

See Table A1. The SEC hired 24 permanent employees, and there were 172 voluntary separation

See Tables A8 and A14. The following provides a summary of representation within the SEC’s

permanent workforce compared to the 2010 CLF

Applicant Flow Data

Applicant flow data is an important tool used to examine the fairness and inclusiveness of 

recruitment efforts and is provided to the SEC by OPM. 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

7

 In FY 2018, the SEC did not have a tool to capture and report on 

applicant data for hiring actions outside of USAJOBS. Due to budget constraints, the SEC also had

significantly fewer hiring actions in FY 2018 as compared to previous years, and this effect is evident 

in the applicant flow data available for the fiscal year

SEC Permanent Workforce % Compared to 2010 Civilian Labor Force (CLF) %

Race/Ethnicity 2010 CLF % Total SEC % Male SEC % Female SEC %

Hispanic or Latino 9.96 5.60 3.03 2.57

White 72.36 65.47 39.73 25.74

Black or African American 12.02 15.79 4.73 11.06

Asian 3.90 12.14 6.08 6.06

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.02

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.08 0.39 0.28 0.11

Two or More Races 0.54 0.59 0.11 0.48

See Table A1.

There are a few important notes about applicant flow data to help facilitate interpretation. First,

applicants are encouraged to voluntarily provide data on their gender, race/ethnicity, and disability 

as part of their USAJOBS profile. For the five mission critical occupations at the SEC (i.e., attorney

accountants, securities compliance examiners, economists, and information technology management), 

applicants self-identified both gender and race/ethnicity from a high of 80.00% for information

technology management to a low of 71.48% for attorneys. Because self-identification is not require

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

7 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 USA
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 13

In the fall of 2016, OPM’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion, USAJOBS, and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) collaborated to clarify the language used in the application process 

when applicants associate demographic information from their USAJOBS profile with a specific 

application. OPM reported an increase in the average response rate of 45.6% for the period o

August 2012 to October 2015 to 84.5% in June 2017. Applicant flow data for the SEC saw a simila

increase in the proportion of applicants self-identifying their demographic information. In Table A7

data reported in the FY 2016 annual EEO program status report, 59.49% of applications included

demographic data. Table A7 data in this report include demographic data for 74.10% of application

submitted through USAJOBS

Second, selections designated within applicant flow data are tentative. Tables A7 and B7 show

applicant flow data for applicants who self-identified and were (1) qualified; (2) referred; and (3) 

tentatively selected for vacancies posted on USAJOBS that closed during FY 2018. 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). In contrast, Tables A8 and B8 present data on new

hires on boarded during the course of the fiscal year. Differences are observed in the demographic

statistics of those selected versus those hired and brought on board

Third, applicant flow data combine applications submitted for permanent and temporary positions 

with the SEC. The data in Tables A7 and B7 reflect the pool of applications submitted for both

permanent and temporary employment for vacancies announced through USAJOBS during FY 2018

As set forth below, the applicant flow data provided by OPM was analyzed for the five mission 

critical occupations at the SEC. See Table A7. There was no applicant flow data for the Economis

occupation in FY 2018 because no vacancies posted on USAJOBS for positions in this occupation 

closed during the fiscal year. Below are the highlights of this analysis for the four other mission critical

occupations at the SEC

Attorneys (0905): 1,017 Applicants

The SEC received 1,017 applications through USAJOBS and made 65 selections for attorney 

positions. Of the 1,017 applicants, 727 self-identified. Among those who self-identified, 47

(65.47%) were male and 251 (34.53%) were female. Forty-eight of the self-identified applican

were selected. Of the 48 selectees who self-identified, 26 were male and 22 were femal

EEO Group

Number: 

Self-Identified 

Number: 

Self-Identified 

and Qualified

Number and Percent: 

Self-Identified and Selected

Hispanic 62 20 2 (4.17%), 1 male and 1 female

White 451 238 35 (72.92%), 20 males and 15 females

Black or African American 128 39 4 (8.34%), 2 males and 2 females

Asian 76 36 6 (12.5%), 3 males and 3 females

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 3 2 1 (2.08%), 0 males and 1 female

American Indian/Alaska Native 4 2 0

See Table A7.
14 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Accountants (0510): 159 Applicants

In FY 2018, the SEC received 159 applications through USAJOBS and made 12 selections for 

accountant positions. Of the 126 applicants who self-identified their demographics, 69 (54.76%

were male and 57 (45.24%) were female. Of the 12 selectees, 11 self-identified, four (36.36%) 

male and seven (63.64%) as female. There was a steady increase in the participation rate of wome

among applicants for accountant positions as they moved through the application process from 

45.24% of those who applied and self-identified, to 48.39% of the qualified candidates, and finally

to 63.64% of those selected. The demographics of the 126 applicants for accountant positions wh

self-identified, qualified, and those who were selected are as follows

EEO Group

Number: 

Self-Identified 

Number: 

Self-Identified 

and Qualified

Number and Percent: 

Self-Identified and Selected

Hispanic 8 1 1 (9.09%), 0 males and 1 female

White 53 21 6 (54.55%), 2 males and 4 females

Black or African American 42 3 1 (9.09%), 1 male and 0 females

Asian 21 6 3 (27.27%), 1 male and 2 females

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0

American Indian/Alaska Native 2 0 0

See Table A7.

Securities Compliance Examiners (1831): 123 Applicants

In FY 2018, the SEC received 123 applications on USAJOBS and made five selections for securities 

compliance examiner positions. Ninety-two applicants voluntarily self-identified their demographic

Of the 92 who self-identified, 64 (69.57%) were male, and 28 (30.43%) were female. Three of tho

who self-identified were selected. The following are the demographics of the applicants who selfidentified, qualified, and were selected for securities compliance examiner position

EEO Group

Number: 

Self-Identified 

Number: 

Self-Identified 

and Qualified

Number and Percent: 

Self-Identified and Selected

Hispanic 15 5 2 (66.67%), 2 males and 0 females

White 49 14 1 (33.33%), 1 male and 0 females

Black or African American 12 2 0

Asian 15 4 0

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0

American Indian/Alaska Native 1 0 0

See Table A7.

Hispanics represented 20.00% of those who self-identified and qualified for the securities compliance

examiner positions and 66.67% of the selectees. In contrast, White applicants represented 56.0

of those who self-identified and were qualified, and White males represented 33.33% of the selectee

See Table A7
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 15

Information Technology Management (2210): 35 Applicants

In FY 2018, the SEC received 35 applications through USAJOBS and made two selections for the 

information technology management positions. Of the 35 applicants, 28 voluntarily self-identified

their diversity demographics. Of the 28 applicants who self-identified, there were 25 males and three

females. Both selected applicants identified as males (one Hispanic and one White applicant). Th

following are the demographics of the individuals who applied and self-identified for the information 

technology management positions, those who qualified, and the applicants who were selected

EEO Group

Number: 

Self-Identified 

Number: 

Self-Identified 

and Qualified

Number and Percent: 

Self-Identified and Selected

Hispanic 5 1 1 (50.00%), 1 male and 0 females

White 7 1 1 (50.00%), 1 male and 0 females

Black or African American 10 2 0

Asian 6 2 0

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0

See Table A7.

Applicant Flow Data for Persons with Disabilities

SEC received a total of 2,458 applications in FY 2018. Those 2,458 applications included 108

(4.39%) applications from persons who self-identified in the USAJOBS profile under the equivalent

of the disability categories from Standard Form 256 (SF-256, Self-Identification of Disability). SEC

received a further 62 (2.52%) applications claiming or granted veterans’ preference for service

connected disability during FY 2018

8

 In the combination of both self-identified applicants and 

those considered under authorities that take disability into account were 170 total applications from 

persons with disability (PWD), representing 6.92% of all applications received. Part J, infra, provide

further detail about the SEC’s utilization analysis of PWD and persons with targeted disabilities 

(PWTD) in the Agency workforce. Two persons (1.75%) with a disability were among the 11

persons tentatively selected in FY 2018

8 In FY 2018, SEC continued implementation of the revised regulation under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. SE

now includes applicants for permanent and temporary employment under authorities that take disability into account as 

persons with disabilities according to the revised EEOC regulation. In this report, applicants for permanent and temporary employment who are not self-identified in their USAJOBS profile with one or more disabilities from Standard Form

256 (SF-256) and whose application records document veterans’ preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on 

compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” are now included in the applicant flow data as persons with 

disability. The applicant flow and workforce data tables and analyses described later in Parts E and J of this report reflec

this change

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 the all Tables B1 through B14 developed for this report. The FedSEP online

reporting system does not provide for an additional column in the table format; SEC has included such persons in Tables 

B1 through B14 in the column labeled: “Disability (02-03, 06-99).” As such, the data presented on PWD within the tables 

included with this report may not match those submitted to the EEOC through the FedSEP portal
16 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In October 2016, OPM revised the Standard Form 256 (SF-256), Self-Identification of Disability, 

expanding the number of conditions that qualified as “targeted disabilities” from nine to 12 targeted 

disabilities: (1) developmental disability; (2) traumatic brain injury; (3) deaf or serious difficulty 

hearing; (4) blind or serious difficulty seeing; (5) missing extremities; (6) significant mobility 

impairment; (7) partial or complete paralysis; (8) epilepsy or other seizure disorders; (9) intellectual 

disability; (10) significant psychiatric disorder; (11) dwarfism; and (12) significant disfigurement

Among the applications submitted by persons with disability were 60 (2.44%) submitted by persons

who self-identified as having one of these targeted disabilities. None of the individuals who selfidentified a targeted disability was selected. Additional detail on the SEC’s analysis of persons wit

disability in applicant and workforce data is provided in Part J of this report, infra. See Table B7 

and Part J.

New Hires

In FY 2018, the SEC hired 24 permanent employees, 15 (62.50%) males and nine (37.50%) femal

The following table reflects demographic information for the FY 2018 new hires

Permanent 

Employees

Hispanic White

Black or 

African 

American Asian

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Total M F M F M F M F M F

New Hires

# 24 0 0 15 5 0 3 0 1 0 0

% 100 0.00 0.00 62.50 20.83 0.00 12.50 0.00 4.17 0.00 0.00

Total 

Workforce

# 4,359 132 112 1,732 1,122 206 482 265 264 12 5

% 100 3.03 2.57 39.73 25.74 4.73 11.06 6.08 6.06 0.28 0.11

2010 CLF % 100 5.17 4.79 38.33 34.03 5.49 6.53 1.97 1.93 0.55 0.53

See Tables A1 and A8.

Participation Rates for SEC Major Occupations

This section discusses the participation of men, women, and minority employees in each of the SEC’s 

five mission critical occupations of attorney, accountant, securities compliance examiner, information 

technology management, and economist. In FY 2018, there were 4,359 permanent employees at the

SEC. See Table A1

Of these permanent employees, there were 1,848 attorneys, 867 accountants, 327 securities 

compliance examiners, 285 information technology (IT) management employees, and 86 economists

See Table A6. Accountants and attorneys comprised 62.28% of the SEC’s FY 2018 permanen

employees. 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), 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 17

except for the demographic groups of female accountants and male attorneys as shown in bold font 

in the table below

Total M F

White

Job Title M F

Attorneys

# 1848 1023 825 841 592

% 100% 55.36% 44.64% 45.51% 32.03%

OCLF 100% 66.70% 33.30% 59.68% 26.68%

Accountants

# 867 491 376 382 237

% 100% 56.63% 43.37% 44.06% 27.34%

OCLF 100% 39.91% 60.09% 31.79% 44.23%

See Table A6, Permanent Workforce.

Within the female accountant and male attorney groups, the participation rates of both White male 

attorneys and White female accountants are below their OCLF as further described below

White female accountants’ participation rate at the SEC (27.34%) is below the OCLF for White

female accountants of 44.23%. This follows the same pattern as the overall participation rate o

female accountants at the SEC (43.37%) compared to the OCLF for female accountants of 60.0

This difference is under investigation as part of the Agency’s barrier analysis program

The participation rate for White male attorneys at the SEC (45.51%) is below OCLF for White male

attorneys of 59.68%. Similar to the female accountants, White male attorney participation mirror

the overall participation rate for male attorneys at the SEC (55.36%) compared to the OCLF for

male attorneys of 66.70%. These numbers are under investigation as part of the Agency’s barrie

analysis program

Demographics of Employees from SK-14 to Senior Officer

The SEC conducts analysis on the participation of men, women, and minority group employees at 

various grade levels to understand the Agency’s career progression. Analysis of career progression

for persons with disabilities is described in Part J of this report, infra. Specifically, the SEC reviewed

the participation within the grade levels that provide internal feeder pools for higher level jobs

This section describes the results of these analyses for those feeder pools to supervisory and 

management positions

The internal feeder pools for supervisory and management positions include any eligible SK-14 

through SK-17 employee. The SEC offers the opportunity for employees to be promoted to the SK-15

supervisory level, the SK-17 managerial level, or the Senior Officer (SO) level. The feeder pool for:

the SK-15 level is the SK-14 level; the SK-17 level is the SK-14 through SK-16 level; and the SO level 

is the SK-14 through SK-17 level. The participation rates of men and women in SEC’s supervisor and
18 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

management ranks differ within and across the SK-14 to SO levels, with an unusual pattern shown in 

the first level supervisor, SK-15 level, as compared to the other SK-levels and among SOs

Specifically, there were a total of 2,152 permanent SK-14 employees, of whom females represent 

44.01% (947 employees) and males represent 55.99% (1,205 employees). However, at the SK-

level, there were 365 total permanent employees, with males making up 66.03% (241 employees)

and females comprising 33.97% (124 employees). Participation of women was lower in this first leve

supervisor position than found in any of the other senior level positions; there were almost twice as 

many male SK-15s as female SK-15s

At the next higher SK-level, there is greater female participation among SK-16 employees

Although SK-16 employees are usually not supervisors, they are eligible to apply for SK-17 and 

SO positions. There were a total of 495 permanent SK-16 employees in FY 2018; males accounted

for 59.80% (296) and females accounted for 40.20% (199) of this level’s workforce compositi

The participation rates of males and females at the SK-17 were distributed similarly to the SK-16 

employees. There were a total of 397 SK-17 employees of whom 61.71% were male (245 employees

and 38.29% were female (152 employees). In FY 2018, there was an increase in males and a

increase in females at the SK-17 level (males increased by two, and females increased by one), as 

compared to FY 2017. Finally, within the total of 129 SOs, 58.91% are male (76 employees) an

41.09% are female (53 employees). See Table A4

The number of SOs at the SEC decreased from FY 2016 to the end of FY 2018. 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, women made up 33.8% of Senior Executives in the Federal

workforce in FY 2018. As of the end of FY 2018, the proportion of minority SOs was below the

participation rate of 21.1% among Senior Executive positions in the Federal workforce in FY 201

Since FY 2016, the representation of minorities among SOs decreased slightly. From FY 2016 to FY

2018, the number of Black or African American and Asian SOs remained the same, while the number 

Hispanic or Latino SOs decreased by one

9

The following table summarizes the demographic information for groups representing at least 1% of 

the total number of supervisors, managers, and SOs, as well as the SK-14 and SK-16 feeder pools. See

Table A4-1

9 Although their 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 sec.gov/page/omwi-section-landin
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 19

SEC 

Level

All

Hispanic 

or Latino White

Black or 

African 

American Asian

Total M F M F M F M F M F

SO # 129 76 53 2 0 68 44 3 4 3 4

SO % 100 58.91 41.09 1.55 0.00 52.71 34.11 2.33 3.10 2.33 3.10

SK-17 # 397 245 152 15 3 202 113 10 17 17 17

SK-17 % 100 61.71 38.29 3.78 0.76 50.88 28.46 252 4.28 4.28 4.28

SK-16 # 495 296 199 10 7 239 146 13 18 32 24

SK-16 % 100 59.80 40.20 2.02 1.41 48.28 29.49 2.63 3.64 6.46 4.85

SK-15 # 365 241 124 17 5 175 79 16 24 32 16

SK-15 % 100 66.03 33.97 4.66 1.37 47.95 21.64 4.38 6.58 8.77 4.38

SK-14 # 2,152 1,205 947 67 60 895 586 89 132 148 158

SK-14 % 100 55.99 44.01 3.11 2.79 41.59 27.23 4.14 6.13 6.88 7.34

See Table A4-1.

Internal Competitive Promotions

This section describes analysis of internal competitive promotion for MCO positions by sex, race, 

and ethnicity. Detailed analysis of promotion for PWD is provided in Part J, infr

Attorneys

In FY 2018, the SEC received 468 applications for 65 attorney competitive promotions. Of the

468 individuals, 422 qualified for promotion, 281 males and 141 females. Of those selected for

the promotions, 36 were male and 29 female. White employees comprised 331 (78.44%) of th

qualified applicants and received 48 (73.85%) of the 65 competitive promotions, with White males

receiving 41.54% of the promotions and White females receiving 32.31% of the promotions. Amo

the 18 individuals with a disability who qualified for a promotion, one was promoted. A further

demographic breakdown of the candidates who applied for internal promotions follows

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 28 18 5 (7.69%), 4 males and 1 female

White 359 331 48 (73.85%), 27 males and 21 females

Black or African American 26 25 4 (6.15%), 1 male and 3 females

Asian 49 42 8 (12.31%), 4 males and 4 females

American Indian/Alaska Native 2 2 0

Individuals with Disabilities 20 18 1

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 5 4 1

See Tables A9 and B9.
20 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Accountants

The SEC received 40 applications for 14 accountant competitive promotions. Of the 40 applicants,

33 qualified (17 males and 16 females). Of the 14 individuals who received a competitive promotion,

six were male, and eight were female. Detailed demographics follo

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 1 1 1 (7.14%), 0 males and 1 female

White 25 22 10 (71.42%), 5 males and 5 females

Black or African American 5 3 0

Asian 9 7 3 (21.43%), 1 male and 2 females

Individuals with Disabilities 4 3 2

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0 0 0

See Tables A9 and B9.

Securities Compliance Examiners

The SEC received 66 applications (48 from males and 18 from females) for eight securities compliance 

examiner promotions. Of the 66 applicants, 43 qualified (27 males and 16 females). Of the eigh

selected, six were male (75.00%), and two were female (25.00%). Although two individuals with

disability qualified, they were not promoted. The following table reflects the demographic breakdow

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 9 5 2 (25.00%), 2 males and 0 females

White 29 24 5 (62.50%), 3 male and 2 females

Black or African American 14 8 0

Asian 14 6 1 (12.50%), 1 male and 0 females

Individuals with Disabilities 6 2 0

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0 0 0

See Tables A9 and B9.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 21

Information Technology Management

The SEC received 125 applications (106 males and 19 females) for seven information technology 

management promotions. Of the 125 applicants, 91 qualified (75 males and 16 females). Of th

seven selected, three were male (42.86%); four were female (57.14%). The following table reflec

the demographic breakdown:

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 5 4 1 (14.29%), 1 male and 0 females

White 48 32 5 (71.43%), 1 male and 4 females

Black or African American 23 22 0

Asian 49 33 1 (14.29%), 1 male and 0 females

Individuals with Disabilities 22 14 1

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0 0 0

See Tables A9 and B9.

Economists

The SEC received four applications (two males and two females) for two economist promotions. Of

the four applicants, two White men qualified and were selected for promotion. The following table

reflects the demographic breakdown

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 0 0 0

White 4 2 2 (100%), 2 males and 0 females

Black or African American 0 0 0

Asian 0 0 0

Individuals with Disabilities 0 0 0

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0 0 0

See Tables A9 and B9.

Career Ladder Promotions

A review of the SEC’s non-competitive promotions reflects that of the 209 individuals eligible for 

career ladder promotions, 101 (48.33%) were male and 108 (51.67%) were female. Twenty-four 

these employees were persons with disabilities. Nine individuals exceeded their time-in-grade beyond

24 months. Among them were five men, four women, and one person with a disability. See Table

A10 and B10.
22 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Employee Recognition and Awards

A review of Table A13 reflects that males and females received similar time-off awards in FY 

2018. For cash awards in the amount of $100 – $500, males received 50.35% of these award

(as compared to females who received 49.65% of these awards). Males received a higher averag

amount of $390 compared to the average amount for females of $354. A review of data also reveals

a lower-than-average cash award for individuals with a targeted disability ($266) and individuals 

with disability ($345) compared to the average amount of $379 for individuals with no disability

For higher value cash awards of $501 and more, males received 58.02% of these awards, with an

average award amount of $1,166, while females received 41.98% of the awards, with an average

award of $1,133. Cash awards of $501 or more averaged $1,062 for individuals with disabilities

(below the average amount of $1,160 for those with no disability) and essentially the same as the 

average amount of $1,060 for individuals with targeted disabilities. See Tables A13 and B1

Separations

The SEC aims to keep its turnover rate relatively low, i.e., below eight percent per year. In FY 20

the SEC had a separation rate of less than five percent (176 separations for a turnover rate of 4.04%)

of its total permanent workforce. Of the 172 voluntary separations, nine were Hispanic employees,

126 were White employees, 21 were Black or African American employees, and 14 were Asian 

employees. In FY 2018, 18 employees who self-identified as having a disability separated from the

SEC, including one employee with a targeted disability. See Tables A14 and B14

SUMMARY OF EEO PLAN OBJECTIVES PLANNED TO ELIMINATE 

IDENTIFIED BARRIERS OR CORRECT PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES

Overview of the Barrier Analysis Program

The following provides an update and overview of activity completed by the SEC as part of its 

affirmative employment efforts and barrier analysis program, which constitute both a legal mandate 

and a business imperative. OEEO continued to mature the barrier analysis program following the

addition of a data scientist who holds a doctorate in industrial/organizational psychology in the 

autumn of 2016. As mentioned above, the program has developed significantly over the last two

fiscal years

In particular, the program experienced notable growth in OEEO’s practical understanding of 

the scope of work involved in fostering meaningful and sustained improvement in equality of 

opportunity. In the last two years, the barrier analysis team has learned the importance of: leveragin

the strengths of a multi-disciplinary team; robust stakeholder engagement, including frequent 

communication about what, how, and why the team does this work; rigorous research and analysis 

of quantitative and qualitative data, including previously unconsidered data sources; clear data 

visualization to enhance understanding of information; understanding of federal human resource 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 23

processes; and establishing foundational program elements, such as a framework for prioritizing 

analytical work and data query tools, to enhance analytical efficiency, among other learnings

OEEO had also come to understand that project planning is not a mechanical process, but an 

iterative one to assess progress at significant milestones and make adjustments. It has proven

challenging to determine at the outset of studies how long the analysis will take. A deeper

understanding of the process will help build efficiency over time and with experience. As discussed

below, in FY 2019 OEEO will explore the application of Agile principles to the analysis of potential 

barriers to equality of employment opportunity. Despite this challenge, OEEO has initiated programwide action that positively impacted progress on a number of barrier analysis studie

n In October and November 2017, OEEO conducted a Workplace Experience Survey to inform and 

help provide for evaluation of barrier analysis and EEO program efforts

n OEEO hosted an inter-agency meeting with EEO representatives from other federal agencies in 

April 2018. The SEC Chairman and representatives of EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations

attended and actively contributed to the discussion. Participants’ feedback from this session shows

how such cross agency collaboration helps support the individual agency programs

n Using an equal employment opportunity analytic tool developed and initially implemented in FY 

2017, more fully described later in this Part, OEEO programmed a series of 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. Several of the analyses supporting the

barrier analysis program rely on these data summary tools

n OEEO developed a framework for prioritizing future barrier analyses through seven primary 

phases and will apply the framework in FY 2019 to allocate resources

OEEO also continues to assess opportunities for further enhancements in project planning, including 

exploring adoption of the Agile management approach for conducting barrier analyses. 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. Initial exploration indicates this approach holds promise in the

context of OEEO’s affirmative employment program. The next sections describe work on specific

barrier analysis studies

Barrier Analysis Study: Analyses of Internal Competitive Promotion to SO and Senior 

Grade Level Positions

In FY 2016, OEEO began analyzing whether females encounter a glass ceiling as they 

seek promotion to senior executive positions. Investigation from that study led to specific

recommendations for improvement to SEC’s policy, practices, and procedures intended to ensure 

equality of opportunity for all. In turn, these recommendations led to agreement among OEEO,

OHR, and OMWI on actions to improve equality of opportunity
24 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Through coordinated efforts across the Agency, significant progress has been made toward 

improvement as a result of these analyses and other efforts related to diversity and inclusion. As

of September 30, 2018, one action remains open from the agreed-upon action plans. That action

requires examining the records and documentation of interview and selections made for internal 

competitive promotion actions. Data have been compiled for vacancies posted in FY 2017 and FY

2018 for positions at the SK-15, SK-17, and SO levels. OEEO will review these data and provide

feedback based on that review during FY 2019. That review and feedback cycle will help close out

the identified actions for that study and transition toward a longer-term monitoring and evaluation 

phase. Additional information about this study is included in Part I of this report, infr

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 2018. On January 3, 2017, the EEOC issued revised regulations

that modified Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and outlined the federal government’s 

obligation to engage in affirmative action for persons with disabilities (PWD). This revision addresses

hiring, retention, and career opportunities for PWD and persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD)

During FY 2018, the SEC prepared for implementation of the revised regulation through a variety of 

actions coordinated across OEEO and OHR

n OEEO explored the experience of PWD at the Agency by gathering information from employees 

on their perceptions of the workplace, analyzing employee retention, and facilitating the decision 

to consider a wider array of employees under the affirmative employment commitment for persons 

with disability

n OHR and OEEO jointly sponsored a resurvey of the workforce that increased the number of 

employees included as PWD

n OHR modified the Agency’s exit survey to gather information about how to support PWD better 

going forward

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 continued analysis of recruiting and hiring rates of female applicants for employment in SEC 

mission critical occupations (specifically, accountant, securities compliance examiner, and economist 

positions). The SEC began this analysis in 2016, and analytic work is now complete. Study result

informed the Agency’s understanding and definition of the most applicable, qualified applicant pool’s 

female participation, which considers the influence of differences by occupation, industry, and career 

trajectory. Results also highlight differences in the participation of men and women at different

stages of the hiring processes depending on how the positions are posted and how targeted was the 

recruitment effort. For this study, OEEO presented briefings on the research summary and offered
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 25

action opportunities to a variety of Agency leaders. OEEO will consult with the key stakeholders

across the Agency on next steps in FY 2019. 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 2017 and

FY 2018. Analytic work included applying a variety of multivariate linear and nonlinear models

to awards distributed between FY 2013 and FY 2017. Additional information about this study is

included in Part I of this report, infra

Barrier Analysis Study: Analyses of Women in Accounting

Research into the participation of women in accountant positions continued in FY 2018. OEEO

completed scheduled data collection in FY 2018. Qualitative and quantitative data collected include:

survey responses from employees who self-identified as accountants in its Workplace Experience 

Survey; individual and group interviews of leadership in the Divisions and Offices with accountants 

on staff; workforce participation data from various federal reporting entities; workforce, career 

progression, and retention data for the SEC’s accountant population. OEEO plans to summarize

and interpret the research results. Additional information about this study is included in Part I of this

report, infra

Barrier Analysis Study: Analyses of Male Attorneys

Research into the participation of men in attorney positions continued in FY 2018. OEEO reviewed

workforce data on the SEC’s attorney occupation, started reviewing benchmark data from a variety 

of federal reporting entities, and referenced the research literature on recent trends in the civilian labor 

force of attorneys. Additional information about this study is included in Part I of this report, infr

Analytic work supporting these studies will continue in FY 2019 to form the basis for suggested 

action to improve equal employment opportunity

Agency Accomplishments

Action Plans Implemented

In FY 2018, 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 enhancement of EEO-AT required the re-allocation of substantial resources from OEEO’s 
26 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

barrier analysis function in FY 2018. However, the investment made in the development of EEOAT was required to prepare for changes in the MD-715 reporting framework, which the EEO has

communicated will be required as part of the FY 2019 report due in calendar 2020

Improving the Reasonable Accommodation Program

The SEC’s policy is to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified people with disabilities 

covered by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 unless doing so would cause the SEC undue hardship

Examples of accommodations include:

n Assistive technology software/equipment;

n Modification to workstations;

n Flexible scheduling;

n Flexible workplace/Telework;

n Disability Support Services (e.g., American Sign Language interpreting, personal reade

assistance); and

n Reassignment (the accommodation of last resort)

As reported in the SEC’s FY 2017 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. To

address this situation, the Agency planned to deploy system enhancements to a workflow request 

platform to include streamlining temporary medical telework (TMT), reasonable accommodation 

(RA), and leave requests, where feasible. In FY 2017, the SEC designed business requirements to

implement an electronic case management system that would allow employees to request reasonable 

accommodations personally and privately. The implementation of this case management system

was planned for rollout in FY 2018; however, due to Agency-wide funding limitations, development 

work on the case management system initiative was postponed into FY 2018, therefore pushing 

implementation to FY 2019. During this period, additional workflow and system requirements were

continuously gathered to enhance the system’s capabilities in preparation for FY 2019 rollout

In the meantime, OHR identified opportunities to strengthen its manual tracking process. OHR now

tracks timeliness for processing RA requests and meets on a monthly basis with the Chief Human 

Capital Officer to review and discuss timeliness and processing of all RA cases. The overall FY

2018 RA processing timeliness rate was 74%. The SEC processed and closed 46 RA requests for

adjustable height tables (AHT) and met or exceeded processing timelines for 78% of those requests

Of the remaining 97 requests, the SEC met or exceeded timely processing standards for 72% of 

closed requests. In FY 2019, the SEC plans to finalize the RA electronic system requirements, conduct

user acceptance testing, and train the SEC workforce on the new interactive RA requests processing 

portal. This automation is expected to simplify RA case tracking, help identify systemic delays, and

improve customer service and timeliness
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 27

The SEC has made available a comprehensive resource guide, Requesting Accommodations at SEC, 

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

The Disability Program has revised the current RA policy, as appropriate, to align with recent 

updates made to the process and related program guidance, including requirements in EEOC’s 

recently issued revision to Section 501 regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The revised

policy and procedures were sent to EEOC for approval in FY 2018 and the EEOC provided written 

comments on February 5, 2019. OHR intends to publish the revised policy and updated procedures,

including a Section 508-compliant version, in FY 2019, as feasible. 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 “accommodations” 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 2016, the Disability Program Office developed and issued a new policy and

standard operating procedures to clarify the process and guidelines for the TMT program. Beyond

TMT, the SEC also supports a robust telework program, and 93% of the workforce has an active 

telework agreement. Fifty-six percent of those agreements are for recurring telework schedules and

44% are ad-hoc telework agreements. The SEC provides equipment for teleworking individuals

that meet certain criteria. Starting in FY 2017, the SEC provided 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

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 Leadership Development (LD) 307 Fundamentals of HR Management course offered 

by the Agency’s learning office, SEC University (SECU). 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 utilize contains 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
28 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Hiring and Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities

In FY 2018, the SEC completed the following activities related to hiring and accommodating 

individuals with disabilities:

n Issued an updated Veterans Employment Program policy, which states that the Agency shall 

conduct strategic outreach and recruitment to attract a diverse pool of applicants, with special 

emphasis on the recruitment of qualified veterans, including disabled veterans, as appropriate, 

and ensure that veteran appointees are notified of their potential eligibility for the disabled veteran 

leave benefit;

n Hosted a Disability Resources Showcase event to raise awareness about support options available 

to employees with disabilities. The event featured the following topics: SEC’s accommodation

program, Section 508 Compliance, disability awareness training options offered by SECU, and the 

Schedule A hiring authority;

n Hosted the 3rd annual Disability Hiring event to recruit candidates with disabilities in an effort to 

continue building a pipeline of applicants for future vacancies and educate prospective applicants 

on the SEC recruitment, hiring, and RA processes;

n Utilized the Schedule A database as a way to hire individuals with disabilities. The Schedule A

database acts as an internal pool of potential applicants sorted by title, series, and grade. Hiring

specialists use the database to offer potential applicants to hiring managers; 

n Processed 112 TMT requests;

n Processed 151 RA requests, of which 38 were requests for telework as a reasonable 

accommodation;

n Created new RA and TMT request/medical inquiry and agreement forms to facilitate the 

interactive process and confirm delivery and acceptance of the reasonable accommodation 

provided; the forms will be used in conjunction with the impending RA/TMT case management 

system being prepared for rollout in FY 2019

n Trained all new employees on Work-Life, TMT, RA, and leave programs to ensure awareness of 

various solutions or flexibilities for employees; and

n Updated 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

Agency EEO, Diversity and Inclusion, and Leadership Development Accomplishments

In FY 2018, 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 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 29

employment. Though hiring remained limited during FY 2018, the SEC participated in 30 diversity

outreach and recruitment events; distributed job advertisements to 265 recruitment sources; and 

used its relationships 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 2018. 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. Departmen

of Labor; Office of Disability Services—George Mason University; Professionals with Disabilities; 

U.S. Business Leadership Network; and the Workforce Recruitment Progr

n Hosting onsite networking events for potential candidates;

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

Employee Engagement: Employee Affinity Groups

All employees are encouraged to participate in EAGs at the SEC. These groups provide networking,

mentoring, and outreach opportunities to interested employees; sponsor cultural and educational 

programs; and support the SEC’s diversity and inclusion efforts. In FY 2018, each group had a SEC

Commissioner or Senior Officer as a sponsor and received program support from OMWI or OHR

Nine EAGs were active in FY 2018:

n African American Council;

n American Indian Heritage Committee;

n Asian American and Pacific Islander Committee;

n Caribbean American Heritage Committee;

n Disability Interests Advisory Committee (DIAC);

n Hispanic and Latino Opportunity, Leadership, and Advocacy Committee (HALO);

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

n Veterans Committee; and

n Women’s Committee
30 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In FY 2018, EAGs helped to plan, coordinate, and conduct the following SEC-sponsored programs 

and activities to commemorate special observance heritage or awareness months:

n Hispanic Heritage Month—Guest Speaker: Jovita Carranza, Treasurer, U.S. Department of 

Treasury

n Disability Employment Awareness Month—Guest Speaker: Sara Hart Weir, President and CEO of 

National Down Syndrome Society

n Veterans Day Commemoration—Guest Speaker: Bradley Warren “Brad” Snyder, CombatWounded Naval Officer, Paralympic Champion Swimmer and Author

n Native American Heritage Month—Guest Speaker: Keith Harper, Former U.S. Ambassador to the 

UN Human Rights Council

n African American History Month—Guest Speaker: Command Sargent Major Michael L. Gragg, 

U.S. Army Center for Initial Military Training

n Women’s History Month—Guest Speaker: General Flora D. Darpino, Retired Three-Star U.S. 

Army General and 39th Judge Advocate General

n Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month—SEC Career Panel at Headquarters with 

Guest Speakers: Mia Yamamoto, Criminal Defense Attorney and co-founder Multicultural Bar 

Alliance and the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Southern California (Los Angeles 

Regional Office); and Rob Buscher, Director of the Philadelphia Asian American Film Festival 

(Philadelphia Regional Office)

n Caribbean American Heritage Month—Guest Speaker: Dr. Winnette McIntosh Ambrose, 

Chemical Engineer–turned–entrepreneur, creative director, and owner of an artisanal bakery in 

Washington, DC

n LGBT Pride Month—Guest Speakers: Judy and Dennis Shepard, parents of Matthew Shephard

(Denver Regional Office); Michael Eselun, Co-founder of GLIDE–Gays and Lesbians Initiating 

Dialogue for Equality (Los Angeles Regional Office); and Evan Thronburg, Deputy Director of 

the Philadelphia Office of LGBT Affairs (Philadelphia Regional Office)

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 life events via 

WorkLife4You. The SEC further offered a large spectrum of services to support its employee’s needs

and life circumstances by offering 111 live webinars, four supervisory-only webinars, four webinars 

with subject matter that was developed for parents, and seven seminars
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 31

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results by Demographic Groups

The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) measures employees’ perceptions in a number of 

important areas, including drivers of employee engagement and diversity and inclusion. Overall,

the SEC continues to improve across-the-board on the FEVS. In 2018, all but four core survey

items experienced an increase, with three items decreasing by one percentage point, and one item 

decreasing by five percentage points. In 2018, the SEC achieved a survey response rate of 76%—the

second highest response rate among all Medium, Large, and Very Large federal agencies

10 With 

respect to results from the 2018 FEVS, the SEC continues to improve across all of the FEVS major 

indices and core items. For example

n In the Global Satisfaction Index, our positive score of 82% (+1% from 2017) and was the highest 

score among all Medium, Large, and Very Large agencies

n In the New IQ Index (Leader Effectiveness Index), our average of 71% (+2% from 2017) tied the 

SEC with one other agency for second highest among all Medium, large, and very large agencies

n In the Employee Engagement Index, our positive score was 78%, up 1% from 2017

n The SEC’s Overall FEVS Average was 74%, up 1% from 2017

Through improved management practices, the work of EAGs, and collaboration with the National 

Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the SEC’s FEVS results continue to demonstrate positive 

impact for its employees. Analysis of the 2018 FEVS results by demographic group indicate that

overall, FEVS results remained at our historic high levels in comparison to 2017 among all of 

our demographic groups: Race (all subpopulations), Supervisory Status (all subpopulations), 

Gender (both Male and Female results), Age (all subpopulations), and Tenure (all subpopulations)

With respect to the Employee Engagement Index, the largest gains came from the following 

subpopulations: employees “50 years old and over” (+5%), “Two or more Races” (+6%), “Black or 

African American” (+3%), “Less than 3 years” of tenure (+3%), and “More than 20 years” of tenure 

(+4%). No subpopulation experienced a significant drop (more than 5% points) from 2017 result

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

(BPTW) in the Federal Government. In 2018, the SEC ranked third out of 27 mid-size agencies. Thi

was an improvement from our fifth place ranking in 2017

11

10 For purposes of the FEVS, OPM defines a medium size agency as one with 1,000 to 9,999 employees. Source: OPM 2018

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Governmentwide Management Report accessed on 2/15/2019 from opm.gov/fevs

reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/governmentwide-report/2018/2018-governmentwide-management-report.pd

11 The Partnership for Public Service defines a mid-size agency as one with at least 1,000 and not more than 14,999 

employees. See Partnership for Public Service; Best Places to Work; Methodology, accessed on January 29, 2018 fro

bestplacestowork.org/about/methodology
32 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 leadershi

development to SEC senior leaders and non-supervisory staff alike. The following section provides

information on leadership development focused on specific levels of SEC leadership

Senior Officers

SECU developed and delivered leadership seminars to the Agency’s SOs on leadership best 

practices. Courses included: Emotional Intelligence and Understanding Your Behavior Style,

Leadership Communication, Leadership Presence, Coaching Skills for Leaders, and Dynamics of 

Teams and Groups

SECU also developed and delivered a Senior Officer Only HR Practices course (similar to the LD 

307 Fundamentals of Human Resources Management course), which included a review of the 

merit principles, prohibited personnel practices, the SEC’s selection processes and hiring toolkit, 

information about the CaRE program (ADR), and key fairness and inclusion expectations for 

leaders at the SEC

SK-17 Managers

In FY 2018 SECU expanded its developmental leadership offerings for SEC’s second-level 

supervisors (managers) at the SK-17 level, launching an innovative multi-session leadership 

cohort program with the George Washington University’s Center for Excellence in Public 

Leadership. Cohort participants learned to support each other, and by extension those they lead,

in a structured process of inquiry and peer coaching in which they developed deep listening skills, 

the ability to ask powerful questions, and increased their ability to engage in generative dialogue 

for creative problem-solving. Participants looked critically at themselves and their leadership to

generate new perspectives and approaches to respond to the challenges they face. The program

included small group learning, peer coaching and a 360o feedback tool, which all emphasized the 

value of individual differences, diversity of perspectives, and working collectively on problems

SECU also created new topics for its very 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. Presenters from

the Georgetown University’s Institute for Transformational Leadership led this interactive, 

four-part series that included: Building Effective Relationship Networks, Developing Trust and 

Rapport, Communicating for Understanding and Influence and Diagnosing and Troubleshooting 

Communication Breakdowns. Each session was presented with the goal of promoting team

leadership skills, increasing interpersonal communication effectiveness, recognizing and valuing 

individual differences, and treating all team members with respect
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 33

SK-15 Employees

In FY 2018, SECU rolled out a new program called Thoughtfully Rogue for SK-15 employees

This two-day training class focused on supporting and increasing innovation and creativity at 

the first-line supervisor level in the SEC. The cohort experience for this managerial level has been

one reason for the program’s overwhelming popularity and success. With this offering, SECU

now provides 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

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. Ninety-eight percent of SEC managers took this

course in FY 2018

In addition to this class, 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 2018 approximately 10% of managers participated

in this executive coaching program

As a supplement to in-class training and coaching, in FY 2018 SECU published a reading list for 

all managers. Each of the books was purposefully included to promote the baseline leadership

culture of inclusivity and engagement that the SEC is working to maintain. The 2018 book list

was available online for free via Books 24/7, and it included the following books: The

Extraordinary Leader by Joe Folkman and John Zenger, What Got You Here Won’t Get You

There by Marshall Goldsmith, The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge

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, 

which holds the program once a year. Each year, the SEC offers either managers or non-managerial

staff the opportunity to participate in this leadership development program in a cohort format
34 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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

Excellence in Government (EIG) Fellows Program

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 i

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;

n Understanding government policy, process, and regulations relevant to management 

positions in the federal government; and

n Increasing self-awareness through guided self-assessments and feedback from course 

instructors
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 35

Upward Mobility

The SEC’s Upward Mobility program is a two-year program for SEC bargaining unit employees

The training aspect of the program focuses on strengthening the participants’ skills in the 

competencies determined to be most critical for the participant’s grade level through several 

in-person classes at Headquarters, virtual classes, a book club, and one-on-one counseling 

sessions. Year one of the program focuses on: Leading Self, Delivering Results, Influencing

Others, and Dealing with Change. Year two provides participants with the opportunity to tie

their training, experiences and accomplishments to Agency or business unit projects or programs 

by completing a capstone project

Mentoring Pilot

On October 12, 2017, Chairman Clayton solicited input from the workforce to explore ideas 

for fostering mentorship at the SEC in anticipation of a round-table discussion. On January

17, 2018, SEC Chairman Clayton and all four SEC Commissioners sponsored an Agency-wide 

Mentoring Roundtable. Over the summer, the SEC successfully launched a pilot mentoring

program leading to the first cohort of 30 participants based on work completed by the Agency 

Diversity Council. The pilot mentoring program received overwhelming interest among

employees. The SEC held an orientation session for both mentors and participants on September

28, 2018. 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 J of this 

report, infra

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 offer on-demand, web-based courses as well as 

classroom training related to diversity and inclusion, including non-conscious bias courses, 

throughout the year

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

of the Fundamentals of Human Resource Management course during FY 2018, which was 

offered in-person and virtually. The two-day course covered a broad range of human capitalrelated topics to educate SEC managers on the Agency’s HR policies, statutory, regulatory, and

procedural requirements and on federal sector best practices. The SEC’s policies on the prevention

of workplace violence and whistleblower protections are extensively covered. The course’s EEO

training module provides fact-based scenarios and video content for discussion and in-depth 

teaching on the SEC’s EEO complaint process
36 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 2018 by SECU included

Communication Styles;

Workplace Trust;

Achieving Results;

Feedback as a Performance Tool;

Leading People;

Team Dynamics;

Emotional Intelligence (1.0 and 2.0);

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);

Working in Distributed Teams;

Leader as Coach; and

Vision, Value and Future State.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 37

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

March 23, 2019

March 24, 2019
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 39

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 the time frame identified in the SEC’s 

reasonable accommodation procedures.

09/30/2019

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name

Performance Standards 

Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes
40 | 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)

09/30/2019 In FY 2019, the Disability Program will continue 

to pursue automation of the reasonable 

accommodation process to meet the 90% 

benchmark. The plan is to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the reasonable 

accommodation program by improving the 

technology system and standard operating 

procedures used to submit, track, and report 

on requests for reasonable accommodation 

and to maintain information about reasonable 

accommodations provided.

Yes

09/30/2019 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 09/30/2018

Report of Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 2018 In FY 2017, the SEC designed business requirements to implement an electronic case management system that 

would allow employees to request reasonable accommodations personally and privately. In FY 2018, a decision 

was made to delay the implementation of this case management system because of competing OHR priorities; this 

program is, however, a top priority in FY 2019. 

At the same time, early in FY 2017, OHR strengthened the manual tracking process while defining the business 

requirements for the electronic system. Through use of Excel pivot tables and other formulas, OHR now tracks 

timeliness for processing reasonable accommodation requests. The Disability Program Manager meets on 

a monthly basis with the Chief Human Capital Officer to review and discuss timeliness and processing of all 

Reasonable Accommodation (RA) cases. The current processing timeliness rate, excluding the provision of 

Adjustable Height Tables (AHTs), is 72%. While this is an improvement over the FY 2016 rate, the rate remained the 

same in both FY 2017 and FY 2018. 

RA accountability and efficiencies continue to improve overall program effectiveness. For example, the data 

revealed emerging trends relative to requests for AHTs as a reasonable accommodation. Consequently, the process 

was streamlined to address varying types of AHT workstations that could be offered to employees. These process 

updates improved the timeliness rate for AHT requests. In FY 2018, SEC processed and closed out 46 RA requests 

for AHT and met or exceeded the 20-day processing timeline on 78% of those requests. By the end of FY 2019, 

the SEC plans to finalize the RA electronic system, conduct user acceptance testing, and begin training the SEC 

workforce on the new interactive RA requests processing portal. This automation will simplify RA case tracking, help 

identify systemic delays, and improve customer service and timeliness. The RA policy is being revised to ensure it is 

concise and transparent. 

OHR submitted the revised RA policy to the SEC in May 2018, and it is currently being reviewed by the EEOC. The 

disability program used the regulations and guidance set by the EEOC to create the draft policy and revised policyrelated materials to capture updates to the program. 

Once the policy is final and the new electronic case management system is being implemented, the Agency will 

take action to enhance RA procedures and post policy and procedures for internal review and reference. Additional 

training of program staff, managers, and employees will be planned to support the new system.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 41

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 A9 and B9

Tables A11 and B11

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
42 | 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, 

Anti-Harassment 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

Female employees’ responses to a survey conducted by a vendor in July 

2014 regarding promotions at the SEC

Female 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 among women

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 2018 | 43

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

No No

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

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

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
44 | 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. 

This action was completed on November 6, 2017.

11/6/2017

03/31/2018 The Agency will solicit stakeholder input for the design of a mentoring 

program. This action was completed on February 28, 2018.

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. This action was completed by 

September 30, 2018.

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. This action was completed by September 30, 2018.

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. This action was completed by September 30, 2018.

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.

09/30/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 45

Report of Accomplishments 

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. 
46 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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:

1. 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;

2. Starting in the fall of 2017, exploring options for a mentorship program;

3. 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;

4. 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;

5. Continuing to leverage OHR’s expertise in the design and implementation of structured interviews for SO 

positions;

6. Conducting training for all employees and, more specifically, mandatory training for anyone involved in the 

hiring and/or promotion process;

7. 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;

8. 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;

9. Maintaining active participation of OEEO and OMWI in the development and implementation of the Agency’s 

Human Capital Strategic Plan; 

10. Targeting recruiting efforts to attract talented women and minorities to apply for SO and other leadership 

positions; and

11. 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.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 47

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)

Tables A6, A7, and A8 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
48 | 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 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) No

Findings from Decisions 

(e.g., EEO, Grievance, MSPB, 

Anti-Harassment 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

Female employees’ responses to a Workplace Experience Survey

conducted at the SEC during FY 2018 regarding recruiting and hiring

Employee survey data from the Agency’s exit survey to understand better 

the reasons for voluntary separation among women

Exit Interview Data Yes Employee data from the Agency’s exit survey to understand better the 

reasons for voluntary separation among women

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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 49

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

No No

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

On the basis of the analytic work, OEEO did not identify any specific barriers that directly impede Agency from hiring women into these 

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;

• 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 07/31/2018

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
50 | 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, among other topics, employee perceptions of 

recruitment and hiring. This action was completed by November 6, 2017.

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. This 

action was completed by December 31, 2017.

12/31/2017

04/15/2018 OEEO will integrate and interpret quantitative and qualitative data to 

establish evidence for any areas for improvement. This action was 

completed by October 31, 2018.

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. This action was completed by November 30, 2018.

11/30/2018

09/30/2019 To the extent areas of improvement in recruiting and hiring processes are 

found, the SEC will begin to develop an action plan to help foster equal 

employment opportunity.

05/31/2018

10/18/2019 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed in this study.

06/30/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 51

Report of Accomplishments 

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.
52 | 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.

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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 53

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

Tables A13 and B13 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
54 | 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 and 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)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

No barrier has been identified.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 55

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 01/31/2020 Yes 09/30/2018

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. 

This action was completed by November 6, 2017.

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. This action was completed by July 31, 2018.

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. This action 

was completed by September 27, 2018.

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.

11/01/2019 To the extent areas of improvement in recognition and awards processes 

are found, the SEC will begin to develop an action plan to help foster 

equal employment opportunity.

07/31/2018

01/31/2020 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed on this study.

09/30/2018
56 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

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.

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 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.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 57

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER 

Section IV: 

Analysis of Women in Accounting

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table Narrative Description of Trigger

Analysis of Women in Accounting Tables A6, A7, and A8 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
58 | 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 and participation rates for women in the accounting 

occupation from FY 2013 – FY 2018

Applicant flow, new hire, and competitive promotion data from FY 2013 – 

FY 2018 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

Female 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 among women

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 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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 59

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

No No

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

No barrier has 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 06/19/2020 Yes 06/30/2019

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
60 | 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 perceptions of different aspects of the employee 

lifecycle among accountants. This action was completed by November 

6, 2017.

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. This action was completed by July 31, 2018.

07/31/2018

01/31/2020 OEEO will integrate and interpret quantitative and qualitative data, trends 

across years, root causes, and identify triggers to establish evidence for 

any areas in need of improvement.

07/31/2018

04/30/2020 To the extent areas of improvement for female accountants at the Agency 

are found, the SEC will begin to develop an action plan to help foster 

equal employment opportunity.

03/30/2019

06/19/2020 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed on this study.

06/30/2019
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 61

Report of Accomplishments 

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. 
62 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 has completed analysis of 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.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 63

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER 

Section V: 

Analysis of Male Attorneys

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table Narrative Description of Trigger

Analysis of male attorneys Tables A6, A7, and A8 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
64 | 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 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

Male employees’ responses to a survey conducted by a vendor in July 2014 

regarding promotions at the SEC

Male 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 No

Focus Groups No

Interviews Yes Relevant interview questions from the EEOC decision tree root cause 

framework

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 male attorneys, 

particularly, minority male attorneys in the federal government and law firms 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 65

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

No No

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

No barrier has 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 life-cycle 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 10/31/2020 Yes 12/31/2019

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
66 | 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 perceptions of different aspects of the employee 

lifecycle among attorneys. This action was completed by November 

6, 2017.

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. This action was completed by June 30, 2018.

6/30/2018

07/31/2019 OEEO will begin conducting interviews and/or focus groups with 

subject matter experts involved in the recruitment, hiring, development, 

recognition, and retention of attorneys.

10/01/2018

12/31/2019 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

07/31/2020 To the extent opportunities for enhancing equality of opportunity for male 

attorneys at the Agency are found, the SEC will begin to develop an 

action plan to help foster equal employment opportunity.

06/30/2019

10/30/2020 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on 

the work completed on this study.

12/31/2019

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.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 67

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 requ

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 numeri

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 2018, that salary was $68,036. 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

Continued on the next page
68 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

For employees with salaries below a GS-11, step 1, the Agency achieved the numerical goal 

for PWD participation; 35.00% of employees in this cluster were PWD compared to the

12% benchmark

For employees with locality adjusted salaries above a GS-11, step 1, the Agency did not 

achieve the numerical goal involving PWD; 8.64% 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 2.29 percentage points since the end of FY 201

In FY 2018, SEC implemented plans to include permanent and temporary employees hired 

under authorities that take disability into account as PWD 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 

now 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 now included in the total PWD workforce for purposes of 

utilization analysis. This action added 40 permanent employees to the PWD workforce data;

39 in the higher salary cluster, and one in the lower salary cluster. The workforce data tables

included with this report12 and the analyses described in Parts E and below reflect this change

Prior year data for such employees was updated for comparison

As described in Section VII below, the Agency has conducted an annual resurvey of the 

workforce since FY 2015. Data show steady increase in self-identification among employees

after each annual resurvey. Trend data also show positive impact from the changes made to

SF-256 in October 2016 and again from the more inclusive definition described above related 

to Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act. Between FY 2015 and FY 2018, the participation of

PWD in the total workforce increased from 6.57% to 8.76%, participation increased in bot

the lower and higher salary clusters

12 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 B14. The FedSEP online reporting system does not provide

for an additional column in the table format; SEC has included such persons in Tables B1 through B14 in the column 

labeled: “Disability (02-03, 06-99).” As such, the data presented on PWD within the tables included with this report may

not match those submitted to the EEOC through the FedSEP portal
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 69

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 described in Section I, the SEC achieved 

the numerical goals established for PWTD in both the lower and higher salary clusters 

during FY 2018. In the lower salary cluster, 5.00% of permanent employees ar

PWTD; 2.01% of higher salaried employees are PWT

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 manager

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 identify as 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. 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 efforts

Throughout FY 2018 and particularly during National Disability Employment Awareness Month, 

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 Issues 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 a 2018-2019 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

Continued on the next page
70 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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

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 greater

Beginning in July 2018, OEEO led periodic meetings with a cross-functional working group 

comprised of representatives from OHR and OMWI, including those who support recruiting, 

to discuss the 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

SECTION II: MODEL DISABILITY PROGRAM

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1), agencies must ensure sufficient staff, training and resour

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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 71

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

12 0 0 Stephen Brown, Assistant Director, Office 

of Human Resources, brownst@sec.gov

Answering questions from the public 

about hiring authorities that take 

disability into account

12 0 0 Stephen Brown, Assistant Director, Office 

of Human Resources, brownst@sec.gov

Processing reasonable 

accommodation requests from 

applicants and employees

2 1 0 Dia Gonsalves, Disability Program Officer, 

Office of Human Resources, 

gonsalvesd@sec.gov

Section 508 Compliance 0 1 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; 

Jillian Bates, RA, LEED AP, Architect, 

OSO-OBO; 

Carla Hairston, Program Analyst, OSO-OBO

HairstonC@sec.gov

Special Emphasis Program for PWD 

and PWTD

2 0 0 Stephen Brown, Assistant Director, Office 

of Human Resources, brownst@sec.gov

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 yea

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

full-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

Continued on the next page
72 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 2018 | 73

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 

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. As outlined in OHR’s 2018-2019 Recruitment Strategy, the SEC will begin

to realize an increase in the overall representation of people with disabilities by using effective 

recruitment and outreach efforts that identify the Agency as an employer of choice

The SEC hosted its third annual Informational and Networking Event for Individuals with 

Disabilities at SEC Headquarters. This event continues to prove successful in building a

pipeline of applicants for future vacancies. Through this event, the SEC is able to reinforce its

commitment to becoming a model employer for PWD by providing guests the opportunity 

to learn more about the SEC’s mission, hear about the Agency’s benefits and reasonable 

accommodations, and network with SEC hiring managers

Despite limited hiring in FY 2018, the Agency maintained a physical recruitment presence

SEC attended over 17 career fairs and events supporting efforts in building pipelines for future 

employment. Most notably, it attended the AmeriCorps Vista Career Fair and the Bowie State

University Veterans Career Fair, which both proved to be successful resources for attracting 

potential candidates. These events allowed the SEC to reach a key constituency and promote a

variety of positions

In FY 2019, the SEC will introduce a more direct and streamlined approach in encouraging 

hiring managers to utilize the Schedule A hiring authority. OHR will present prospective

candidates to every hiring manager seeking to fill vacant positions externally prior to initiating 

general hiring procedures. OHR believes this approach is a win-win for all stakeholders by

providing an opportunity for prospective candidates to be considered first-hand by hiring 

managers and potentially shortening an often lengthy hiring 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
74 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(3), describe the agency’s use of hiring authorities 

take disability into account (e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in th

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 2018, the Special

Programs Manager continued to source potential candidates from available resources such as 

OPM’s Shared List of People with Disabilities and the Workforce Recruitment Program

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.or

n JAN—Job Accommodation Network: askjan.or

n ODEP—Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department Of Labor: 

dol.gov/odep

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 fo

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 2018 | 75

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. 

“no”, describe the agency’s plan to provide this training

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

OHR developed a 2018-2019 Recruitment Strategy, which describes the Agency’s 

commitment to educating the SEC workforce on special programs for people with disabilities

In addition, OHR and DIAC co-sponsored a Disability Resources Showcase in which all SEC 

employees, including hiring managers, were invited to learn about several disability resources, 

including the Schedule A hiring authority

In FY 2018, 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

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
76 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 

14 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 Special Programs Manager maintains an ongoing relationship with the SEC’s DIAC and 

the Veterans Committee

In an effort to expand outreach, the SEC piloted the Operation Warfighter Program 

(OWF) during FY 2018. OWF is an internship program created by the Department of

Defense that matches qualified wounded, ill, and injured service members with nonfunded federal internships for them to gain valuable work experience during recovery and 

rehabilitation. SEC is finalizing program policies and procedures and plans to implement

Agency-wide in FY 2019

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

Hiring Data from FY 2018 were reviewed for evidence of differences in hiring into the 

permanent workforce. In FY 2018, the participation rate for both PWD and PWTD was

8.33%. [Redacted to protect privacy

From these data, the Agency did not achieve a 12% participation rate for PWD among new 

hires in the permanent workforce. In FY 2018, the participation of PWD among permanent

new hires was 8.33

The Agency achieved the numerical goal of 2% participation of PWTD among permanent new 

hires. In FY 2018, the participation of PWTD among permanent new hires was 8.3

The hiring freeze at SEC, implemented early in FY 2017 and continuing through most of FY 

2018, impacted hiring and affected efforts toward increasing the participation of PWD
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 77

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

FY 2018 data that underlie Tables B7 and B8 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 three out of five of the MCO positions, accountant, IT 

management, and economist. PWD were found in the qualified applicant pools for attorneys

and securities compliance examiners; qualified applicants for attorney also included PWTD

In FY 2018, the SEC hired relatively few permanent employees, a total of 24 permanent staff 

employees. Among these newly hired staff members were 19 persons in MCO positions, nine

attorneys, nine IT management specialists, and one economist. Two of those 19 (10.53%

newly hired MCO permanent staff were both PWD and PWTD

At the same time, the limited number of qualified PWD and PWTD applicants did not 

result in differences when comparing qualified applicants to permanent new hires in any 

of the Agency’s MCOs. No triggers were found for PWD or PWTD when comparing their

participation among permanent new hires to the qualified applicants pools (QAP) for 

attorney, accountant, securities compliance examiner, IT management, or economist positions

To assess these differences, the percentage of PWD in the permanent new hires from Table 

B8 for each occupation was compared to the qualified applicant pool (QAP) in the data from 

Table B7. As described above (See Part E Section III, supra), the applicant flow data in Table

B7 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 B7 and the

QAP data summarized here reflect the pool of qualified applications for permanent and/or 

temporary vacancies announced through USAJOBS during FY 2018

In contrast, Table B8 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 in Table B7 and that of new hires on 

boarded in Table B8. Triggers comparing the composition of PWD and PWTD in applicant

flow versus new hire data should be interpreted with these differences in mind

Continued on the next page
78 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

PWD represent 22.22% and PWTD were 22.22% of newly hired permanent staff attorne

That PWD and PWTD participation among new hires exceeds their participation in the QAP

For attorneys, the QAP was 1.38% PWD, and the QAP for PWTD was 0.59%. There we

12 temporary attorneys hired, and nine newly hired permanent attorneys

None of the newly hired permanent employees in FY 2018 were accountants. There were

nine total new hires, all of whom were temporary. Similarly, none of the QAP for accountant

positions was PWD or PWTD; as such, no difference in participation was observed. For

securities compliance examiner vacancies posted in FY 2018, the QAP was 2.78% PWD and

0.00% PWTD. No permanent staff securities compliance examiners were hired in FY 2018

therefore, there was a difference observed between available PWD in the QAP compared to 

those hired. There was no opportunity to observe a difference in participation among newly

hired staff and the QAP for PWTD

For IT management, nine employees were hired as permanent staff in FY 2018. The QAP was

0.00% for both PWD and PWTD, and none (0.00%) of the newly hired staff were PWD o

PWTD. No difference is observed in these data; participation in the QAP equaled that among

newly hired IT management staff

Finally, for economists, the QAP was 0.00% for PWD and PWTD because no vacancies were

available in applicant flow for economist hiring. There was one permanent new hire, who did

not identify as PWD or PWTD. Four temporary economists were also hired. No differenc

was observed in the participation of PWD or PWTD between the QAP and newly hired 

permanent staff economist

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 2018 data presented in Table B9, 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 three of the SEC’s MCOs, i.e., attorney, securitie

compliance examiner, and economist. Differences were also identified for PWTD within

the internal competitive promotion data for the MCOs attorney, accountant, securities 

compliance examiner, and IT management

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 79

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 5.25%, and PWD represented 4.27% of the qualifie

internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.25%, and PWTD were 0.95% of the qualifi

internal applicants for attorneys. The Agency observed a small difference between the RAP

and the qualified applicants for attorney internal promotions of PWTD

For accountants, the RAP for PWD was 5.81%, and PWD were 9.09% of the qualifie

internal applicants. Participation of PWD exceeded the RAP for accountants. However

participation on PWTD was lower among the qualified internal applicants than available in 

the RAP for accountants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.01%, and none of the qualified interna

applicants were PWTD (0.00%

For securities compliance examiners, the RAP for PWD was 8.92%, and PWD represented

4.65% of the qualified internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.54%, and PWTD we

0.00% of the qualified internal applicant

For IT management, the RAP for PWD was 11.48%, and PWD represented 15.38% of th

qualified internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 0.74%, and PWTD represented 0.0

of the qualified internal applicants. Relatively larger differences in participation were observed

for both the IT management and securities compliance examiner data compared to the other 

MCOs, especially for PWD

For economists, the RAP was 1.32% for PWD, and none (0.00%) of the qualified interna

applicants were PWD. No PWTD were found in either the RAP or the qualified internal

applicant pool; therefore, no difference was found in the participation of PWTD

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 0 No X
80 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In the FY 2018 data for internal competitive promotions in MCOs, 4.17% were PW

[Redacted to protect privacy.] In reviewing these data further, a difference was observed when 

comparing participation of PWD among those selected for promotion with their participation 

among the qualified internal applicant pool (QAP) in the attorney, securities compliance 

examiner, and IT management occupations

For PWTD, no participation differences were found, except that for attorneys, PWTD 

participation among those selected for promotion exceeded the QAP. For accountants,

securities compliance examiners, IT management, and economists, no PWTD were available 

in the QAP, and none were selected for promotion

In the attorney occupation, the QAP for PWD was 4.27%, and a smaller proportion, 1.54%

of those promoted were PWD. The attorney QAP for PWTD was 0.95%, and a large

proportion, 1.54%, of those promoted were PWT

The participation of PWD and PWTD among those promoted to accountant positions 

exceeded or equaled their respective QAP. In the accountant occupation, the QAP for PWD

was 9.09% and 0.00% for PWTD. Of te  accountants promoted, 14.29% were PWD; n

were PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.

In the securities compliance examiner occupation, the QAP for PWD was 4.65% and 0.00

PWTD. None of the employees selected for promotion were PWD or PWTD. [Redacted t

protect privacy.]

In the IT management occupation, the QAP was 15.38% for PWD, and 14.29% of th

selections were PWD. The QAP for PWTD was 0.00%, and 0.00% of selections were P

[Redacted to protect privacy.]

In the economist occupation, neither PWD nor PWTD were found in the QAP, and none were 

selected. There were two selections for economist promotio
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 81

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 advanceme

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 Chief Human Capital Officer 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
82 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Career Development Opportunities

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its employee

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 in Section IV.2.b bel

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 2018 | 83

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

2018, OHR and SECU also:

n 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. The data gleaned from the competency survey will be

used to enhance the value of the new LEAP career path options

n Expanded offerings under the Career Horizons program that provide individualized 

support for employees in creating development plans and pursuing career growth

The Agency supports employees in pursuing leadership development through a variety of 

program offerings, including both individual coaching and a new pilot 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

Late in FY 2017, OHR conducted a Leadership Interest Survey to gather data from all SK-15 

and SK-17 managers. Survey data from SEC management staff were analyzed in early FY

2018 to inform SECU’s leadership development offerings going forward. Additionally, 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

Relatedly, in summer 2018, the Agency successfully launched a pilot mentoring program 

leading to the first cohort of 30 participants who will receive mentoring throughout FY 2019

In total, 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

Employees, who expressed interest in the program who were not matched with mentors for 

this program offering were placed on a wait list for a future program offerings. The SEC

held an orientation session for both mentors and participants, and will hold formal events 

throughout FY 2019 to help guide the mentoring relationship toward success

Participation among PWD and PWTD in the Agency’s career development opportunities is 

provided below
84 | 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 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Fellowship Programs 24 13 NA 0.00% NA 0.00%

Mentoring Programs 142 29 5.63% 6.90% 0.00% 0.00%

Coaching Programs NA NA NA NA NA NA

Training Programs1 27,050 27,050 10.69% 10.69% 2.27% 2.27%

Detail Programs NA NA NA NA NA NA

Other Career Development Programs NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: With more limited hiring in FY 2018, 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 SECs pilot Mentoring Program was offered on a first come, first serve basis. 

1 Training Programs data show demographic data for all permanent employees’ registrations for training in LEAP and completed training 

opportunities during FY 2018. 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.

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 bo

a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

From the Career Development Opportunities table in Section IV.B.2 above, data on th

participation of PWD and PWTD in applications or selections for various programs 

were reviewed

Within the Agency’s pilot mentoring program, the Agency noted a difference in the 

participation rate among those who expressed interest in the mentoring program (i.e.

applicants) as compared to participation of PWD in the permanent workforce. While 8.76

of all permanent staff are PWD, PWD represent 5.63% of those employees who expressed

interest in the pilot mentoring program. The Agency will continue to share information about

this program through DIAC and other channels to encourage greater interest among PWD for 

future offerings

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 85

The participation rate of 6.90% PWD among those selected to participate in the pilot

mentoring program (i.e., Selectees) exceeded their participation among those expressin

interest (5.63%). As such, no trigger was noted for the selections into the Agency’s pilo

mentoring program

Aggregate PWD participation in training programs through the Agency’s learning 

management system, LEAP, exceeds their participation on rolls; 10.69% of training

opportunities (both mandatory and elective) were completed by PWD, compared to 8.76%

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). No evidence for lower rates of participation for PWD was found in the Agency’

training program

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

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 bo

a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

From the Career Development Opportunities table in Section IV.B.2 above, data on the participation of PWTD in various programs were reviewed for equality of employment opportunit

in the applications or selections for these programs

Within the Agency’s pilot mentoring program, the Agency notes a difference in the participation rate among those who expressed interest in the mentoring program (i.e., applicants), a

compared to PWTD among permanent staff. While 2.02% of the Agency’s permanent staff ar

PWTD, no (0.00%) PWTD expressed interest in the pilot mentoring program. The Agency wil

share information about future offerings of this program through DIAC and other channels to 

encourage greater interest among PWTD. Given that no PWTD expressed interest in the program, none were selected. No trigger was noted for selections into the mentoring progr

In the aggregate, training records show that PWTD participated in training programs 

through LEAP at rates just above their participation on rolls; 2.27% of training opportunities

(both mandatory and elective) were completed by PWTD, compared to 2.02% of PWTD

permanent employees. No evidence of a trigger or significant difference was found for the

participation (i.e., selections) of PWTD in training programs da
86 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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

In the FY 2018 data underlying Table B13, the Agency presents information on awards 

distributed to employees during the year as part of its employee recognition program

The inclusion rate for PWD was calculated by comparing the number and percent of 

employees with disabilities (PWD) 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 (PWTD) 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

For both PWD and PWTD, the Agency found lower inclusion rates in: time-off awards 

of nine (9) hours or more and cash awards of more than $500. No trigger was found

disadvantaging PWD or PWTD in the distribution of time-off awards less than nine (9) hours 

or cash awards of $100 to $500

For time-off awards of more than nine hours, the inclusion rate for PWD was 29.32%, and

the inclusion rate for people with no disability was 32.39%. The inclusion rate for PWT

was 23.86%, and the inclusion rate for people with no targeted disability was 32.2

For cash awards of more than $500, the inclusion rate for PWD was 40.05%, and the

inclusion rate for people with no disability was 52.58%. The inclusion rate for PWTD wa

32.95%, and the inclusion rate for people with no targeted disability was 51.8

For time-off awards of one to nine hours, the inclusions rates were: 38.22% for PWD and

37.69% for persons with no disability. The PWTD inclusion rate was 48.86% and for tho

with no targeted disability, it was 37.51

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 87

For cash awards of $100 to $500,the inclusion rate for PWD was 34.29%, and the inclusion

rate for people with no disability was 25.37%; the inclusion rate for PWTD was 44.32%, an

the inclusion rate for people with no targeted disability was 25.78

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. Performance-based awards at the SEC are

also recorded under NOA Codes 885 and 886 for performance rating based lump sum 

awards. In FY 2018, a significant proportion of the employee population received lump

sum payments under NOA Code 885 and/or 886 rather than a pay increase under NOA 

Code 891

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). No difference in performance rating based pay increases was found for

PWD. The inclusion rate for PWD was 71.20%, and for people without disabilities an

those who did not self-identify with a disability, it was 66.46

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 wit

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

73.86%, 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 66.73
88 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 X N/A 0

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes 0 No X N/A 0

In FY 2018, OEEO analyzed data from the Agency’s gift card recognition program since the 

program’s inception in late FY 2016 through FY 2017. This analysis was completed under

the barrier analysis program’s research into the distribution of discretionary cash and timeoff awards. Among all gift card recipients in this time period, 105 were PWD (12.06%), an

20 were PWTD (2.30%). This participation of PWD and PWTD in the gift card progra

exceeded their participation of permanent staff on rolls (participation rates of permanent staff 

for PWD was 8.76%, and for PWTD was 2.02

Further, inclusion of PWD (27.49%) among gift card recipients, when considered against

the total PWD permanent staff at the end of FY 2018, exceeded that of the combination 

of persons with no disability and those who did not self-identify (18.91%). Similarly th

inclusion rate for PWTD (22.73%) gift card recipients exceeded that of those with no targeted

disability (19.60%). Consistent with analyses conducted on discretionary cash and timeoff awards; lower value gift card awards were used to recognize PWD and PWTD mor

frequently than employees with no disability. More information about the Agency’s analysis of

discretionary cash and time-off awards can be found in Part I of this report, supra

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 X No 0
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 89

d. Grade GS-13

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

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 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

Table B11 presents the relevant FY 2018 data to assess whether triggers exist with regard to 

promotions to senior grade levels. Of 972 qualified internal applications for senior grade level

positions, 148 (15.23%) were submitted by PWD. The Agency was successful in supportin

PWD in their interest in and application for senior grade level positions. There were no

triggers identified among qualified internal applicants to senior grades

Differences were observed among selectees for all senior grade levels. Of the promotions to

senior grade levels in Table B11, 5.88% were PWD, which is lower than their availability in

the QAP at 15.23%. [Redacted to protect privacy.] The following presents data for each grad

level equivalent

At the SO level, the RAP, comprised of all employees at grade levels SK-14 and higher, was 

6.69%, and among qualified internal applicants, a larger proportion (14.00%) were P

None of the employees selected for SO positions were PWD

At the SK-15 and SK-17 levels (GS-15 equivalent), the RAP, comprised of employees at grades 

SK-14, SK-15, and SK-16, was 6.74%, while the participation of PWD among qualified

internal applicants was greater at 15.46%. The Agency noted a difference involving interna

selections for senior grade levels at the SK-15 and SK-17 levels; 5.17% of selections were

PWD compared to their participation among qualified internal applicants at 15.46

At the SK-14 and SK-16 levels (GS-14 equivalent), the RAP, comprised of employees at 

grades SK-13, SK-14, and SK-15, was 7.94%, and the participation of PWD among qualified

internal applicants was 13.11%. On the other hand, 7.02% of selections were P

compared to 13.11% of qualified internal applicant

At the SK-13 level (GS-13 equivalent), the RAP, comprised of employees at the SK-12 level, 

was 17.89%, and the participation of PWD among qualified internal applicants was 36.6

Among selections for internal promotions at the SK-13 level, 11.11% were PWD, and

36.67% of the qualified internal applicants were PW
90 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

d. Grade GS-13

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Applying the same comparisons to PWTD as described in Section IV.D.1, the Agency present

information on trigger identification for PWTD in promotions to senior grade levels. Of 972

qualified internal applications for senior grade level positions, 24 (2.47%) were submitted

by PWTD. Of the promotions to senior grade levels in Table B11, 1.47% were PW

[Redacted to protect privacy.] 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 both the GS-13 and GS-14 

equivalent senior grade levels and among selectees for both the GS-15 and SES equivalent 

senior grade levels. The following presents data for each grade leve

At the SO level, the Agency notes that the RAP was 1.41% PWTD, and the participation

among qualified internal applicants of PWTD was 3.00%. Zero selections for SO position

were PWTD among the qualified internal applicants who were 3.00% PWT

At the SK-15 and SK-17 level (GS-15 equivalent), the RAP was 1.39%, and among the

qualified internal applicants, 3.54% were PWTD. For the internal selections to grade

SK-15 and SK-17, 3.54% of the qualified internal applicant pool was PWTD, and 1.72% o

selections for SK-15 or SK-17 positions were PWTD

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 91

At the SK-14 and SK-16 level (GS-14 equivalent), the Agency observed a difference among 

qualified internal applicants. The RAP was 1.59% while 0.66% of the qualified intern

applicants were PWTD. Selections were 1.75% PWTD; therefore, no difference was foun

among selectees

At the SK-13 level (GS-13 equivalent), the Agency observed a difference involving PWTD 

among qualified internal applicants. The RAP was 5.96%, and the participation o

PWD among qualified internal applicants was 0.00%. The Agency did not have a trigge

involving internal selections. None of the qualified internal applicants were PWTD, and

none were selected

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 bo

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 described in Section IV, the Agency presents 

information on trigger identification for PWD new hires to senior grade levels based on 

reviewing data underlying Tables B7 and B8. Among the newly hired staff members in FY

2018 and persons hired into senior grade level positions, 9.09% newly hired permanent staff

in senior grade levels identified as both PWD and PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] The

following evaluates participation of PWD in each grade equivalent level

Because no permanent staff PWD employees were hired into senior grade levels for the GS-13, 

GS-14, or SES equivalent positions, participation of PWD was higher among the QAP than 

among newly hired senior grade staff for each of those grade level equivalencies. At the GS-15

equivalent, SK-15 and SK-17 level, there was no trigger for the permanent new hires for either 

PWD or PWTD because 33.33% of the newly hired staff at those levels were both PWD and

PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] The following describes trigger analysis at each grade

equivalent level SES, GS-15, GS-14, and GS-13

Continued on the next page
92 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

As described above (see Part E, Section III above), 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 and temporary positions with the SEC that were 

posted in USAJOBS with a closing date during the fiscal year. In contrast, Table B8 presents

data on new hires on boarded 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 difference in mind

At the SO level, the QAP was 4.83% PWD, and none of the newly hired permanent SOs

identified as PWD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] At the SK-15 and SK-17 levels (GS-15

equivalent), the QAP was 1.96% PWD, and 33.33% of the permanent new hires for SK-1

and SK-17 positions identified as PWD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] At the SK-14 and

SK-16 levels, the QAP was 10.65% while none of the permanent new hires to SK-14 and

SK-16 positions identified as PWD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] At the SK-13 level, the QAP

was 4.55% while none of the new hires to SK-13 positions identified as PWD. [Redacted t

protect privacy.

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 bo

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Yes X No 0

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 in Section IV and the tables 

reviewed in Section IV above, the Agency presents information on trigger identification for 

PWTD new hires to senior grade levels. Of the newly hired permanent staff in senior grade

levels, 9.09% were PWTD in SK-15 or SK-17 positions. [Redacted to protect privacy

For two of the senior grade level positions, the Agency found a trigger in differences in 

participation of PWTD between qualified applicants and among new hires. Because no

PWTD employees were hired into senior grade level positions in the SO or the SK-14 and 

SK-16 (GS-14 equivalent) positions, participation of PWTD was higher among the QAP than 

among newly hired senior grade staff for each of those grade level equivalencies

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 93

For two of the senior grade level positions, the Agency found no evidence for a trigger 

between qualified applicants and among new hires. At the SK-15 and SK-17 level (GS-15

equivalent), there was no trigger for the permanent new hires for either PWD or PWTD. For

SK-13 (GS-13 equivalent) positions, there was no opportunity to observe a difference for 

PWTD newly hired staff. No PWTD were available in the QAP, and none were selecte

More detail about each senior grade level follows in descending order by level. At the SO level,

the Agency found a difference involving PWTD among new hires. The QAP was 0.97%, an

none of the permanent new hires to SO positions identified as PWTD. [Redacted to protect

privacy.] At the SK-15 and SK-17 levels, the QAP was 1.12%, and of the permanent new hires

to SK-15 and SK-17 positions, 33.33% were PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.] At th

SK-14 and SK-16 levels, the QAP was 1.61%, and none of the permanent new hires to SK-14

and SK-16 positions were PWTD. At the SK-13 level, the qualified applicant pool was 0.00

and there were no permanent new hires who 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 0 No X

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

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

Continued on the next page
94 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

FY 2018 data underlying Table B11 are relevant for assessing whether triggers exist with regard 

to promotions to supervisory positions. Among the promotions in FY 2018 to a leadership

position at the supervisor, manager, or executive level, 5.88% identified as PWD. The followin

evaluates participation of PWD in each leadership level. [Redacted to protect privacy.

For all three leadership levels, the participation of PWD in the qualified internal applicant pool 

exceeds that in the RAP. However, differences were found when comparing PWD selections

into leadership positions to the qualified internal applicant pools at all three leadership levels

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 6.33%, and the qualified

internal applicants were 14.00% PWD. Therefore, no trigger was found for qualified interna

applicants. However, the Agency found lower participation of PWD among selections. Non

of the internal selections for SO positions identified as PWD, while 14.00% of the qualified

internal applicants were PWD

For managers, the RAP, comprised of permanent supervisors at the SK-13 through SK-15 

levels, was 7.34%, and the qualified internal applicant pool was 16.06%. The SK-17 manag

selections noted in internal competitive promotion data included 3.7% PWD. [Redacted t

protect privacy.]

For supervisors, the Agency did not have a trigger involving qualified internal applicants

The RAP, comprised of both supervisory and non-supervisory employees at the SK-12 

through SK-14 levels, was 8.98% PWD, and the qualified internal applicants were 14.94

PWD. There was a difference found for internal selections; 14.94% of the qualified interna

applicants identified as PWD, and 7.22% were selecte

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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 95

c. Supervisors

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described in Section IV, the Agency presents 

information on trigger identification for PWTD internal promotions to supervisory positions 

from data underlying Table B11. Promotions to the supervisory level included 1.47% PW

[Redacted to protect privacy.] The following evaluates participation of PWTD in each 

leadership level

For the manager and executive levels, the participation of PWTD in the qualified internal 

applicant pool exceeds that in the RAP. Such was not true for the supervisor level where a

difference in participation between the RAP and qualified internal applicants was noted

Further, differences were found when comparing PWTD selections into leadership positions 

to the qualified internal applicant pools for both managers and executives. 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 1.52% PWTD and 3.30% of the qualified internal applicant

were PWTD. The Agency did identify a difference in participation for PWTD involving

internal selections; no PWTD were among the employees selected for SO positions. [Redacted

to protect privacy.]

For managers, the RAP was 1.13% PWTD and a larger proportion 4.24% of the qualifie

internal applicants were PWTD. The Agency identified a difference involving internal

selections; no PWTD were selected out of manager selections, though 4.24% of the qualified

internal applicants were PWTD. [Redacted to protect privacy.

For supervisors, the RAP was 2.00%, and the Agency noted that a smaller proportion

(1.29%) of the qualified internal applicants were PWTD. However, the Agency found stronge

participation of PWTD among those selected for supervisory positions at 2.06% as compared

to their availability among qualified internal applicants at 1.29
96 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 in Section IV, the Agency presents 

information on trigger identification for PWD new hires into leadership positions. Data

underlying Tables B7 and B8 are 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). An anomaly was found in FY 2018 new hire data for PWD at the

executive level

Among the newly hired staff members in FY 2018, 22.22% of newly hired permanent staff in

leadership positions were both PWD and PWTD. [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, the QAP from Table B7 summarizes data where the applicant selfidentified 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 presents data on new hires on boarded

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 4.83%, and none of the newly-hired permanent executives

identified as PWD. For managers, PWD participation of 40.00% among newly hire

managers exceeds their participation in the QAP at 2.40%. [Redacted to protect privacy.] Fo

supervisors, no PWD were newly hired into supervisory positions, while 1.56% of the QAP

were PWD
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 97

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 X No 0

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Differences were found in FY 2018 new hire data for PWTD at the executive level, but no 

differences were found at the manager or supervisor levels. Of the newly hired permanent staff

in leadership positions 22.22% were both PWD and PWTD in manager positions. [Redacte

to protect privacy.]

For executives, the qualified applicant pool was 0.97% PWTD. However, no PWTD wer

selected as new hires for executive positions in FY 2018. For managers, the qualified applicant

pool was 1.60% PWTD, and 40.00% of the newly-hired permanent managers were PW

For supervisors, the qualified applicant pool was 0.00% PWTD, and none of the newly-hired

permanent supervisors were PWTD. The manager and supervisor data do not suggest the

presence of a trigger
98 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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))?

“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. Ten employees were converted to the competitive service under the

Schedule A hiring authority during FY 2018. Seven of those employees were converted within

two years of first entering on duty with the SEC. Three employees were successfully converted

to the competitive service during FY 2018 after serving multiple Schedule A appointments; 

these employees were converted within two years of being placed into their most recent 

Schedule A 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 X No 0

Table B14 provides FY 2018 data on voluntary and involuntary separation by disability

These data were used to calculate the inclusion rates. 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 self-identify as having a disability). FY 2018 data show that PWD separated at higher

rates than those with no disability

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 99

For voluntary separations, the percentage of PWD exceeded that of persons without 

disabilities. The inclusion rate for PWD was 4.19%, and for people without disabilities

including those who did not self-identify, the inclusion rate was 3.92%. For involuntar

separations, the percentage of PWD exceeded that of persons without disabilities. The

inclusion rate for PWD was 0.52%, and for people without disabilities, including those who

did not self-identify, the inclusion rate was 0.05

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 0 No X

b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Using data from Table B14 to calculate the inclusion rates for PWTD, the following was 

found in FY 2018 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)

No evidence of differentially higher separation among PWTD was found in FY 2018 data

For voluntary separations, the percentage of employees with no targeted disability exceeded 

that of PWTD. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 1.14%, and for people without targete

disabilities, it was 4.00

For involuntary separations, the percentage of persons without targeted disabilities exceeded 

that of PWTD. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 0.00%, and for people without targete

disabilities, the inclusion rate was 0.09
100 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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.g

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, even thi

small volume represents a proportion of the PWD employee population, such that exploring 

the involuntary separations may be informative. With that caveat, OEEO plans to gather data

about the reasons for removing involuntarily separated PWD to uncover any preventive action 

or support needed for current and future employees

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 83 employees who

completed the exit survey in FY 2018, seven self-identified as having a disability (8.43%

Among exiting employees who reported a disability in FY 2018, two reported that they were 

provided reasonable accommodation

The small number of separating employees who self-identified with a disability and completed 

an 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 2018 the Agency analyzed

information from the exit survey across two fiscal years to support more general conclusions 

about why employees with disabilities left the SEC

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 101

Across FY 2017 and FY 2018, 60% of employees who separated and reported a disability 

indicated they left the SEC due to retirement. Of note, all departing employees who selfidentified as having a disability were slightly 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: 90% agreed that their workgroup was open to diverse viewpoints and 

backgrounds (compared to 79% of employees who did not report a disability); 90% agreed 

that their supervisor/team lead treated them with respect (versus 81%); 80% agreed their 

co-workers fostered an cohesive work environment (versus 79%); and 80% agreed policies 

and programs promoted diversity in the workplace (versus 70%). The results of the exit

survey suggest employees who separated and indicated a disability were 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 

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 requi

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.

§§ 200.601 to 200.670, Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handica

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
102 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Information about the SEC’s Accessibility/Disability Program is posted on SEC.gov

sec.gov/disability/sec_access.htm and sec.gov/accessibility/sec-accommodationprocedures.pdf. SEC is in the process of updating the Accessibility page of SEC.gov

applicable complaint-filing procedures under both Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act and the Architectural Barriers Act. Updates will include 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. A draft SEC Operating Procedure setting forth the complaint

process related to Sections 504 and/or 508 and the Architectural Barriers Act is expected to be 

finalized in FY19, and 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

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.h

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 specific to the accessibility of facilities under the Architectural Barriers Act is not 

currently consolidated into one specific notice or resource. Such information can be gathered

from a variety of sources

Information about the SEC’s Disability Program and accommodation procedures is posted on 

SEC.gov (sec.gov/disability/sec_access.htm and sec.gov/accessibility/sec-accommodationprocedures.pdf). These resources provide information on accessibility in work

modifications and appropriate response to other requests, including requests to make the SEC 

program accessible to disabled members of the public. The SEC posts information on how to

file an EEO complaint at sec.gov/eeoinfo/eeocomplaints.htm. In line with the Agency’s pla

for implementing the required and 

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 103

recommended elements of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Agency will update the 

SEC website with applicable procedures under the Architectural Barriers Act related to the 

accessibility of facilities

Such updates are intended to address the required notice explaining employees’ and 

applicants’ rights under Section 508 and the Architectural Barriers Act as well as other policy 

and procedural changes to support reasonable accommodation for employees and applicants 

for employment. Updates will include contact information and specific complaints processes

for issues related to accessibility under both Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the 

Architectural Barriers Act

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

Regarding the accessibility of technology, the Agency developed a Technology 

Strategic Plan to cover the years 2018 – 2020. The plan’s technology priorities include

improvements to the information technology (IT) operational environment and technology 

delivery model to provide high levels of system and infrastructure reliability and 

availability. Some initiatives within the plan will help provide high-quality user support

and best-in-class infrastructure that benefit PWD and PWTD. These initiatives also support

accessibility to SEC’s technology for employees, applicants, and members of the public

The Agency will conduct a review of plans for the IT operational environment found 

in the Technology Strategic Plan against the required and recommended elements for 

technology accessibility embedded in Section 508. The Agency will revise current policy

and procedure, as appropriate, related to accessibility of facilities as required by the 

Architectural Barriers Act during FY 2019
104 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Reasonable Accommodation Program

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and m

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 2018, 72% of initial requests for 

accommodation were processed within 20 business days

SEC is currently engaged in a 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, tools and a more structured set of procedures were developed and used in 

FY 2018 for capturing data related to processing RA requests. From those data, the SEC notes

a significant improvement in processing timeliness for those requests closed out during the 

year. The time frame for processing initial requests for RA during FY 2018 was 13.2 days, 

greater than 40% decrease from the 22.3 days reported in FY 201

Data reviewed on requests for specific types of RA identified the need for additional focus on 

requests for AHT. In FY 2018, that focus led to notable improvement in processing efficiency for

AHT as a RA. During FY 2018 requests for AHT were processed in 11 days, an almost 50%

improvement over the processing time of 21.6 days reported for such requests in FY 201

RA requests, excluding requests for AHT, were processed in 14 days during FY 2018, which 

also represents a significant (>37% decrease) improvement over the 22.3 days reported for

such requests in FY 2017.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 105

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

After a steady increase in participation over the past six years, in FY 2018 the Agency 

achieved the goals established under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act for both PWTD 

and PWD at the lower salary levels and for PWTD among higher salaried employees. In FY

2018, OEEO and OHR established a strong cross functional approach to supporting PWD 

and PWTD in the Agency’s workforce, while leveraging OMWI’s strong 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)

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 has made available a comprehensive resource 

guide, “Requesting Accommodations at SEC,” 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

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 2018,

the SEC processed 112 Temporary Medical Telework (TMT) requests, processed 151 RA 

requests, of which 38 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 

Employee Handbook and made available on the AskHR portal

Continued on the next page
106 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In FY 2018, 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. While the project was delayed in FY 2018, 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. On September 26, 2018, OHR’s Disability

Program Office hosted a Conversation with OHR information session to introduce the 

new procedures for submitting RA requests to all interested employees. This session was

announced and marketed to all employees and managers through SEC Today. This session

also discussed the anticipated launch of procedures for requesting personal assistance services 

(PAS) described below

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 Chief Human Capital Officer 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

Further, the Disability Program Office updated the Agency’s RA policy to include requests 

for PAS. The revised policy was sent to EEOC for approval during FY 2018 and the EEOC

provided written comments on February 5, 2019. During FY 2019, the Agency will review

the electronic case management system’s business requirements, the new policy, and related 

procedural changes that support RA for employees and applicants for employment. This

review will address coverage of required and recommended elements defined under Section 

501 of the Rehabilitation Act. Changes to RA procedures will likely necessitate updates to

training, job aids, notices, and other information sources in FY 2019 and beyond

Finally, 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 selfidentified as PWD asks: “What accommodations, personal assistance, or other support could

improve the inclusion and advancement of individuals with disabilities at the SEC?” 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 107

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, 

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

The Disability Program Office updated the Agency’s RA policy to include requests for PAS

The revised policy was sent to EEOC for approval during FY 2018 and the EEOC provided 

written comments on February 5, 2019. While that policy was under revision and review in

FY 2017, the Agency entered into a contract to support employees needing PAS. In FY 2018,

OHR developed procedures for employees to submit confidential requests for PAS through 

AskHR. The new form used to capture requests will provide information that may be used to

understand program adoption and effectiveness going forward. The Agency announced the

new PAS form and procedures to employees on October 1, 2018

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 2018, the Agency did not have any findings of discrimination alleging harassment 

based on disability status
108 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 0 No X N/A 0

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a

reasonable accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken 

by the agency

During FY 2018, the Agency did not have any findings of discrimination involving the failure 

to provide reasonable accommodation

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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 109

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

Trigger 1

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 thencurrent 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.

Barrier(s) No barrier has been identified.

Objective(s)

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;

• 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 PWTD; and employment programs, especially 

reasonable accommodation and disability programs, supportive of PWD and PWTD.

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 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) Performance Standards Address the Plan?

(Yes or No) Title Name

Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR Jamey McNamara Yes

Director, OEEO Peter J. Henry Yes

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

No No
110 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Sources of Data

Sources 

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

Grievance Data (Trends) Yes Grievances filed by persons with disability between FY 2012 

and FY 2018

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment Processes)

No Not applicable

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

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

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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 111

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. This action was completed 

on November 6, 2017.

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. This action was completed on 

November 2, 1017.

Yes 11/02/2017

03/31/2019 To help determine the reasons for removal of 

PWD, OEEO review files from any specifically 

related EEO activity and interview the 

supervisors of PWD who were involuntarily 

separated in FY 2017 and FY 2018. This 

action was completed by March 31, 2019

Yes 03/31/2019

09/30/2019 In collaboration with internal and contracted 

IT support, OEEO will identify a feasible 

approach(es) to address the set of B workforce 

data tables as per current instruction for the FY 

2019 report.

Yes 02/28/2019

03/31/2020 OEEO will summarize and interpret the 

research results the basis for identifying 

any areas of opportunity for improvement 

in ensuring equal employment opportunity 

among PWD and PWTD in the workforce.

Yes 12/31/2019

05/31/2020 To the extent areas needing improvement in 

supporting PWD and/or PWTD are found, the 

SEC will begin to develop an action plan to 

help foster equal employment opportunity.

Yes 03/31/2020

09/30/2020 OEEO will begin to design an evaluation 

plan to monitor results based on the work 

completed on this study.

Yes
112 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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.
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 113

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.

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. 

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 post-analysis 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. 
114 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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.

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, 2019
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 115

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 six years, the Agency achieved the goals established under Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act for both PWTD and PWD at the lower salary levels and for PWTD among 

higher salaried employees by the end of FY 2018. 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 2018

n The permanent workforce of PWTD experienced net growth of 16 persons or 22.22%,

which outpaces the 9.47% 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 2.02%. PWTD among higher salaried employees increased from 1.54% to 2.01% 

to 87 PWTD employees)

n The permanent PWD workforce experienced net growth of 159 persons or 71.30

Participation of PWD rose from 5.60% in the total workforce to 8.76% and from 5.1

to 8.62% among higher salaried employees, with an additional 175 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

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 2018, 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 2018. The Agency will b

implementing additional required and recommended actions during FY 2019 and beyond
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 117

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
118 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 2018 | 119

FISCAL YEAR 2018 462 REPORT

The SEC previously submitted the FY 2018 462 Report to the EEOC
120 | 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 2018 | 121

SEC ORGANIZATION CHART
122 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 123

WORKFORCE DATA TABLES13

(FOOTNOTES)

13 In this year’s report, those employees and applicants who are considered persons with disability outside selfidentification on SF-256 are included in a new column in Tables B1 through B14. The FedSEP online reporting

system does not provide for an additional column in the table format; SEC has included such persons in Tables 

B1 through B14 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
124 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PAY PERIOD 201721 TO 201822 EMPLOYMENT TENURE TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 TOTAL Prior FY # 4599 2485 2114 137 118 1829 1192 218 497 284 280 0 3 14 5 3 19 % 100% 54.03% 45.97% 2.98% 2.57% 39.77% 25.92% 4.74% 10.81% 6.18% 6.09% 0.00% 0.07% 0.30% 0.11% 0.07% 0.41% Current FY # 4448 2405 2043 132 114 1774 1147 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% 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% Difference # -151 -80 -71 -5 -4 -55 -45 -11 -13 -9 -10 0 -1 -2 0 2 2 Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.04% -0.04% -0.01% -0.01% 0.11% -0.13% -0.09% 0.07% 0.00% -0.02% 0.00% -0.03% -0.03% 0.00% 0.04% 0.06%

Net Change % -3.28% -3.22% -3.36% -3.65% -3.39% -3.01% -3.78% -5.05% -2.62% -3.17% -3.57% 0.00% -33.33% -14.29% 0.00% 66.67% 10.53%PermanentPrior FY

# 4504 2427 2077 136 114 1789 1172 215 494 270 272 0 2 14 5 3 18% 100% 53.89% 46.11% 3.02% 2.53% 39.72% 26.02% 4.77% 10.97% 5.99% 6.04% 0.00% 0.04% 0.31% 0.11% 0.07% 0.40%

Current FY

# 4359 2352 2007 132 112 1732 1122 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%

Difference # -145 -75 -70 -4 -2 -57 -50 -9 -12 -5 -8 0 -1 -2 0 2 3Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.07% -0.07% 0.01% 0.04% 0.01% -0.28% -0.05% 0.09% 0.08% 0.02% 0.00% -0.02% -0.04% 0.00% 0.05% 0.08%Net Change % -3.22% -3.09% -3.37% -2.94% -1.75% -3.19% -4.27% -4.19% -2.43% -1.85% -2.94% 0.00% -50.00% -14.29% 0.00% 66.67% 16.67%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 125

TABLE A1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPAY PERIOD 201721 TO 201822 continued

EMPLOYMENT TENURE

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or Latino

Non-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

# 95 58 37 1 4 40 20 3 3 14 8 0 1 0 0 0 1% 100% 61.05% 38.95% 1.05% 4.21% 42.11% 21.05% 3.16% 3.16% 14.74% 8.42% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05%

Current 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%

Difference # -6 -5 -1 -1 -2 2 5 -2 -1 -4 -2 0 0 0 0 0 -1Ratio Change % 0.00% -1.50% 1.50% -1.05% -1.96% 5.09% 7.04% -2.03% -0.91% -3.50% -1.68% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -1.05%Net Change % -6.32% -8.62% -2.70% -100.00% -50.00% 5.00% 25.00% -66.67% -33.33% -28.57% -25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -100.00%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
126 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A2: REGIONAL OFFICES AND HEADQUARTERS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 PERMANENT EMPLOYEES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 TOTAL Workforce

# 4359 2352 2007 132 112 1732 1122 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%

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%

HQ # 2777 1452 1325 67 60 1045 707 149 379 179 160 0 1 9 3 3 15

% 100% 52.29% 47.71% 2.41% 2.16% 37.63% 25.46% 5.37% 13.65% 6.45% 5.76% 0.00% 0.04% 0.32% 0.11% 0.11% 0.54%

NYRO # 375 205 170 12 14 161 101 6 27 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 2

% 100% 54.67% 45.33% 3.20% 3.73% 42.93% 26.93% 1.60% 7.20% 6.93% 6.93% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.53%

CHRO # 224 137 87 5 5 119 52 6 22 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 61.16% 38.84% 2.23% 2.23% 53.13% 23.21% 2.68% 9.82% 3.13% 3.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

LARO # 163 85 78 9 7 48 38 4 13 24 20 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 52.15% 47.85% 5.52% 4.29% 29.45% 23.31% 2.45% 7.98% 14.72% 12.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

BRO # 149 83 66 2 2 68 49 5 4 7 11 0 0 0 0 1 0

% 100% 55.70% 44.30% 1.34% 1.34% 45.64% 32.89% 3.36% 2.68% 4.70% 7.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00%

PLRO # 128 75 53 3 3 57 40 9 7 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 58.59% 41.41% 2.34% 2.34% 44.53% 31.25% 7.03% 5.47% 4.69% 2.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

FWRO # 108 61 47 3 3 48 38 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

% 100% 56.48% 43.52% 2.78% 2.78% 44.44% 35.19% 7.41% 2.78% 1.85% 0.93% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.85%

SFRO # 124 61 63 5 2 40 30 2 5 12 23 0 0 1 1 1 2

% 100% 49.19% 50.81% 4.03% 1.61% 32.26% 24.19% 1.61% 4.03% 9.68% 18.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 1.61%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 127

TABLE A2: REGIONAL OFFICES AND HEADQUARTERS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 continued

PERMANENT EMPLOYEES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or Latino

Non-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

# 101 65 36 4 1 47 18 13 15 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0% 100% 64.36% 35.64% 3.96% 0.99% 46.53% 17.82% 12.87% 14.85% 0.99% 0.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.99% 0.00% 0.00%

MIRO

# 98 63 35 22 11 38 11 3 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 64.29% 35.71% 22.45% 11.22% 38.78% 11.22% 3.06% 7.14% 0.00% 6.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

DRO

# 95 57 38 0 3 54 32 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 3.16% 56.84% 33.68% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 3.16% 0.00% 0.00% 2.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SLRO

# 17 8 9 0 1 7 6 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 47.06% 52.94% 0.00% 5.88% 41.18% 35.29% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 11.76% 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
128 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A3-1: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Officials and Managers 1a. Executive/ Senior Level Managers

# 129 76 53 2 0 68 44 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 58.91% 41.09% 1.55% 0.00% 52.71% 34.11% 2.33% 3.10% 2.33% 3.10% 0.00% 0.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1a. Mid Level 

Managers

# 396 243 153 15 3 200 114 10 17 17 17 0 0 1 0 0 2% 100% 61.36% 38.64% 3.79% 0.76% 50.51% 28.79% 2.53% 4.29% 4.29% 4.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51%

1a. First Level 

Managers

# 357 227 130 16 6 162 77 16 29 32 18 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 63.59% 36.41% 4.48% 1.68% 45.38% 21.57% 4.48% 8.12% 8.96% 5.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1b. Officials

# 526 176 350 11 24 97 93 47 207 19 19 0 0 2 0 0 7% 100% 33.46% 66.54% 2.09% 4.56% 18.44% 17.68% 8.94% 39.35% 3.61% 3.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 1.33%

1. Officials and 

Managers— TOTAL

# 1408 722 686 44 33 527 328 76 257 71 58 0 1 4 0 0 9% 100% 51.28% 48.72% 3.13% 2.34% 37.43% 23.30% 5.40% 18.25% 5.04% 4.12% 0.00% 0.07% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64%

2. Professional 

Workers

# 2765 1587 1178 85 67 1186 745 113 153 191 198 0 0 7 4 5 11% 100% 57.40% 42.60% 3.07% 2.42% 42.89% 26.94% 4.09% 5.53% 6.91% 7.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.14% 0.18% 0.40%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 129

TABLE A3-1: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 continued

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or Latino

Non-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

# 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%

5. Administrative 

Support Workers

# 172 34 138 2 12 14 45 15 71 2 8 0 0 1 1 0 1% 100% 19.77% 80.23% 1.16% 6.98% 8.14% 26.16% 8.72% 41.28% 1.16% 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.58% 0.58% 0.00% 0.58%

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

# 11 6 5 1 0 2 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 54.55% 45.45% 9.09% 0.00% 18.18% 36.36% 18.18% 9.09% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Workforce

# 4359 2352 2007 132 112 1732 1122 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%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
130 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A3-2: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Officials and Managers 1a. Executive / Senior Level Managers # 129 76 53 2 0 68 44 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 % 2.96% 3.23% 2.64% 1.52% 0.00% 3.93% 3.92% 1.46% 0.83% 1.13% 1.52% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1a. Mid Level Managers # 396 243 153 15 3 200 114 10 17 17 17 0 0 1 0 0 2 % 9.08% 10.33% 7.62% 11.36% 2.68% 11.55% 10.16% 4.85% 3.53% 6.42% 6.44% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 9.52%

1a. First Level 

Managers

# 357 227 130 16 6 162 77 16 29 32 18 0 0 1 0 0 0% 8.19% 9.65% 6.48% 12.12% 5.36% 9.35% 6.86% 7.77% 6.02% 12.08% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1b. Officials

# 526 176 350 11 24 97 93 47 207 19 19 0 0 2 0 0 7% 12.07% 7.48% 17.44% 8.33% 21.43% 5.60% 8.29% 22.82% 42.95% 7.17% 7.20% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33%

1. Officials and 

Managers—TOTAL

# 1408 722 686 44 33 527 328 76 257 71 58 0 1 4 0 0 9% 32.30% 30.70% 34.18% 33.33% 29.46% 30.43% 29.23% 36.89% 53.32% 26.79% 21.97% 0.00% 100% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 42.86%

2. Professional 

Workers

# 2765 1587 1178 85 67 1186 745 113 153 191 198 0 0 7 4 5 11% 63.43% 67.47% 58.69% 64.39% 59.82% 68.48% 66.40% 54.85% 31.74% 72.08% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 58.33% 80.00% 100% 52.38%

3. Technical 

Workers and Technologists

# 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.07% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Notes: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 131

TABLE A3-2: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 continued

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or Latino

Non-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

# 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% 0.00%

5. Administrative 

Support Workers

# 172 34 138 2 12 14 45 15 71 2 8 0 0 1 1 0 1% 3.95% 1.45% 6.88% 1.52% 10.71% 0.81% 4.01% 7.28% 14.73% 0.75% 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 20.00% 0.00% 4.76%

6. Skilled Craft 

and Repair Workers

# 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% 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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

# 11 6 5 1 0 2 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.25% 0.26% 0.25% 0.76% 0.00% 0.12% 0.36% 0.97% 0.21% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Workforce

# 4359 2352 2007 132 112 1732 1122 206 482 265 264 0 1 12 5 5 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
132 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT EMPLOYEES—PAY PERIOD 201822 SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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-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 # 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-06

# 7 3 4 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 42.86% 57.14% 14.29% 0.00% 14.29% 14.29% 14.29% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-07

# 51 10 41 1 3 5 10 4 26 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 19.61% 80.39% 1.96% 5.88% 9.80% 19.61% 7.84% 50.98% 0.00% 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

# 35 6 29 0 3 1 4 5 17 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3% 100% 17.14% 82.86% 0.00% 8.57% 2.86% 11.43% 14.29% 48.57% 0.00% 5.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.57%

SK-10

# 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-11

# 99 20 79 3 11 9 13 8 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 20.20% 79.80% 3.03% 11.11% 9.09% 13.13% 8.08% 53.54% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 218 57 161 6 8 23 50 22 81 4 18 0 0 1 1 1 3% 100% 26.15% 73.85% 2.75% 3.67% 10.55% 22.94% 10.09% 37.16% 1.83% 8.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.46% 0.46% 0.46% 1.38%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 133

TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT EMPLOYEES—PAY PERIOD 201721 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

# 380 188 192 10 11 111 71 34 89 28 20 0 0 4 0 1 1% 100% 49.47% 50.53% 2.63% 2.89% 29.21% 18.68% 8.95% 23.42% 7.37% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00% 0.26% 0.26%

SK-14

# 2152 1205 947 67 60 895 586 89 132 148 158 0 0 3 2 3 9% 100% 55.99% 44.01% 3.11% 2.79% 41.59% 27.23% 4.14% 6.13% 6.88% 7.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.09% 0.14% 0.42%

SK-15

# 365 241 124 17 5 175 79 16 24 32 16 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 66.03% 33.97% 4.66% 1.37% 47.95% 21.64% 4.38% 6.58% 8.77% 4.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 495 296 199 10 7 239 146 13 18 32 24 0 0 2 2 0 2% 100% 59.80% 40.20% 2.02% 1.41% 48.28% 29.49% 2.63% 3.64% 6.46% 4.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 0.00% 0.40%

SK-17

# 397 245 152 15 3 202 113 10 17 17 17 0 0 1 0 0 2% 100% 61.71% 38.29% 3.78% 0.76% 50.88% 28.46% 2.52% 4.28% 4.28% 4.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%

All other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 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%

Senior Officer

# 129 76 53 2 0 68 44 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 58.91% 41.09% 1.55% 0.00% 52.71% 34.11% 2.33% 3.10% 2.33% 3.10% 0.00% 0.78% 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
134 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 2018221 SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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-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 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 50.00% 50.00% 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% 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

# 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-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

# 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-12

# 5 2 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 135

TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXTEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 2018221 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

# 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%

SK-14

# 27 14 13 0 0 10 8 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 51.85% 48.15% 0.00% 0.00% 37.04% 29.63% 0.00% 0.00% 14.81% 18.52% 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

# 28 19 9 0 0 16 7 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 67.86% 32.14% 0.00% 0.00% 57.14% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.71% 3.57% 0.00% 3.57% 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)

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 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% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 20 14 6 0 0 13 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 70.00% 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 65.00% 25.00% 0.00% 5.00% 5.00% 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
136 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-2: INCLUSION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 2018221 SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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-02 # 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% 0.00% SK-03 # 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% 0.00% SK-04 # 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SK-05 # 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.07% 0.04% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.49% 0.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-06

# 7 3 4 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.16% 0.13% 0.20% 0.76% 0.00% 0.06% 0.09% 0.49% 0.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-07

# 51 10 41 1 3 5 10 4 26 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.17% 0.43% 2.04% 0.76% 2.68% 0.29% 0.89% 1.94% 5.39% 0.00% 0.76% 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% 0.46% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.89% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 3.11% 0.00% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76%

SK-09

# 35 6 29 0 3 1 4 5 17 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3% 0.80% 0.26% 1.44% 0.00% 2.68% 0.06% 0.36% 2.43% 3.53% 0.00% 0.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29%

SK-10

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.02% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 99 20 79 3 11 9 13 8 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 2.27% 0.85% 3.94% 2.27% 9.82% 0.52% 1.16% 3.88% 11.00% 0.00% 0.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 218 57 161 6 8 23 50 22 81 4 18 0 0 1 1 1 3% 5.00% 2.42% 8.02% 4.55% 7.14% 1.33% 4.46% 10.68% 16.80% 1.51% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 20.00% 20.00% 14.29%

Notes: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 137

TABLE A4-2: INCLUSION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 2018221 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

# 380 188 192 10 11 111 71 34 89 28 20 0 0 4 0 1 1% 8.72% 7.99% 9.57% 7.58% 9.82% 6.41% 6.33% 16.50% 18.46% 10.57% 7.58% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 20.00% 4.76%

SK-14

# 2152 1205 947 67 60 895 586 89 132 148 158 0 0 3 2 3 9% 49.37% 51.23% 47.18% 50.76% 53.57% 51.67% 52.23% 43.20% 27.39% 55.85% 59.85% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 40.00% 60.00% 42.86%

SK-15

# 365 241 124 17 5 175 79 16 24 32 16 0 0 1 0 0 0% 8.37% 10.25% 6.18% 12.88% 4.46% 10.10% 7.04% 7.77% 4.98% 12.08% 6.06% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16

# 495 296 199 10 7 239 146 13 18 32 24 0 0 2 2 0 2% 11.36% 12.59% 9.92% 7.58% 6.25% 13.80% 13.01% 6.31% 3.73% 12.08% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 40.00% 0.00% 9.52%

SK-17

# 397 245 152 15 3 202 113 10 17 17 17 0 0 1 0 0 2% 9.11% 10.42% 7.57% 11.36% 2.68% 11.66% 10.07% 4.85% 3.53% 6.42% 6.44% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 9.52%

All other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 5 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.11% 0.13% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 129 76 53 2 0 68 44 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0% 2.96% 3.23% 2.64% 1.52% 0.00% 3.93% 3.92% 1.46% 0.83% 1.13% 1.52% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL

# 4359 2352 2007 132 112 1732 1122 206 482 265 264 0 1 12 5 5 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
138 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-2: INCLUSION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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-02 # 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% 0.00% SK-03 # 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% 0.00% SK-04 # 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 2.25% 1.89% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 10.00% 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 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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

# 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.12% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-10

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.12% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.12% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 5 2 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 5.62% 3.77% 8.33% 0.00% 50.00% 2.38% 8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Notes: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 139

TABLE A4-2: INCLUSION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXTEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 continued

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

# 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 2.25% 1.89% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14

# 27 14 13 0 0 10 8 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0% 30.34% 26.42% 36.11% 0.00% 0.00% 23.81% 32.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 83.33% 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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

# 28 19 9 0 0 16 7 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0% 31.46% 35.85% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 38.10% 28.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 16.67% 0.00% 100% 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% 1.12% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 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)

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.12% 1.89% 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% 0.00%

Senior Officer

# 20 14 6 0 0 13 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 22.47% 26.42% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 30.95% 20.00% 0.00% 50.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL

# 89 53 36 0 2 42 25 1 2 10 6 0 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
140 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822 JOB TITLE/SERIES TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 # 1848 1023 825 41 35 841 592 55 75 84 115 0 0 2 3 0 5

% 100% 55.36% 44.64% 2.22% 1.89% 45.51% 32.03% 2.98% 4.06% 4.55% 6.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.16% 0.00% 0.27%

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%0510 Accountant # 867 491 376 29 25 382 237 32 45 46 64 0 0 2 1 0 4

% 100% 56.63% 43.37% 3.34% 2.88% 44.06% 27.34% 3.69% 5.19% 5.31% 7.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.12% 0.00% 0.46%

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%1831 Securities Compliance Examining

# 327 217 110 19 3 155 61 11 19 30 25 0 0 0 0 2 2% 100% 66.36% 33.64% 5.81% 0.92% 47.40% 18.65% 3.36% 5.81% 9.17% 7.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.61% 0.61%

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%2210 Information Technology Management

# 285 208 77 17 3 102 26 27 34 56 14 0 0 3 0 3 0% 100% 72.98% 27.02% 5.96% 1.05% 35.79% 9.12% 9.47% 11.93% 19.65% 4.91% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00%

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%0110 Economist

# 86 64 22 2 3 47 12 4 0 9 7 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 74.42% 25.58% 2.33% 3.49% 54.65% 13.95% 4.65% 0.00% 10.47% 8.14% 0.00% 0.00% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 141

TABLE A6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXTEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201822

JOB TITLE/SERIES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

# 30 19 11 0 0 17 9 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 63.33% 36.67% 0.00% 0.00% 56.67% 30.00% 0.00% 3.33% 6.67% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%0510 Accountant

# 17 10 7 0 0 9 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 58.82% 41.18% 0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 35.29% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%1831 Securities Compliance Examining

# 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%

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%2210 Information Technology Management

# 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%

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%0110 Economist

# 14 6 8 0 0 3 4 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 42.86% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00% 21.43% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 21.43% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
142 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: APPLICANT FLOW DATA FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX CLOSING DATES IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) JOB TITLE/SERIES TOTAL1 RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 General Attorney (0905): In FY 2018 Applicant Flow Data, 65 attorney applications were marked as selected. TOTAL Received # 1017 Voluntarily Identified # 727 476 251 40 22 312 139 69 59 51 25 1 2 3 1 0 3 % 100% 65.47% 34.53% 5.50% 3.03% 42.92% 19.12% 9.49% 8.12% 7.02% 3.44% 0.14% 0.28% 0.41% 0.14% 0.00% 0.41% Qualified of Those Identified # 339 210 129 14 6 158 80 15 24 21 15 1 1 1 1 0 2 % 100% 61.95% 38.05% 4.13% 1.77% 46.61% 23.60% 4.42% 7.08% 6.19% 4.42% 0.29% 0.29% 0.29% 0.29% 0.00% 0.59% Selected of Those Identified # 48 26 22 1 1 20 15 2 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 % 100% 54.17% 45.83% 2.08% 2.08% 41.67% 31.25% 4.17% 4.17% 6.25% 6.25% 0.00% 2.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%Accounting (0510): In FY 2018 Applicant Flow Data, 12 accountant applications were marked as selected.2TOTAL Received # 159Voluntarily Identified

# 126 69 57 4 4 34 19 20 22 9 12 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 54.76% 45.24% 3.17% 3.17% 26.98% 15.08% 15.87% 17.46% 7.14% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 31 16 15 0 1 12 9 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 51.61% 48.39% 0.00% 3.23% 38.71% 29.03% 6.45% 3.23% 6.45% 12.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Identified

# 11 4 7 0 1 2 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 36.36% 63.64% 0.00% 9.09% 18.18% 36.36% 9.09% 0.00% 9.09% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for both permanent and temporary vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2018 (i.e., between 10/1/2017 and 09/30/2018).2 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2018, 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 identified.

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 143

TABLE A7: APPLICANT FLOW DATA FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXCLOSING DATES IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) continued

JOB TITLE/SERIES

TOTAL1

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

Securities Compliance Examining (1831): In FY 2018 Applicant Flow Data, 5 examiner applications were marked as selected.TOTAL Received # 123Voluntarily Identified

# 92 64 28 9 6 36 13 7 5 11 4 0 0 1 0 0 0% 100% 69.57% 30.43% 9.78% 6.52% 39.13% 14.13% 7.61% 5.43% 11.96% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 1.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 25 14 11 4 1 6 8 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 56.00% 44.00% 16.00% 4.00% 24.00% 32.00% 8.00% 0.00% 8.00% 8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Identified

# 3 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

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%Information Technology Management (2210): In FY 2018 Applicant Flow Data, 2 information technology management applications were marked as selected.TOTAL Received # 35Voluntarily Identified

# 28 25 3 5 0 7 0 8 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 89.29% 10.71% 17.86% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 28.57% 7.14% 17.86% 3.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 6 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 83.33% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Identified

# 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for both permanent and temporary vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2018 (i.e., between 10/1/2017 and 09/30/2018).2 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2018, 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 identified.

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
144 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: APPLICANT FLOW DATA FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX CLOSING DATES IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) continued JOB TITLE/SERIES TOTAL1 RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Economist (0110): In FY 2018 Applicant Flow Data, 0 economist application was marked as selected.2 TOTAL Received # 0 Voluntarily Identified # 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%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 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%

Selected of Those Identified

# 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%

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%

1 This table contains Applicant Flow Data from USAStaffing for both permanent and temporary vacancies posted with close dates during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2018 (i.e., between 10/1/2017 and 09/30/2018).2 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2018, 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 identified.

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 145

TABLE A8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018)

TYPE OF APPOINTMENT

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

# 24 15 9 0 0 15 5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 62.50% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 62.50% 20.83% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Temporary

# 29 16 13 0 0 15 11 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 55.17% 44.83% 0.00% 0.00% 51.72% 37.93% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 6.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL New Hires

# 53 31 22 0 0 30 16 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 58.49% 41.51% 0.00% 0.00% 56.60% 30.19% 0.00% 5.66% 1.89% 5.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

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%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
146 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) TOTAL1 RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Job Series of Vacancy: General Attorney (0905) TOTAL Applications Received # 468 315 153 19 9 253 106 13 13 29 20 0 0 1 1 0 4 % 100% 67.31% 32.69% 4.06% 1.92% 54.06% 22.65% 2.78% 2.78% 6.20% 4.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 0.21% 0.00% 0.85% Qualified # 422 281 141 14 4 232 99 12 13 22 20 0 0 1 1 0 4 % 100% 66.59% 33.41% 3.32% 0.95% 54.98% 23.46% 2.84% 3.08% 5.21% 4.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.24% 0.00% 0.95% Selected # 65 36 29 4 1 27 21 1 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 55.38% 44.62% 6.15% 1.54% 41.54% 32.31% 1.54% 4.62% 6.15% 6.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 54.89% 45.11% 2.10% 2.17% 44.45% 31.58% 3.28% 4.27% 4.92% 6.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% 0.20% 0.00% 0.33%Job Series of Vacancy: Accounting (0510)TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 40 20 20 0 1 15 10 2 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2.50% 37.50% 25.00% 5.00% 7.50% 7.50% 15.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 33 17 16 0 1 12 10 2 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 51.52% 48.48% 0.00% 3.03% 36.36% 30.30% 6.06% 3.03% 9.09% 12.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 14 6 8 0 1 5 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 42.86% 57.14% 0.00% 7.14% 35.71% 35.71% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 55.18% 44.82% 3.28% 3.16% 42.68% 27.78% 3.79% 5.56% 5.30% 7.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% 0.13% 0.00% 0.51%

1 “Relevant Applicant Pool” = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos reporting, Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 147

TABLE A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) continued

TOTAL1

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

Job Series of Vacancy: Securities Compliance Examining (1831)TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 66 48 18 8 1 20 9 8 6 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 72.73% 27.27% 12.12% 1.52% 30.30% 13.64% 12.12% 9.09% 18.18% 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 43 27 16 4 1 15 9 4 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 62.79% 37.21% 9.30% 2.33% 34.88% 20.93% 9.30% 9.30% 9.30% 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 8 6 2 2 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 37.50% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 63.08% 36.92% 5.54% 0.62% 44.31% 18.77% 3.69% 9.85% 8.92% 7.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.62% 0.31%Job Series of Vacancy: Information Technology Management (2210)TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 125 106 19 5 0 40 8 14 9 47 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 84.80% 15.20% 4.00% 0.00% 32.00% 6.40% 11.20% 7.20% 37.60% 1.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 91 75 16 4 0 26 6 14 8 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 82.42% 17.58% 4.40% 0.00% 28.57% 6.59% 15.38% 8.79% 34.07% 2.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 7 3 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 42.86% 57.14% 14.29% 0.00% 14.29% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 72.96% 27.04% 6.30% 1.11% 34.07% 8.89% 9.63% 11.85% 20.74% 5.19% 0.00% 0.00% 1.11% 0.00% 1.11% 0.00%

1 “Relevant Applicant Pool” = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos reporting, Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
148 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) continued TOTAL1 RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Job Series of Vacancy: Economist (0110) TOTAL Applications Received

# 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%

Qualified

# 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%

Selected

# 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%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 75.00% 25.00% 2.63% 3.95% 53.95% 13.16% 5.26% 0.00% 10.53% 7.89% 0.00% 0.00% 2.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1 “Relevant Applicant Pool” = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos reporting, Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 149

TABLE A10: NON-COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS—TIME IN GRADE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPAY PERIOD 201822

TYPE OF APPOINTMENT

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

TOTAL Employees Eligible for Career Ladder Promotion

# 209 101 108 8 9 67 41 17 36 8 19 0 0 0 0 1 3% 100% 48.33% 51.67% 3.83% 4.31% 32.06% 19.62% 8.13% 17.22% 3.83% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.48% 1.44%

Time in grade in excess of minimum1 – 12 months

# 14 7 7 2 0 2 2 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 14.29% 0.00% 14.29% 14.29% 7.14% 21.43% 14.29% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

13 – 24 months

# 5 3 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

25+ months

# 9 5 4 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 55.56% 44.44% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
150 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS (SK-13 THROUGH SK-17 AND SO-01) BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Grade of Vacancy: SK-13 TOTAL Applications Received

# 71 36 35 3 1 11 10 10 20 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.70% 49.30% 4.23% 1.41% 15.49% 14.08% 14.08% 28.17% 16.90% 5.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 30 10 20 0 1 2 5 4 10 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 3.33% 6.67% 16.67% 13.33% 33.33% 13.33% 13.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 9 3 6 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 26.15% 73.85% 2.75% 3.67% 10.55% 22.94% 10.09% 37.16% 1.83% 8.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.46% 0.46% 0.46% 1.38%Grade of Vacancy: SK-14TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 225 105 120 8 2 54 49 22 55 19 14 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 46.67% 53.33% 3.56% 0.89% 24.00% 21.78% 9.78% 24.44% 8.44% 6.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 149 67 82 6 2 35 41 12 31 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 44.97% 55.03% 4.03% 1.34% 23.49% 27.52% 8.05% 20.81% 9.40% 5.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 25 9 16 0 0 5 9 4 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 36.00% 64.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 36.00% 16.00% 20.00% 0.00% 8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool

% 100% 49.47% 50.53% 2.63% 2.89% 29.21% 18.68% 8.95% 23.42% 7.37% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00% 0.26% 0.26%

1 “Relevant Applicant Pool” = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos reporting, Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 151

TABLE A11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS (SK-13 THROUGH SK-17 AND SO-01) BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) continued

TOTAL

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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

Grade of Vacancy: SK-16TOTAL Applications Received

# 180 121 59 10 5 85 39 8 8 18 6 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 67.22% 32.78% 5.56% 2.78% 47.22% 21.67% 4.44% 4.44% 10.00% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.56%

Qualified

# 156 101 55 3 3 78 37 8 8 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 64.74% 35.26% 1.92% 1.92% 50.00% 23.72% 5.13% 5.13% 7.69% 3.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64%

Selected

# 32 17 15 1 2 12 8 0 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 53.13% 46.88% 3.13% 6.25% 37.50% 25.00% 0.00% 9.38% 12.50% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 100% 57.45% 42.55% 3.34% 2.58% 42.51% 26.42% 4.17% 6.20% 7.15% 6.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 0.08% 0.12% 0.36%Grades of Vacancies: SK-15 & SK-17TOTAL Applications Received

# 670 461 209 40 23 281 118 50 39 89 23 0 0 1 1 0 5% 100% 68.81% 31.19% 5.97% 3.43% 41.94% 17.61% 7.46% 5.82% 13.28% 3.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15% 0.15% 0.00% 0.75%

Qualified

# 537 363 174 30 12 227 105 41 30 64 23 0 0 1 1 0 3% 100% 67.60% 32.40% 5.59% 2.23% 42.27% 19.55% 7.64% 5.59% 11.92% 4.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.19% 0.00% 0.56%

Selected

# 58 37 21 9 0 23 19 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 63.79% 36.21% 15.52% 0.00% 39.66% 32.76% 1.72% 0.00% 6.90% 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 100% 57.84% 42.16% 3.12% 2.39% 43.46% 26.93% 3.92% 5.78% 7.04% 6.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.13% 0.10% 0.37%

1 “Relevant Applicant Pool” = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos reporting, Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
152 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS (SK-13 THROUGH SK-17 AND SO-01) BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) continued TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Grade of Vacancy: SO-01 TOTAL Applications Received

# 118 80 38 3 3 64 22 7 10 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 67.80% 32.20% 2.54% 2.54% 54.24% 18.64% 5.93% 8.47% 5.08% 2.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 100 69 31 2 2 56 18 6 8 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 69.00% 31.00% 2.00% 2.00% 56.00% 18.00% 6.00% 8.00% 5.00% 3.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 12 7 5 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 58.33% 41.67% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 8.33% 8.33% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool

% 100% 58.29% 41.71% 3.20% 2.20% 44.32% 27.10% 3.75% 5.60% 6.72% 6.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 0.12% 0.09% 0.38%

1 “Relevant Applicant Pool” = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos reporting, Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 153

TABLE A12: PARTICIPATION IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX INFY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018)

TOTAL

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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 Programs for SK 5 – 12Slots1 # 13

Applied

# 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%

Participants

# 13 0 13 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 84.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Pool2 % 100% 22.35% 77.65% 2.53% 5.99% 8.99% 18.66% 9.45% 45.39% 0.92% 5.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.23% 0.23% 1.61%Career Development Programs for SK 13 – 14Slots1 # 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%

Relevant Pool % 100% 55.02% 44.98% 3.04% 2.80% 39.73% 25.95% 4.86% 8.73% 6.95% 7.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.08% 0.16% 0.39%Career Development Programs for SK 15 – 17Slots1 # 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%

Relevant Pool % 100% 62.21% 37.79% 3.34% 1.19% 49.01% 26.89% 3.10% 4.69% 6.44% 4.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 0.16% 0.00% 0.32%

1 Slots and Participant rows include those employees who applied for career development programs during this fiscal year; continuing participation across years is not counted in subsequent reporting. Career 

development programs span the SK 13 – 14 and SK 15 – 17 rows above.

2 “Relevant Pool” = all employees in the pay grades eligible for the career development program.Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: USAStaffing Cognos reporting, Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 1.0 Analytic File X for pay period 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
154 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A13: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) AWARDS TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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: 1 – 9 hours TOTAL Time-Off Awards Given # 1645 844 801 51 31 604 444 79 246 108 67 0 0 2 1 0 12 % 100% 51.31% 48.69% 3.10% 1.88% 36.72% 26.99% 4.80% 14.95% 6.57% 4.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.06% 0.00% 0.73% TOTAL Hours 10,843 5,675 5,168 342 182 4,001 2,870 522 1,568 794 467 0 0 16 4 0 77 Average Hours 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 0 0 8 4 0 6

Time-Off Awards: 9+ hoursTOTAL Time-OffAwards Given

# 1400 652 748 45 48 480 458 47 134 79 103 0 0 1 2 0 3% 100% 46.57% 53.43% 3.21% 3.43% 34.29% 32.71% 3.36% 9.57% 5.64% 7.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.14% 0.00% 0.21%

TOTAL Hours 25,846 11,794 14,052 833 972 8,646 8,769 852 2,298 1,443 1,897 0 0 20 64 0 52Average Hours 18 18 19 19 20 18 19 18 17 18 18 0 0 20 32 0 17Cash Awards: $100 – $500TOTAL CashAwards Given

# 1140 574 566 33 40 415 266 79 217 45 31 0 0 1 3 1 9% 100% 50.35% 49.65% 2.89% 3.51% 36.40% 23.33% 6.93% 19.04% 3.95% 2.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.26% 0.09% 0.79%

TOTAL Amount $424,424 $224,082 $200,342 $11,981 $14,673 $166,113 $100,364 $28,476 $67,785 $16,762 $12,591 $0 $0 $250 $1,454 $500 $3,475Average Amount $372 $390 $354 $363 $367 $400 $377 $360 $312 $372 $406 $0 $0 $250 $485 $500 $386

Notes: Quality Step Increases are not applicable to the SEC. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 155

TABLE A13: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX INFY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) continued

AWARDS

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-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: $501+TOTAL Cash Awards Given

# 2244 1302 942 70 37 1008 586 69 181 147 129 0 0 5 2 3 7

% 100% 58.02% 41.98% 3.12% 1.65% 44.92% 26.11% 3.07% 8.07% 6.55% 5.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.22% 0.09% 0.13% 0.31%

TOTAL Amount $2,585,943 $1,518,532 $1,067,411 $81,167 $41,405 $1,189,253 $677,832 $69,233 $195,987 $170,134 $141,537 $0 $0 $5,495 $2,700 $3,250 $7,950Average Amount $1,152 $1,166 $1,133 $1,160 $1,119 $1,180 $1,157 $1,003 $1,083 $1,157 $1,097 $0 $0 $1,099 $1,350 $1,083 $1,136Quality Step Increases (QSI): N/ATOTAL QSIs Awarded

# 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%

TOTAL Benefit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Average Benefit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Notes: Quality Step Increases are not applicable to the SEC. 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
156 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A14: SEPARATIONS BY TYPE OF SEPARATION—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX IN FY 2018 (10/01/2017 THROUGH 09/30/2018) TYPE OF SEPARATION TOTAL EMPLOYEES RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic or Latino Non-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 Voluntary # 172 97 75 6 3 73 53 10 11 6 8 0 0 2 0 0 0

% 100% 56.40% 43.60% 3.49% 1.74% 42.44% 30.81% 5.81% 6.40% 3.49% 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 1.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Involuntary # 4 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Separations # 176 97 79 6 3 73 55 10 12 6 9 0 0 2 0 0 0

% 100% 55.11% 44.89% 3.41% 1.70% 41.48% 31.25% 5.68% 6.82% 3.41% 5.11% 0.00% 0.00% 1.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Workforce # 4359 2352 2007 132 112 1732 1122 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%

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
FISCAL YEAR 2018 | 157

TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES]PAY PERIODS 201721 TO 201822

EMPLOYMENT 

TENURE

TOTAL

TOTAL BY DISABILITY STATUS1 DETAIL FOR TARGETED DISABILITIES

No Disability [05]

Not Identified [01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-99]

Other PWD

Total PWD

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]

TOTALPrior FY

# 4599 3981 249 326 43 369 83 0 1 33 10 2 7 7 2 1 16 1 3% 100% 86.56% 5.41% 7.09% 0.93% 8.02% 1.80% 0.00% 0.02% 0.72% 0.22% 0.04% 0.15% 0.15% 0.04% 0.02% 0.35% 0.02% 0.07%

Current FY

# 4448 3844 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%

Difference # -151 -137 -30 19 -3 16 6 0 0 5 -1 0 -1 0 1 0 2 0 0Ratio Change

% 0.00% -0.14% -0.49% 0.67% -0.03% 0.64% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% -0.02% 0.00% -0.02% 0.01% 0.03% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00%

Net Change

% -3.28% -3.44% -12.05% 5.83% -6.98% 4.34% 7.23% 0.00% 0.00% 15.15% -10.00% 0.00% -14.29% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00%

PermanentPrior FY

# 4504 3895 244 322 43 365 81 0 1 33 9 2 7 7 2 1 15 1 3% 100% 86.48% 5.42% 7.15% 0.95% 8.10% 1.80% 0.00% 0.02% 0.73% 0.20% 0.04% 0.16% 0.16% 0.04% 0.02% 0.33% 0.02% 0.07%

Current FY

# 4359 3765 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%

Difference # -145 -130 -32 20 -3 17 7 0 0 5 -1 0 -1 0 1 0 3 0 0Ratio Change

% 0.00% -0.11% -0.55% 0.70% -0.04% 0.66% 0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% -0.02% 0.00% -0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00%

Net Change

% -3.22% -3.34% -13.11% 6.21% -6.98% 4.66% 8.64% 0.00% 0.00% 15.15% -11.11% 0.00% -14.29% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 20.00% 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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018
158 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 201721 TO 201822 continued

EMPLOYMENT

 TENURE

TOTAL

TOTAL BY DISABILITY STATUS1 DETAIL FOR TARGETED DISABILITIES

No Disability [05]

Not Identified [01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-99]

Other PWD

Total PWD

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]

Temporary

Prior FY # 95 86 5 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100% 90.53% 5.26% 4.21% 0.00% 4.21% 2.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00% 0.00%

Current 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%

Difference # -6 -7 2 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0Ratio Change

% 0.00% -1.77% 2.60% -0.84% 0.00% -0.84% -0.98% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -1.05% 0.00% 0.00%

Net Change

% -6.32% -8.14% 40.00% -25.00% 0.00% -25.00% -50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -100.00% 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).

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 201822, downloaded on 11/16/2018

OFFICE OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549