U.S. SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FISCAL YEAR 2017

ANNUAL 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM 

STATUS REPORT

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715

FISCAL YEAR 2017 | i

CONTENTS

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PART E). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Commission’s Annual Self-Assessment Against MD-715 Essential Elements . . . . . . . . . . 4

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Commission Leadership. . . . . . . 4

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Commission’s Strategic Mission . . . . . 5

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination. . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Essential Element E: Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Analysis of Workforce Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SEC Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Applicant Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

New Hires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Participation Rates for SEC Major Occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Demographics of SK-14 to Senior Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Internal Competitive Promotions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Career Ladder Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Employee Recognition and Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Separations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Summary of EEO Plan Objectives Planned to Eliminate Identified Barriers or 

Correct Program Deficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Barrier Analysis Studies Completed in 2016 or Earlier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Updates to Prior Barrier Analysis Work Responsive to 2017 Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Continuing Studies in 2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Summary of EEO Plan Action Items Implemented or Accomplished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Action Plans Implemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Agency Accomplishments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Prepared by

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

CERTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTINUING 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS (PART F). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

PLAN FOR ATTAINING THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A MODEL 

EEO PROGRAM (PART H). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

PLANS TO ELIMINATE IDENTIFIED BARRIER (PART I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, ADVANCEMENT, 

AND RETENTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (PART J). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Section II: Model Disability Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Plan to Provide Sufficient and Competent Staffing for the Disability Program. . . . . . . . 57

Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities. . . . 68

Advancement Program Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Career Development Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Voluntary and Involuntary Separations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Accessibility of Technology and Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Reasonable Accommodation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate 

in the Workplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

EEO Complaint Data Involving Harassment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

POLICY ON PREVENTING HARASSMENT (PPH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

FISCAL YEAR 2017 462 REPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

SEC’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

SEC Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Headquarters and Regional Offices. . . . . . . . .102

WORKFORCE DATA TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 1

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION INFORMATION 

(PARTS A, B, C, D)

EEOC FORM

715-01

PART A - D 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

For period covering October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017

PART A

Department

or Agency

Identifying

Information

1. Agency 1. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

1.a. 2nd level reporting component

1.b. 3rd level reporting component

1.c. 4th level reporting component

2. Address 2. 100 F Street, NE

3. City, State, Zip Code 3. Washington, DC 20549

4. CPDF Code 5. FIPS code(s) 4. SE00 5. 8840

PART B

Total

Employment

1. Enter total number of permanent full-time and part-time employees 1. 4504

2. Enter total number of temporary employees 2. 95

3. Enter total number employees paid from non-appropriated funds 3. 0

4. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT [add lines B 1 through 3] 4. 4599

PART C

Agency

Official(s)

Responsible

For Oversight

of EEO

Program(s)

1. Head of Agency 

Official Title

1. Jay Clayton

Chairman

2. Agency Head Designee 2. Peter J. Henry, Director (Acting), Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity (OEEO)

3. Principal EEO Director/Official

Title/series/grade

3. Peter J. Henry, Director (Acting), OEEO/0905/SK-17

4. Title VII Affirmative EEO 

Program Official

4. Peter J. Henry, Director (Acting), OEEO

5. Section 501 Affirmative Action

Program Official

Peter J. Henry, Director (Acting), OEEO

Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, 

Office of Human Resources

6. Complaint Processing Program

Manager

6. Peter J. Henry, Director (Acting), OEEO

7. Other Responsible Stakeholders Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, 

Office of Human Resources

Pamela A. Gibbs, Director, Office of Minority 

and Women Inclusion
2 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEOC FORM

715-01

PART A - D

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

PART D

List of Subordinate Components 

Covered in This Report

Subordinate Component and Location 

(City/State)

CPDF and FIPS 

codes

EEOC FORMS and Documents Included With This Report

*Executive Summary [FORM 715-01 

PART E], that includes:

X *Annual Self-Assessment Checklist Against Essential 

Elements [FORM 715-01 PART G]

X

*Brief paragraph describing the 

agency’s mission and mission-related 

functions

X *EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a 

Model EEO Program [FORM 715-01 PART H] for each 

programmatic essential element requiring improvement

X

*Summary of results of agency’s 

annual self-assessment against 

MD-715 “Essential Elements”

X *EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier 

[FORM 715-01 PART I] for each identified barrier

X

*Summary of Analysis of Workforce 

Profiles including net change analysis 

and comparison to RCLF

X *Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and 

Advancement of Individuals With Targeted Disabilities for 

agencies with 1,000 or more employees [FORM 715-01 

PART J]

X

*Summary of EEO Plan objectives 

planned to eliminate identified barriers 

or correct program deficiencies

X *Copy of Workforce Data Tables as necessary to support 

Executive Summary and/or EEO Plans

X

*Summary of EEO Plan action items 

implemented or accomplished

X *Copy of data from 462 Report as necessary to support 

action items related to Complaint Processing Program 

deficiencies, ADR effectiveness, or other compliance 

issues1

N/A

*Statement of Establishment of Continuing 

Equal Employment Opportunity Programs

[FORM 715-01 PART F]

X *Copy of Facility Accessibility Survey results as necessary 

to support EEO Action Plan for building renovation 

projects

N/A

*Copies of relevant EEO Policy 

Statement(s) and/or excerpts from 

revisions made to EEO Policy Statements

X *Organizational Chart X

1 The SEC previously submitted the FY 2017 462 Report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 3

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, 2016 to September 30, 2017

MISSION OF THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

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

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

The SEC is charged with overseeing approximately $75 trillion in securities trading annually on 

U.S. equity markets and the activities of over 26,000 registered market participants, including 

investment advisers, mutual funds, exchange traded funds (ETFs), broker-dealers, and transfer agents.

The Agency also oversees 21 national securities exchanges, 10 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). In addition, the SEC is responsible for selectively reviewing the disclosures 

and financial statements of over 8,000 reporting companies.

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, DC (Headquarters or Home Office). The Agency also has 

11 Regional Offices located throughout the country. As of September 30, 2017, the SEC had total 

workforce of 4,599 employees, including 4,504 permanent employees and 95 temporary employees.

2

See Table A1.

2 Data for this report was pulled on December 11, 2017, from Datamart, the SEC’s Human Resource Information System 

(HRIS), for pay period 21 of 2017.
4 | 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 November 14, 2017, 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, 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, Conflict2Resolution (C2R), when the use of C2R is approved by the 

EEO Director.

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

opportunity a reality.

As further evidence of senior leadership’s commitment to equality of opportunity, Commissioners 

and Senior Officers actively sponsor one or more of the nine Employee Affinity Groups (EAGs).

The SEC also promotes diversity and inclusion through the efforts of the Office of Minority and 

Women Inclusion (OMWI), which is responsible for all matters relating to diversity in management, 

employment, and business activities at the SEC and provides guidance, resources, and management 

support to eight of the EAGs. The remaining EAG, the Veterans Committee, is sponsored by the 
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 5

Office of Human Resources (OHR). EAGs foster a supportive, inclusive, and fair work environment 

through their programs and activities, including programs to commemorate special observances.

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

events and activities held throughout the year. In addition, the SEC has an active Diversity Council 

comprised of members of the EAGs, management, and 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 Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, the SEC continued to demonstrate its commitment to developing a diverse 

talent pipeline by committing time and resources to a number of initiatives, including, but not 

limited to:

n Staff teaching securities law courses at Florida International University to expose diverse law 

students to the workings of the Commission and to the regulation of securities and securities 

markets; and

n Hosting hundreds of students from high schools with high minority populations at Headquarters 

and in the Regional Offices as part of the Agency’s successful Professionals Reaching Out to 

Promote Excellence and Learning for Students (PROPELS) program.

In addition, each year, the Chairman presents a Diversity and Inclusion Award 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 2014 – 2018 underscores the Commission’s commitment to 

attract and retain a highly effective and diverse workforce. The plan includes the following language:

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the Commission’s Performance Through Effective Alignment and 

Management of Human, Information and Financial Capital

Strategic Objective 4.1

The SEC promotes a results-oriented work environment that attracts, engages, and retains a 

technically proficient and diverse workforce, including leaders who provide motivation and 

strategic direction.

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, the Office of Equal 

Employment Opportunity (OEEO), and Division and Office Senior Leadership. The Human Capital 

Strategic Plan guides and provides focus for work toward key objectives under Strategic Goal 4. In 

support of the key Strategic Objective 4.1 listed above, the Human Capital Strategic Plan emphasizes 

increasing employee engagement and retention, enhancing employee development programs, and 

delivering a comprehensive leadership development program.
6 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In furtherance of the SEC’s Strategic Plan, the SEC developed and maintains partnerships and 

alliances with diverse professional organizations and educational institutions. The SEC leverages 

these relationships to reach a broader and more diverse pool of applicants for employment at 

the Commission. In FY 2017, these organizations included, among others: Association of Latino 

Professionals in Finance and Accounting; Pan-Asian Leaders in Finance and Accounting; Hispanic 

Bar Association of the District of Columbia; Hispanic National Bar Association; National 

Association of Asian MBAs; National Association of Black Accountants; National Bar Association; 

National Black MBA Association; South Asian Bar Association of Washington, DC; Women’s Bar 

Association of the District of Columbia; Diverse Partners Network; and the Thurgood Marshall 

College Fund.

Essential Element C:

Management and Program Accountability

During FY 2017, the SEC engaged in numerous actions to promote accountability of its EEO 

program, including, but not limited to, the following.

n For the sixth consecutive year, the SEC posted its Annual EEO Program Report on its internal and 

public websites in a Section 508-compliant format. The SEC also delivered its FY 2016 Annual 

EEO Program Report to the Agency’s senior leadership.

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

conducting four barrier analyses in FY 2017 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.

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

of the Chairman of the Commission. In FY 2017, to support the Agency’s EEO programmatic 

responsibilities, OEEO staff consisted of eight attorneys (including the Acting Director), two EEO 

specialists, three management and program analysts (MPA), a program support assistant, and a 

senior program information specialist. In addition, in FY 2017, OEEO had the assistance of three 

contract data analysts who supported the barrier analysis and reporting functions.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 7

OEEO also leveraged the talents of SEC employees in the Home Office 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 2017, collateral duty EEO Counselors attended three 

training sessions hosted by OEEO in addition to their mandatory eight-hour refresher course training 

delivered by experts from the EEOC.

Essential Element D:

Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

As part of its proactive prevention efforts, the SEC publishes EEO policies covering harassment 

prevention, reasonable accommodation, and permissible religious expression on its internal website.

In an effort to reduce the incidence of EEO-based harassment, a senior OEEO attorney facilitated 

interactive dialogs with managers and supervisors as well as non-supervisory employees in FY 

2017. The goal of these dialogs was to increase understanding of the SEC’s Policy on Preventing 

Harassment and raise awareness of behaviors that could be offensive or demeaning on an EEO 

basis, regardless of intent. Additional sessions are planned for FY 2018. The SEC also publishes 

information on the EEO complaint process, EEO policies, and the roles and responsibilities of OEEO 

on its internal and public websites. 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-day time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor or OEEO. The SEC’s buildings 

and offices are accessible to persons with physical disabilities in compliance with the Architectural 

Barriers Act of 1968, as amended.

Essential Element E:

Efficiency

In FY 2017, 41 counseling matters were initiated, 24 formal EEO complaints were filed, and six Final 

Agency Decisions of no discrimination were issued.

3

 The most frequently alleged bases in the formal 

EEO complaints were claims of reprisal, race, age, and sex discrimination. Common issues raised in 

the formal EEO complaints were harassment (non-sexual), performance evaluation/appraisal, and 

terms/conditions of employment. OEEO issued reports of investigation and Final Agency Decisions 

in a timely fashion.

In FY 2017, OEEO used its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program, Conflict-2-Resolution 

(C2R), to resolve allegations of discrimination. While there are various forms of ADR, C2R primarily 

offers mediation to resolve workplace disputes that include allegations of employment discrimination.

In FY 2017, OEEO processed a total of 43 informal complaints (this number included informal 

complaints carried over from FY 2016 and new informal complaints initiated in FY 2017). Among 

these 43 informal complaints, ADR was offered 16 times (reflecting a 37.21% offer rate) and 

16 individuals (38.10% of the 42 counselees) elected ADR. In FY 2017, through C2R, OEEO 

conducted 13 mediations. Six, or approximately 46%, of these matters settled or resulted in the 

counselee not filing a formal complaint.

3 SEC FY 2017 462 Report: Part I, D.2; Part II, B; and Part VI, B.2. 
8 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In addition, in FY 2017, OEEO continued to collaborate with the federal government EEO 

community to share best practices in processing EEO complaints. In furtherance of these efforts, 

OEEO conducted one mediation for another agency in FY 2017 that resulted in a settlement.

In addition, OEEO played a significant role in the Small Agency Council’s Equal Employment 

Opportunity and Diversity and Inclusion subcommittee that developed and delivered EEO counselor 

refresher training on August 23, 2017. The session was well-attended by staff from multiple agencies 

including the Peace Corps, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Trade Commission, 

Department of Justice, and Department of Navy.

Essential Element F:

Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

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 non-compliance with the MD-715 

requirements, the SEC developed a plan for addressing the gaps as further discussed in Part H of this 

report. See Part H, infra.

ANALYSIS OF WORKFORCE PROFILES

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

the existence of potential barriers to equal employment opportunity based on race, ethnicity, sex, 

or disability. 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. 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. The sponsors of the EEO Tabulation have 

determined the next EEO Tabulation release will be by fall 2020 or spring 2021. This release will use 

the 2014 – 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) dataset.

4

 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 important 

characteristics such as industry, e.g., finance versus health care, or specialization, e.g., securities versus 

employment law. Please refer to Part I of this report, infra, for the SEC’s plans for analyzing data 

anomalies and enhancing equality of opportunity for SEC employees and applicants.

4 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, and the Office of Personnel Management. According to 

the U.S. Census Bureau which produces the EEO Tabulation, the ACS “produces period estimates of socioeconomic and 

housing characteristics. It is designed to provide estimates that describe characteristics of an area over a specific time period. In the case of ACS one-year estimates, the period is the calendar year. While a one-year estimate includes information 

collected continuously nearly every day from independent monthly samples over a 12-month period, a five-year estimate 

includes statistics collected over a 60-month period. Then [the Census Bureau] aggregate[s] the results over the specified 

period of time. For example, the 2006 – 2010 ACS five-year estimates describe the population and housing characteristics 

of an area for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2010. They do not describe any specific day, month, or 

year within that time period. The cumulative sample of the ACS taken over a five-year time period allows measurement 

of detailed characteristics in local geographies and increases precision of its estimates.” See Equal Employment Opportunity 

Tabulation FAQs, census.gov/topics/employment/equal-employment-opportunity-tabulation/about/faq.html#par_textimage_1367060738.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 9

SEC Workforce

At the end of FY 2017, the SEC had 4,599 employees, 4,504 permanent and 95 temporary. Of the 

4,504 permanent employees, there were 2,427 (53.89%) males and 2,077 (46.11%) females. See

Table A1. The SEC hired 132 permanent employees, and there were 205 voluntary separations. See

Tables A8 and A14.

The following provides a summary of representation within the SEC’s permanent workforce 

compared to the 2010 CLF:

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 5.55 3.02 2.53

White 72.36 65.74 39.72 26.02

Black or African American 12.02 15.74 4.77 10.97

Asian 3.90 12.03 5.99 6.04

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.04

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.08 0.42 0.31 0.11

Two or More Races 0.54 0.47 0.07 0.40

See Table A1.

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 the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

This data is available through OPM’s USA Staffing© only for SEC vacancies posted on USAJOBS.

The SEC uses USAJOBS for approximately 80% of its hiring actions. In FY 2017, the SEC did not 

have a tool to capture and report on applicant data for the remaining 20% of its hiring actions. Due 

to budgetary constraints, the SEC had significantly fewer hiring actions in FY 2017 as compared to 

previous years, and this is reflected in the applicant flow data available for the fiscal year.

A few important notes about applicant flow data help to 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 (attorneys, accountants, 

compliance examiners, economists, and information technology management), applicants identified 

both gender and race/ethnicity from a high of 69% for compliance examiners to a low of 25% 

for economists. Since self-identification is not required by USAJOBS and depends on applicants’ 

willingness to volunteer their demographic information, data should not be extrapolated from 

the group that voluntarily identified their demographics to the remaining applicants who did not 

voluntarily identify their gender, race/ethnicity, or disability. 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 provided in their USAJOBS profile with a specific application. The original language 

was phrased in terms of volunteering demographic information and the language modified as of 
10 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

December 2016 is phrased in terms of not volunteering demographic information. The updated 

process results in improved response rates. OPM reports an increase in the average response rate of 

45.6% for the period of August 2012 to October 2015 to 84.5% in June 2017, and will continue to 

analyze the data to determine if the increase continues and is related to the December 2016 change.

Various hiring process steps beyond a selection decision may impact success in onboarding a new 

hire (e.g., suitability assessment or declination of offer). Tables A7 and B7, then, show applicant 

flow data for applicants who self-identified and were: (1) qualified; (2) referred; and (3) selected. In 

contrast, Tables A8 and B8 present data on new hires onboarded during the course of the fiscal year.

Differences are observed in the demographic statistics of those selected versus those hired.

Second, applicant flow data combines applications submitted for permanent and temporary 

positions with the SEC. Thus, the data in Tables A7 and B7 reflect the pool of applications 

submitted for permanent and/or temporary employment for vacancies announced through 

USAJOBS during FY 2017.

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 information technology 

management occupation in FY 2017 because no vacancies 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.

Economists (0110): 12 Applicants

In FY 2017, the SEC received 12 applications through USAJOBS and made one selection for 

an economist position. Of the 12 applicants, three voluntarily self-identified their diversity 

demographics. Of the three applicants who self-identified, there were two males, and one female.

The selected applicant did self-identify as an Asian Male. The following are the demographics of the 

individuals who applied and self-identified for the economist positions, those who qualified for the 

positions, and the one applicant who was ultimately selected:

EEO Group

Number: 

Self-Identified 

Number: 

Self-Identified 

and Qualified

Number 

and Percent: 

Self-Identified 

and Selected

Hispanic 0 0 0

White 1 0 0

Black or African American 1 0 0

Asian 1 1 1 (100%) male

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0

See Table A7.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 11

Attorneys (0905): 1,979 Applicants

The SEC received 1,979 applications through USAJOBS and made 22 selections for attorney 

positions. Of the 1,979 applicants, 1,225 self-identified. Among those who self-identified, 752 

(61.39%) were male and 473 (38.61%) were female. Seventeen of the self-identified applicants were 

selected. Of the 17 selectees who self-identified, 11 were male and six were female.

EEO Group

Number: 

Self-Identified 

Number: 

Self-Identified 

and Qualified

Number 

and Percent: 

Self-Identified 

and Selected

Hispanic 131 44 1 (5.88%), male

White 805 451 12 (70.59%), 7 males 

and 5 females

Black or African American 164 50 0

Asian 106 61 4 (23.53%), 3 males 

and 1 female

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 3 0 0

American Indian/Alaska Native 7 1 0

See Table A7.

Accountants (0510): 578 Applicants

In FY 2017, the SEC received 578 applications through USAJOBS and made seven selections for 

accountant positions. Of the 349 applicants who self-identified their demographics, 177 (50.72%) 

were male and 172 (49.28%) were female. Of the seven selectees, all of whom self-identified, three 

(42.86%) were male and four (57.14%) were female. There was a steady increase in the participation 

rate of women among applicants for accountant positions as they moved through the application 

process from 49.28% of those who applied and self-identified, to 50.97% of the qualified candidates, 

and finally, to 57.14% of those selected.

The demographics of the 349 applicants for accountant positions who 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 35 27 1 (14.29%) male

White 90 57 2 (28.57%) females

Black or African American 155 86 2 (28.57%) females

Asian 61 30 1 (14.29%) male 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0

American Indian/Alaska Native 4 2 1 (14.29%) male 

See Table A7.
12 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Securities Compliance Examiners (1831): 161 Applicants

In FY 2017, the SEC received 161 applications on USAJOBS and made ten selections for securities 

compliance examiner (examiner) positions. One hundred and eleven applicants voluntarily selfidentified their demographics. Of the 111 who self-identified, 76 (68.47%) were male and 35 

(31.53%) were female. Eight of those who self-identified were among the ten selected examiners. The 

following are the demographics of the 111 applicants who self-identified, qualified, and ultimately 

were selected for the examiner positions:

EEO Group

Number: 

Self-Identified 

Number: 

Self-Identified 

and Qualified

Number 

and Percent: 

Self-Identified 

and Selected

Hispanic 11 8 1 (12.50%) female

White 58 27 4 (50.00%) males 

Black or African American 15 2 0

Asian 27 10 3 (37.50%), 2 males 

and 1 female

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0 0 0

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 0 0

See Table A7.

Asians represented less than 22% of those who self-identified and qualified for the examiner 

positions, and represented 37.50% of the selectees. In contrast, White applicants represented 57.44% 

of those who self-identified and were qualified, and White males represented 50.00% of the selectees.

See Table A7.

Applicant Flow Data for Individuals with Disabilities

In regard to applicant flow data for individuals with disabilities, the SEC received a total of 8,373 

applications in FY 2017. Of those 8,373 applications, 178 (2.13%) were submitted by persons who 

self-identified as having a targeted disability, and none of the individuals who self-identified a targeted 

disability was selected. See Table B7.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 13

New Hires

In FY 2017, the SEC hired 132 permanent employees, 79 (59.85%) males and 53 (40.15%) females.

The following table reflects demographic information for the FY 2017 new hires:

Permanent 

Employees

Hispanic White

African 

American Asian

American 

Indian/

Alaska 

Native

Total M F M F M F M F M F

New Hires

# 132 5 4 56 30 5 5 11 13 2 0

% 100 3.79 3.03 42.42 22.73 3.79 3.79 8.33 9.85 1.52 0.00

Total 

Workforce

# 4,504 136 114 1,789 1,172 215 494 270 272 14 5

% 100 3.02 2.53 39.72 26.02 4.77 10.97 5.99 6.04 0.31 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.

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.

Part J, infra, provides further detail about this change and its effect on reporting people with 

disabilities (PWD) and people with targeted disabilities (PWTD) in the Agency workforce.

Participation Rates for SEC Major Occupations

This section discusses the SEC’s five mission critical occupations of attorney, accountant, examiner, 

economist, and information technology management. In FY 2017, there were 4,504 permanent 

employees at the SEC. See Table A1. Of these permanent employees, there were 1,923 attorneys, 

898 accountants, 331 examiners, 86 economists, and 298 information technology management 

employees. See Table A6. Accountants and attorneys comprised 62.63% of the SEC’s FY 2017 

permanent 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 
14 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

(OCLF), 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

Accountants

# 898 508 390 398 244

% 100% 56.57% 43.43% 44.32% 27.17%

Occupational CLF 100% 39.91% 60.09% 31.79% 44.23%

Attorneys

# 1923 1067 856 879 618

% 100% 55.49% 44.51% 45.71% 32.14%

Occupational CLF 100% 66.70% 33.30% 59.68% 26.68%

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 Occupational CLF as further described below.

White female accountants’ participation rate at the SEC (27.17%) is below the Occupational CLF 

for White female accountants of 44.23%. This follows the same pattern as the overall participation 

rate of female accountants at the SEC (43.43%) compared to the Occupational CLF for female 

accountants of 60.09%. This difference of about 17 percentage points is under investigation as part 

of the Agency’s barrier analysis program.

The participation rate for White male attorneys at the SEC (45.71%) is below the Occupational 

CLF for White male attorneys of 59.68%. Similar to the female accountants, White male attorney 

participation mirrors the overall participation rate for male attorneys at the SEC (55.49%) compared 

to the Occupational CLF for male attorneys of 66.70%. These numbers denote triggers that are 

under investigation as part of the Agency’s barrier analysis program. In FY 2017, OEEO developed 

a framework for prioritizing barrier analyses through seven primary phases and will apply the 

framework in FY 2018 to allocate resources.

Demographics of SK-14 to Senior Officer

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 males and females in SEC’s supervisor and management ranks differ within 

and across the SK-14 to SO levels. Specifically, there are a total of 2,124 permanent SK-14 employees, 

of whom females represent 44.73% (950 employees) and males represent 55.27% (1,174 employees).

However, at the SK-15 level, there are 367 total permanent employees, with males making up 66.76% 

(245 employees) and females comprising 33.24% (122 employees). There are twice as many male 
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 15

SK-15s as female SK-15s. Although SK-16 employees are usually not supervisors, they are eligible to 

apply for SK-17 and SO positions. There were a total of 494 permanent SK-16 employees in FY 2017; 

males accounted for 60.53% (299) and females accounted for 39.47% (195) of this level’s workforce 

composition. The participation rates of males and females at the SK-17 are distributed similarly to 

the SK-16 employees. There are a total of 394 SK-17 employees of whom 61.68% are male (243 

employees) and 38.32% are female (151 employees). Finally, within the total of 140 SOs, 59.29% are 

male (83 employees) and 40.71% are female (57 employees). See Table A4-1.

Of the male SOs, 89.16% are White; of the male SK-17s, 83.54% are White; and of the male 

SK-15s, 73.47% are White. Similarly, of the female SOs, 84.21% are White; of the female SK-17s, 

73.51% are White; and of the female SK-15s, 60.66% are White.

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

the total number of supervisors and managers as well as the SK-14 and SK-16 feeder pools:

SEC 

Level

All

Hispanic 

or Latino White

Black or 

African 

American Asian

Total M F M F M F M F M F

SO # 140 83 57 3 0 74 48 3 4 3 4

SO % 100 59.29 40.71 2.14 0 52.86 34.29 2.14 2.86 2.14 2.86

SK-17 # 394 243 151 13 3 203 111 11 18 15 17

SK-17 % 100 61.68 38.32 3.30 0.76 51.52 28.17 2.79 4.57 3.81 4.31

SK-16 # 494 299 195 10 6 243 143 13 17 31 24

SK-16 % 100 60.53 39.47 2.02 1.21 49.19 28.95 2.63 3.44 6.28 4.86

SK-15 # 367 245 122 17 5 180 74 16 27 30 16

SK-15 % 100 66.76 33.24 4.63 1.36 49.05 20.16 4.36 7.36 8.17 4.36

SK-14 # 2,124 1,174 950 63 61 875 594 88 130 143 154

SK-14 % 100 55.27 44.73 2.97 2.87 41.20 27.97 4.14 6.12 6.73 7.25

See Table A4-1.

In FY 2017, the number of female SOs increased from 53 to 57, and male SOs decreased from 89 to 

83, as compared to FY 2016. The increase in the number of female SOs was reflected in the group 

of White (43 to 48) SOs. The decrease in the number of male SOs occurred in the White male group, 

with a decrease of six White male SOs. In FY 2017, there was an increase in males and a decrease in 

females at the SK-17 level (males increased by seven, and females decreased by 13), as compared to 

FY 2016. See Table A4-1.
16 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Internal Competitive Promotions

Attorneys

In FY 2017, the SEC received 304 applications for 24 attorney competitive promotions. Of the 

304 individuals, 277 qualified for promotion—193 males and 84 females. Of those selected for 

the promotions, 15 were male and nine female. White employees comprised 230 (83.03%) of the 

qualified applicants and received 17 (70.83%) of the 24 competitive promotions, with White males 

receiving 41.67% of the promotions and White females receiving 29.17% of the promotions. Among 

the seven individuals with a disability who qualified for a promotion, two were promoted.

A further demographic breakdown of the candidates who applied for internal promotions follows:

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 10 8 2 (8.33%) males 

White 252 230 17 (70.83%), 10 males 

and 7 females

Black or African American 21 19 1 (4.17%) female

Asian 16 15 4 (16.67%), 3 males 

and 1 female

American Indian/Alaska Native 3 3 0

Individuals with Disabilities 7 7 2

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0 0 0

See Tables A9 and B9.

Accountants

The SEC received 23 applications for seven accountant competitive promotions. Of the 23 applicants, 

18 qualified (12 males and six females). Of the seven individuals who received a competitive 

promotion, five were male and two female. Detailed demographics follow:

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 4 3 1 (14.29%) male

White 14 10 6 (85.71%), 4 males 

and 2 females

Black or African American 2 2 0

Asian 3 3 0

Individuals with Disabilities 0 0 0

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0 0 0

See Tables A9 and B9.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 17

Securities Compliance Examiners

The SEC received 52 applications (35 from males and 17 from females) for nine examiner 

promotions. Of the 52 applicants, 39 qualified (26 males and 13 females). Of the nine selected, six 

were male (66.67%) and three were female (33.33%). Although one individual with a disability 

qualified, this individual was not promoted. The following table reflects the demographic breakdown:

EEO Group

Applications 

Received

Qualified for 

Competitive 

Promotion Promoted 

Hispanic 9 7 1 (11.11%) male

White 28 23 5 (55.55%), 4 males 

and 1 female

Black or African American 7 5 2 (22.22%), 1 male

 and 1 female

Asian 8 4 1 (11.11%) female

Individuals with Disabilities 3 1 0

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities 0 0 0

See Tables A9 and B9.

Economists and Information Technology Management

During FY 2017, there were no competitive economist promotions and no information technology 

management promotions. See Tables A9 and B9.

Career Ladder Promotions

A review of the SEC’s non-competitive promotions reflects that of the 358 individuals eligible for 

career ladder promotions, 187 (52.23%) were male and 171 (47.77%) were female. Four individuals 

exceeded their time-in-grade beyond 24 months. Two individuals with targeted disabilities exceeded 

minimum time-in-grade for a career ladder promotion by 1 – 12 months. See Tables A10 and B10.

Employee Recognition and Awards

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

2017. For cash awards in the amount of $100 – $500, males received 51.12% of these awards 

(as compared to females who received 48.88% of these awards). Males received a higher average 

amount of $364 compared to the average amount for females of $348. A review of Table B13 also 

reveals a lower-than-average cash award for individuals with a targeted disability ($323) compared to 

the average amount of $359 for individuals with no disability.

For cash awards of $501 and more, males received 57.59% of these awards, with an average 

award amount of $1,227, while females received 42.41% of the awards, with an average award of 

$1,212. Cash awards of $501 or more averaged $1,196 for individuals with disabilities (below the 

average amount of $1,223 for those with no disability) and above the average amount of $1,160 for 

individuals with targeted disabilities.
18 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Separations

According to the SEC Strategic Plan, the SEC aims to keep its turnover rate relatively low, i.e., below 

eight percent per year.

5

 In FY 2017, the SEC had a separation rate of less than five percent of its total 

permanent workforce. Of the 205 voluntary separations, eight were Hispanic, 145 were White, 29 

were Black or African American, and 19 were Asian employees. In FY 2017, 21 employees who 

self-identified as having a disability separated from the SEC, including nine employees with targeted 

disabilities. See Tables A14 and B14.

SUMMARY OF EEO PLAN OBJECTIVES PLANNED TO ELIMINATE 

IDENTIFIED BARRIERS OR CORRECT PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES

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

affirmative employment efforts and barrier analysis program.

In 2017, SEC made several process improvements to the analysis of barriers to equality of 

opportunity. Process improvements include, but are not limited to:

n Integrated project plans to maximize resource utilization;

n Structured and stratified sampling;

n Segmenting occupations by level, function, and job content;

n Lean Six Sigma methods for group process and root cause analysis;

n Statistical methods for trigger identification and data analysis;

n Focus on continuous improvement in planning, implementation, and evaluation; and

n Program evaluation metrics for both near and long term outcomes.

These improvements support the barrier analysis work, highlighted below.

Barrier Analysis Studies Completed in 2016 or Earlier

In 2014, the SEC engaged an independent vendor to conduct an analysis of barriers to promotions 

at the Commission. At the beginning of FY 2016, the vendor identified two potential barriers and 

highlighted seven recommendations to eliminate the potential barriers. In close collaboration across 

the organization, 22 actions were initiated to address these recommendations. These identified 

actions were completed in 2017.

Actions include revising policy related to selection requirements, and coincident training for staff and 

managers on procedures and documentation supporting selection decisions. The additional structure 

and focus on consistent and fair evaluation supported by these policy changes will help to enhance 

fairness and transparency in the promotion of high-performing talent. The analysis is now considered 

closed, and OEEO continues to monitor the promotions data for any triggers that require further 

analysis. Additional information about this analysis is provided in Part I of this report, infra.

5 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Strategic Plan, FY 2014 – FY 2018, Strategic Goal 4, Strategic Objective 4.1 (p. 48). 
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 19

In FY 2016, OEEO also analyzed: whether females encounter a glass ceiling as they seek promotion 

to senior executive positions; the participation of Hispanic male and female employees in the SEC 

workforce which was below their participation in the civilian labor force; and the participation 

of persons with targeted disabilities in the SEC’s workforce which was below the EEOC’s goal 

of 2.00%. Thorough investigation through these studies 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.

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, 2017, 47 or 92% of those actions have been closed, completed, or transitioned to 

ongoing monitoring activity. Additional progress in 2018 will help close out the identified actions 

for these prior studies and transition these barrier analysis studies toward a longer-term monitoring 

and evaluation phase. Additional information about these studies is included in Parts I and J of this 

report, infra.

Updates to Prior Barrier Analysis Work Responsive to 2017 Guidance

Two studies completed in 2016 are related to more recent instruction and guidance provided by the 

EEOC and OPM. In January 2017, the EEOC and OPM issued a joint memorandum promulgating 

the recommendation from the Hispanic Council on Federal Employment (HCFE) to conduct more 

focused barrier analysis on Hispanic employment in the federal government. The SEC enhanced 

previously-completed work on the Hispanic and Latino population focusing attention on employees 

at more junior and senior grade levels (i.e., the GS-12 or equivalent, SK-12 grade) to address the joint 

recommendation. Additional information about this work is included in Part I of this report, infra.

Separately, on January 3, 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 hiring, retention, and career opportunities for 

persons with disabilities and those with targeted disabilities. As described above, OEEO had previously 

completed a barrier analysis focused on persons with targeted disabilities. Going forward, as the 

SEC prepares for implementation of the revised regulation in FY 2018, OEEO, in partnership with 

OHR, will leverage or expand this prior work to include the population of persons with disabilities 

in the SEC’s workforce. Information about the original study of persons with targeted disabilities and 

this additional work is included in Part J of this report, infra. An overview of the Agency’s plans for 

implementation of the revised Section 501 regulations in 2018, as well as accomplishments and actions 

related to those efforts is also found in Part J as required by the revised regulation.
20 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Continuing Studies in 2017

OEEO had also previously identified the need for analysis related to: the hiring rates of female 

applicants for employment in SEC major occupations (specifically, economist, accountant, and 

securities compliance examiner positions); and the distribution of discretionary time-off and cash 

awards to men, women, members of some minority groups, and persons with disabilities. The SEC 

began analysis in those areas in 2016, and that work continued in 2017. For these studies, OEEO 

completed gathering and initial analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, including conducting 

individual and group interviews with Division and Office leadership in the Home Office and 

Regional Offices.

Further, in 2017, OEEO allocated resources to the analysis on the following conditions: the 

participation of women in accountant positions and the participation of men in attorney positions.

Analytic work supporting these four studies will continue in FY 2018 to explore the observed 

workforce data anomalies and to develop any needed recommendations or actions to address 

potential barriers to equal employment opportunity. Additional information about the status of these 

analyses is provided in Part I of this report, infra.

SUMMARY OF EEO PLAN ACTION ITEMS IMPLEMENTED 

OR ACCOMPLISHED

Action Plans Implemented

Barrier Analyses

As highlighted above, the SEC undertook four barrier analyses and completed analytic work on those 

studies in FY 2016. Three of the analyses were undertaken by OEEO staff and one was conducted by 

a vendor. In FY 2017, the SEC began implementing recommendations made in these four analyses.

Also in FY 2017, OEEO advanced its barrier analysis and reporting functions. OEEO developed a 

framework for prioritizing barrier analysis studies which it will apply in FY 2018. In addition, OEEO 

developed an 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 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. The development of EEO-AT required the re-allocation of substantial 

resources from OEEO’s barrier analysis function in FY 2017. However, the investment made in the 

development of EEO-AT was required in order to analyze and report using the 12 targeted disabilities 

adopted in October 2016. Parts I and J of this report, infra, provide more detailed information about 

the progress made in conducting barrier analyses.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 21

Addressing the 2016 Deficiency in the Reasonable Accommodation Program

The SEC’s policy is to reasonably accommodate qualified persons 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 (ASL) interpreting, personal reader 

assistant); and

n Reassignment (the accommodation of last resort).

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 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 Temporary Medical Telework (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 also provides equipment for teleworking 

individuals that meet certain criteria. 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 (RA). As reported in the SEC’s FY 2016 MD-715 Report, 

the SEC did not meet the goal of processing 90% of accommodation requests within a specified 

timeframe. To address this deficiency, the Agency planned to deploy system enhancements to a 

workflow request platform to include streamlining TMT, 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 is planned to occur in FY 2018.

During the requirements gathering phase for the new system, OHR identified opportunities to 

strengthen the 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 current RA processing timeliness rate, excluding the provision 

of Adjustable Height Tables (AHTs), is 72%. This rate is an improvement over the FY 2016 rate. In 

FY 2018, 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 will simplify RA case tracking, help identify systemic delays, and improve customer 

service and timeliness.
22 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 is also reviewing the current RA procedures and plans to revise the RA 

policy, as appropriate, to align with recent updates made to the process and related program 

guidance. OHR plans to publish the revised policy and updated procedures, to include a Section 

508-compliant version, in FY 2018. Additional information about the status of this effort is provided 

in Parts H and J of this report, infra.

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, Temporary Medical Telework, and 

Reasonable Accommodation to ensure their awareness of their role in hiring and retaining employees 

with temporary or permanent disabilities. In addition, the SEC conducted training classes, entitled 

Conversations with OHR: How to Quickly Fill Vacancy Announcements, that provided supervisors 

and managers with tools on the various hiring authorities, including Schedule A for hiring individuals 

with disabilities.

In-depth, situation-specific training was provided as needed to individual managers who 

supervise employees with disabilities. 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.

Finally, the SEC trained Administrative Officers, who may advise supervisors and hiring officials, on 

Reasonable Accommodation during the 2016 Administrative Officers conference.

Hiring and Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities

In FY 2017, 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;
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 23

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

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

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

Schedule A hiring authority;

n Hosted a special event on disability employment, hiring, and retention of qualified people with 

disabilities. Congressman Jim Langevin, the first quadriplegic individual to serve in the U.S. House 

of Representatives, was invited to speak with SEC managers and staff about inclusion of people 

with disabilities in the workforce and how this leads to greater independence for people with 

disabilities. All hiring managers were encouraged to attend;

n Hosted the 2nd 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 Created an internal resume database for applicants with disabilities that is accessible to hiring 

managers for all hiring actions;

n Processed 117 TMT requests;

n Processed 244 RA requests, of which 106 were requests for telework as a reasonable accommodation;

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

various solutions or flexibilities for employees; and

n Implemented a new user-friendly, interactive portal, AskHR, on the SEC’s intranet. The new 

site provides employees with information about hiring, compensation and benefits, employee 

development, performance management, and disability accommodations among a number of 

other topics. Employees can access AskHR to submit and track requests and obtain decisions for 

both TMT and reasonable accommodation. These efforts are designed to streamline the TMT, 

RA, and leave processes, where feasible.

Agency Accomplishments

In FY 2017, 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

Although a hiring restriction was imposed in December 2016 and remained in effect during FY 2017, 

OMWI continued to take steps to ensure that the SEC has a pipeline of diverse talent for future 

employment opportunities by:

n Participating in 39 diversity outreach and recruitment events, which include conferences, career 

fairs, and other networking events hosted by professional associations and academic institutions to 

inform professionals and students about SEC employment and internship opportunities;

n Engaging more than 100 SEC staff from Divisions and Offices across the Commission in 

workforce diversity and outreach efforts nationwide;
24 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

n Distributing job advertisements to 265 recruitment sources used to attract diverse talent for 

current employment and internship opportunities;

n Partnering with 20 professional associations, educational organizations, and institutions to inform 

diverse professionals and students about SEC career and internship opportunities;

n Providing mentoring and financial literacy information to more than 2,120 students from high 

schools across the country;

n Publishing more than 165 workforce demographic reports, including customized analyses and 

assessments to help inform decision-making and monitor and evaluate ongoing workforce 

diversity efforts; and

n Presenting more than 21 trainings to enhance cultural awareness and foster diversity and inclusion 

at all levels of the SEC’s workforce.

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 Building relationships with over 10 professional organizations that focus on disability and 

veteran affairs;

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 affinity groups in an effort 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 2017, 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 2017:

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.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 25

In FY 2017, EAGs helped to plan, coordinate, and conduct SEC-sponsored programs and activities 

for special observances, including, but not limited to:

n Hispanic Heritage Month—Guest Speaker: Honorable Rene Alexander Acosta, U.S. Department 

of Labor Secretary;

n Disability Awareness Month—Guest Speaker: Sonia L. Aranza, Global Diversity 

and Inclusion Strategist;

n Veterans Day Commemoration—Guest Speaker: Sergeant Jerry Wolf, U.S. Army Air Corps, 

Eighth Air Force, WWII and POW;

n American Indian Heritage Month—Guest Speaker: Ann Marie Bledsoe Downes, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of Interior;

n African American History Month—Guest Speaker: Honorable Robert L. Wilkins, U.S. Circuit 

Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia;

n Women’s History Month—Coffee Networking Event in Honor of Women’s History Month;

n Asian American Pacific Islander Month—Guest Speaker: Dr. Min Zhou, Professor of Sociology 

and Asian Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles; and

n Caribbean American Heritage Month—Guest Speaker: Dr. Natalie Vassall, Physician and Deputy 

Informatics Officer, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC

In January 2017, the SEC’s LGBT Committee sponsored a viewing of the 30-minute documentary, 

Uniquely Nasty, which explores the period during which LGBT individuals were barred from 

working for the federal government. In addition to programming, the SEC leveraged the diversity of 

the EAG members to support its mission to protect investors, as well as to support its recruitment 

and outreach efforts.

Work-Life Programs

The SEC supports employees and their family members through an array of Work-Life programs 

including: the Employee Assistance Program; various opportunities to engage with experts for 

guidance on better managing responsibilities and life events (i.e., WorkLife4You); a fitness program; 

health and wellness units; on-site child care, backup child and elder care; and a child care subsidy. As 

part of a full spectrum of services to support the myriad needs and various life circumstances of SEC 

employees, the Agency offered 29 live webinars, seven seminars, three supervisory-only live webinars, 

and five webinars with subject matter specifically developed for SEC parents.
26 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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. In 2017, the 

SEC achieved a survey response rate of 80%, the second highest response rate among all Medium, 

Large, and Very Large federal agencies.

6

 The response rate was the highest ever for the SEC, and an 

increase of four percentage points from the 2016 FEVS response rate. With respect to results from the 

2017 FEVS, the SEC continues to improve across all of the FEVS major indices and core items. The 

SEC ranked among the top four highest scores in the most critical OPM indices. For example:

n In the Global Satisfaction index, SEC’s positive score of 81% was the highest score among both 

Medium and Large-sized agencies;

n In the Employee Engagement Index, the SEC average of 77% was the third highest among 

all Medium-sized agencies, and was tied for the largest increase from 2016 (four percentage 

points); and

n In the New IQ index (Leader Effectiveness Index), the SEC average of 70% was the third highest 

among all Medium-sized agencies. The SEC tied with one other Agency for the highest increase 

(five percentage points).

Overall, the SEC continues to improve across-the-board on the FEVS. In 2017, all but two core 

survey items experienced an increase, and the decreases were of less than three percentage points.

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

Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the SEC’s FEVS results demonstrate positive impact for its 

employees. Analysis of the 2017 FEVS results by demographic group indicates positive increases in 

the following categories: Race (all subpopulations), Supervisory Status (all subpopulations), Gender 

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

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

(BPTW) in the Federal Government. In 2017, the SEC ranked fifth out of 27 mid-size agencies.

7

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

OPM 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Governmentwide Management Report accessed on 1/29/2018 from 

fedview.opm.gov/2017FILES/2017_FEVS_Gwide_Final_Report.PDF.

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

 employees (Source: Partnership for Public Service; Best Places to Work; Methodology; accessed on 1/29/2018 from 

bestplacestowork.org/about/methodology/).
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 27

Training and Leadership Development

The SEC provided numerous opportunities for employees to acquire the skills and certifications 

needed to succeed in their positions and to progress in their careers. SECU provided classroomstyle and e-Learning programs and offered an extensive array of learning opportunities in technical 

areas (e.g., courses on Hedge Funds, Mutual Funds, and Credit Derivatives) as well as in leadership 

development to SEC senior leaders and non-supervisory staff alike.

Senior Officers

SECU developed and delivered leadership seminars to provide the Agency’s Senior Officers 

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.

SK-17 Managers

SECU offered a new leadership development course for second-level supervisors (managers) 

at the SK-17 level. The program included 90-minute virtual seminars with best-selling authors 

and Harvard researchers emphasizing how to lead effectively. Topics included: Unlocking Your 

Leadership, Results Through Teams, Next Level Leadership, Leading People, Leadership 

Communication, Leading with the Brain in Mind, Leadership Presence, and Leader as Coach.

SK-16 Employees

SECU offered leadership training tailored specifically for SK-16s, which provides a unique 

opportunity for individuals at this senior technical grade level to engage in leading-edge 

professional development with a group of their peers. The program includes an individualized 

leadership coaching component, as well as monthly in-class workshops focused on providing 

key pieces of knowledge and skills that are critical for success at the SEC. Topics included: 

Communication Styles, Emotional Intelligence, Leading People, Leadership Communication,

Leading with the Brain in Mind, and Leadership Presence.

Career Development Programs

The SEC offered four career development programs: Women in Leadership, Excellence in 

Government (EIG) Fellows Program, Aspiring Leaders, and Upward Mobility. The demographic 

information for employees participating in these programs is presented in Tables A12 and B12.

— 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 nonmanagerial staff the opportunity to participate in this leadership development program 

in a cohort format. One cohort is offered to SK-15 and SK-17 supervisors, while another 

cohort is offered to staff at the SK-14 and SK-16 levels. Through the Women in Leadership
28 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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.

— The EIG Fellows Program, coordinated by the Partnership for Public Service, strengthens 

the leadership skills of experienced federal employees through a combination of innovative 

coursework, best practices benchmarking, challenging action-learning projects, executive 

coaching, and government-wide networking. During this competitively-based program, 

Fellows remain in their full-time jobs, meet every six weeks, and spend approximately two 

days total in sessions. Fellows also devote up to five hours per week to their results project.

This program is offered to employees in the SK-14 to SK-17 (a mix of supervisory and nonsupervisory) 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.

— 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 2017 | 29

— 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 oneon-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.

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: Two new courses related to non-conscious bias training and 

leadership diversity listening sessions were developed by SECU and rolled out in FY 2016 

and continued in FY 2017. Each course discusses the non-conscious processes that affect 

decision-making and allows participants the opportunity to discuss the impact of nonconscious bias in their work environment and share mitigation strategies.

n American Sign Language: In FY 2017, SECU held an Open House for interested managers 

and staff to encourage enrollment in the American Sign Language (ASL) courses offered—

Levels I, II, and III—as well as in the Business Writing for Professionals taught in ASL. All 

of these courses were taught by Gallaudet University.

n Fundamentals of Human Resource Management: The two-day in-depth course includes 

training on EEO laws and a detailed overview of human resource management policies and 

procedures and related SEC policies.

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 

2017 by the SEC included:

Communication Styles;

Workplace Trust;

Achieving Results;

Feedback as a Performance Tool;

Leading People;

Team Dynamic;

Emotional Intelligence;

Leading with the Brain in Mind;

Leadership Presence;

Understanding Your Personality at 

Work (Workplace Big 5 Assessment);

DiSC Behavioral Styles;

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator;

Developmental Feedback;

Difficult Conversations;

Working in Distributed Teams;

Leader as Coach; and

Vision, Value and Future State.
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 31

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, Acting EEO Director/0905/SK-17, 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 22, 2018

March 22, 2018
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 33

PLAN FOR ATTAINING THE ESSENTIAL 

ELEMENTS OF A MODEL EEO 

PROGRAM (PART H)

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART H

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission FY 2017

STATEMENT of MODEL PROGRAM 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT 

DEFICIENCY:

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: 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.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR 

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: October 1, 2016

TARGET DATE FOR 

COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

September 30, 2018 

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

In FY 2018, 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 procedures used to submit, track, and report on requests for accommodation and 

to maintain information about accommodations provided. 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.

September 30, 2018

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

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 delayed as a 

result of the implementation of other OHR priorities. 

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%. This rate is an improvement over the FY 2016 rate. 

RA accountability and efficiencies continue to improve overall program effectiveness. For instance, 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. 

In FY 2018, the SEC plans to finalize the RA electronic system requirements, 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 also being revised to ensure it is concise and transparent. 

Relatedly, OHR is currently in the approval process for a RA policy to be implemented during FY 2018. The disability program used the 

regulations and guidance set by the EEOC to create the draft policy and revised policy-related materials to capture updates to the program. 

Once such 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. 
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 35

PLANS TO ELIMINATE IDENTIFIED 

BARRIER (PART I)

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission FY 2017

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER:

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

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.” 

BARRIER ANALYSIS: 

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

In conducting the barrier analysis, OEEO reviewed and analyzed 

qualitative and quantitative data, including:

• 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;

• EEO complaint activity filed between FY 2012 – FY 2015 to 

identify any complaints filed by applicants for SK-15, SK-17 

and SO positions; 

• Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data on indices 

and items related to promotion, recruiting, and hiring;

• Employee survey data from the Agency’s Exit Survey to 

understand better the reasons for voluntary separation 

among women; 

• Female employees’ responses to a survey conducted by a 

vendor in July 2014 regarding promotions at the SEC; 

• 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 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;

• Research literature, formally established policies related to 

promotion of SOs at the SEC, and reports to understand 

promotion and hiring processes better; and

• Information about best practices in recruiting female leaders 

in the federal government and private industry.

In May 2016, OEEO presented 17 recommendations to the 

Agency for consideration. 

OEEO, OHR, and OMWI agreed to 25 specific actions related to 

those recommendations. 

As of September 30, 2017, 17 of those actions have been closed 

or completed, two are in progress, and six have been successfully 

transitioned to ongoing monitoring of results. 
36 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER: 

Provide a succinct statement of the agency policy, procedure 

or practice that has been determined to be the barrier of the 

undesired condition.

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:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or practice 

to be implemented to correct the undesired condition.

Specific actions initiated toward improvement include: 

• Tracking the Agency’s bench strength and support provided 

to succession planning efforts for leadership positions; 

• Encouraging greater acceptance of alternative work 

arrangements, including telework, for all levels of the 

organization;

• Issuing the policy memorandum entitled Requirements for 

Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates (PM-2016-001) 

and communicating with and training those directly involved 

in hiring on the policy memorandum and the required 

documentation for selection decisions at each phase of the 

hiring process;

• Presenting a proposal for a mentoring program to support 

the career development into and within leadership levels;

• Encouraging stronger relationships and strategic 

conversation between hiring managers and hiring 

specialists, thereby encouraging both wider consideration 

of diversity in review panel membership and feedback to 

unsuccessful candidates for promotion;

• Continuing efforts toward targeting recruitment for external 

hiring into SO positions for women and minorities; and

• Describing more clearly the incentives, benefits, and 

requirements for promotion to and within SO leadership levels.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR

Pamela Gibbs, Director, OMWI 

Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: August 14, 2014

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: Modified: September 30, 2018
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 37

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

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.

November 30, 2017

The Agency will solicit stakeholder input for the design of a mentoring program. March 31, 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 participation in training 

that covers policy requirements and documentation among employees directly involved in hiring.

September 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.

September 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. September 30, 2018

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.

September 30, 2018

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

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.

The SEC will evaluate the responsive actions taken for evidence of improvement in outcomes and employee perceptions related to 

promotions into leadership positions. OEEO will use the results of a Workplace Experience Survey conducted in early FY 2018 to assess 

any improvement in employee perceptions of promotions and career opportunity. 
38 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission

FY 2017

STATEMENT OF 

CONDITION THAT WAS 

A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER: 

Provide a brief narrative 

describing the condition 

at issue.

How was the condition 

recognized as a potential 

barrier?

The participation of Hispanics in the Agency is lower than their availability in the civilian labor force. 

In FY 2014, Hispanic females represented 2.27% of the total SEC workforce, below their representation in 

the CLF of 4.79%. In FY 2014, Hispanic males represented 2.20% of the total SEC workforce, below their 

representation in the CLF of 5.17%. By 2017, the participation of Hispanics at the Agency had grown to 

2.98% for males and 2.57% for females. 

BARRIER ANALYSIS: 

Provide a description of 

the steps taken and data 

analyzed to determine 

cause of the condition.

In conducting the barrier analysis, OEEO reviewed and analyzed qualitative and quantitative 

data, including:

• Workforce demographic data from FY 2011 – FY 2015; 

• Applicant flow data for hiring and competitive promotions in the SEC’s mission critical occupations;

• EEO complaint activity filed between FY 2011 and FY 2015 to identify any complaints filed by 

Hispanic employees or applicants for employment; 

• FEVS data from FY 2012 to FY 2015 to compare the responses of White and Hispanic employees;

• Employee survey data from the Agency’s Exit Survey conducted between FY 2012 and FY 2015 to 

understand better the reasons Hispanic employees were voluntarily separating from the Agency;

• Hispanic employees’ responses to a survey conducted by a vendor in July 2014 regarding 

promotions at the SEC; 

• Selection case files (for hiring and promotions) for 107 selection decisions from the second half of FY 

2014 and the first half of FY 2015;

• Qualitative data from focus groups conducted with 13 Hispanic supervisors and managers at the 

SK-15 and SK-17 levels;

• Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR and OMWI; 

• Interviews with several law school career development representatives regarding the pipeline of 

Hispanic students/attorneys;

• Research literature, formally established policies related to hiring and promotion at the SEC, and 

reports to understand promotion and hiring processes better; and

• Information on best practices in recruiting Hispanic employees for the federal government and 

private industry.

In May 2016, OEEO identified several areas for potential improvement and provided 15 recommendations 

for the Agency’s consideration. 

Representatives from OEEO, OHR, and OMWI agreed to 14 actions to address those recommendations.

As of September 30, 2017, ten of those actions have been closed or completed, one item is in review 

pending another action or decision, and three have been transitioned to ongoing monitoring of results.

In response to the joint memorandum issued by OPM and the EEOC in January 2017, the Agency 

supplemented the prior analytic work to explore the perceptions and experiences of Hispanic employees 

at more junior (SK-11 and below) and more senior (SK-12 and above) levels. For these supplementary 

analyses, OEEO reviewed:

• Workforce data from FY 2013 – FY 2017 on applicant flow, career development, promotions, and 

separations among Hispanic compared to White employees;

• Applicant flow data overall and for the mission critical occupations to compare the hiring and 

promotion of Hispanic employees at junior and more senior levels; 

• FEVS data trends over the years FY 2013 – FY 2017 on the perceptions of Hispanic compared to 

White employees on all items and more specifically on items related to diversity and inclusion; and

• Best practices in recruiting and retaining Hispanic employees in federal government and private industry.

The FY 2017 analysis suggested the need for continued monitoring of triggers related to Hispanic applicant 

flow data across the phases of the hiring process. Further, FY 2017 data suggest that lower-level Hispanic 

employees were less likely to apply for limited availability career development programs as compared 

to their availability in the workforce. These observations will be included in the OEEO’s barrier analysis 

prioritization process in FY 2018.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 39

STATEMENT OF 

IDENTIFIED BARRIER: 

Provide a succinct statement of the agency policy, 

procedure or practice that 

has been determined to be 

the barrier of the undesired 

condition.

Representatives of OEEO, OHR, and OMWI agreed to take action toward enhancing equal employment 

opportunity for Hispanic employees in the Agency workforce addressing the following areas:

• Placing more emphasis on developing a pipeline of Hispanic candidates for employment at the SEC;

• Consistency and structure in the posting, screening, and interview processes for selection; and

• Targeting recruitment more directly toward potentially qualified Hispanic applicants.

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or 

revised agency policy, 

procedure or practice to be 

implemented to correct the 

undesired condition.

The actions toward improvement include: 

• Expanding and leveraging relations with external Hispanic groups and the SEC’s Hispanic Employee 

Affinity Group—Hispanic and Latino Opportunity, Leadership, and Advocacy Committee (HALO)—in 

developing and maintaining relationships with professional organizations and educational institutions 

with high Hispanic populations;

• Issuing the policy memorandum entitled Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates (PM-2016-001) and communicating with and training those directly involved in hiring on the 

policy memorandum and the required documentation for selection decisions at each phase of the 

hiring process; 

• Proactively developing and implementing strategies with and through HALO to retain Hispanic 

employees; and

• Continuing efforts toward targeting recruitment for external hiring of Hispanic applicants into the 

SEC’s mission critical occupations.

Starting in FY 2016 and proceeding through FY 2017, representatives of OEEO, OHR, and OMWI initiated 

and completed actions intended to address the recommendations from this study. These actions are now 

complete, and this barrier analysis study is closed. OEEO will monitor data to evaluate the effectiveness of 

actions taken.

RESPONSIBLE 

OFFICIAL:

Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR

Pamela Gibbs, Director, OMWI 

Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO 

DATE OBJECTIVE 

INITIATED:

August 14, 2014

TARGET DATE FOR 

COMPLETION OF 

OBJECTIVE:

Completed: September 30, 2017

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF 

OBJECTIVE:

TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

None All planned activities are complete.
40 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

In FY 2014, OMWI introduced specific and targeted outreach to Hispanic professionals. Starting in FY 2014, the net change in Hispanic 

employment at the SEC began to increase. In FY 2017, the positive trend observed in the last three fiscal years continued. A hiring 

freeze was implemented at the beginning of fiscal year 2017; yet, the participation of Hispanic men and women grew (by 0.14% points 

and 0.12% points, respectively, of the total workforce) from FY 2016 levels. As such the SEC’s Hispanic population experienced modest 

growth during FY 2017, in contrast to general declines in the total workforce and specific declines for other employee groups. At the same 

time, the participation rate of Hispanic males and females remains below the corresponding CLF benchmarks.

Relatedly, the perceptions of Hispanic employees on diversity-related questions in the FY 2015 and FY 2017 FEVS data show improvement in favorable responses. 

As of September 30, 2017, representatives of OEEO, OHR, and OMWI implemented a number of actions responsive to the 

recommendations. These actions included the following:

1. Engaging with HALO in outreach efforts as part of OMWI’s multi-prong strategy for enhancing diversity;

2. Developing an enhanced communication plan including open information sessions on the requirements for screening and interviewing job candidates under revised policy (these sessions help to improve transparency and further educate SEC employees on 

available career opportunities and resources);

3. Publishing the revised policy on Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates that requires documentation for each 

hiring action;

4. Conducting training for all employees about the revised policy and more specifically mandatory training for anyone involved in the 

hiring or promotion process;

5. Increasing the quality of interaction between HR Specialists and hiring managers toward more strategic conversation, greater use of 

selection best practice, and more consistent use of the Hiring Toolkit;

6. Continuing to evaluate applicant flow data to determine progress towards removing potential barriers;

7. Reviewing information on the business case for establishing several human resource flexibilities such as paid internships, 

employing non-citizens in the SEC’s Excepted Service workforce, and remote duty stations for Headquarters staff to work 

outside the DC area; 

8. Considering options for establishing formal responsibilities or a Program Manager specifically focused on employment programs for 

Hispanic employees; and

9. Expanding partnerships with Hispanic affinity groups, professional organizations, and educational institutions with strong 

Hispanic populations.

All of the action items that were undertaken pursuant to OEEO’s recommendations have been completed. This barrier analysis is now 

closed. OEEO will continue to monitor and evaluate the responsive actions taken for evidence of improvement in the perceptions of and 

the outcomes related to the Hispanic employee population. OEEO will use the results of a Workplace Experience Survey conducted in 

early FY 2018 to assess any improvement in perceptions of Hispanic employees on a number of relevant topics. OEEO will use these 

survey data in combination with workforce data to assess progress in this area in future annual self-assessments.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 41

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission FY 2017

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER: 

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

Female applicants for employment with the SEC, and in particular, 

for the major occupations (Economist, Accountant, and Securities 

Compliance Examiner) 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.

BARRIER ANALYSIS: 

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

In conducting the barrier analysis, OEEO reviewed and analyzed 

qualitative and quantitative data, including:

• Workforce data tables from FY 2012 – FY 2016; 

• Applicant flow data and new hire data from FY 2013 – FY 

2017 for each major occupation; 

• More than 750 resumes submitted by applicants during 2015 

for MCO positions;

• Data on EEO complaints filed between FY 2012 – FY 2016 

to identify any complaints filed by women who applied for 

economist, accountant, or compliance examiner positions; 

• 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;

• Employee survey data from the Agency’s Quality of Hire, 

Exit Survey, and FEVS on indices and items related to 

recruitment and hiring;

• Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR and OMWI; 

• Individual and group interviews with 32 Agency leaders about 

recruiting and hiring process support, including focus group 

sessions with regional leaders;

• 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; and

• Information about best practices in recruiting female 

applicants for employment in the federal government and 

private industry.

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; and

• 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 is compiling information to identify any areas for 

improvement and to define recommendations for action.
42 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER: 

Provide a succinct statement of the agency policy, procedure 

or practice that has been determined to be the barrier of the 

undesired condition.

As of September 30, 2017, the following areas were identified for 

further analysis and review:

• The language presented in vacancy announcements that 

may impact potentially qualified female candidates’ decision 

to apply;

• The processes related to defining minimum qualifications 

and specialized experience for these MCOs;

• The Agency’s strategic plans for the workforce and talent 

acquisition;

• The preparation of those staff members and leaders involved 

in various parts of the selection process; and

• The procedures and information applied to support applicants 

throughout the hiring process for these MCOs.

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired condition.

The Agency will continue to work on defining the root cause and 

devising recommendations to address any potential barriers by:

• Gathering stakeholder input in reaction to the data gathered 

thus far;

• Conducting a workplace experience survey among all 

employees; and

• Prioritizing recommendations for action based on study results.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO

Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR 

Pamela Gibbs, Director, OMWI 

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: December 8, 2014

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: July 31, 2018
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 43

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore, among 

other topics, employee perceptions of recruitment and hiring. November 30, 2017

In collaboration with other Agency stakeholders, OEEO will gather data that help to review and 

prioritize potential actions for improvement. December 31, 2017

OEEO will integrate and interpret quantitative and qualitative data related to identified triggers and 

root causes to establish evidence for any areas for improvement. April 15, 2018

To the extent areas needing improvement recruiting and hiring processes are found, the SEC will 

begin to develop an action plan to help foster equal employment opportunity. May 31, 2018

OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on the work completed on 

this study. June 30, 2018

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

OEEO has completed analysis of workforce and other quantitative data and has completed and summarized data from resume and 

document reviews, interviews, and focus groups. Findings from quantitative and qualitative data revealed the following:

• The proportions of women applying for consideration in these MCO remain below the occupational CLF over the five year period 

analyzed from FY 2013 through FY 2017; 

• There was an increase in the proportions of women recommended 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.

The SEC partnered with the National Society of Compliance Professionals (NSCP) to post vacancy announcements and also participated 

in their annual conference by hosting a career panel. The SEC will continue its partnership with NSCP.

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 as 

reflected in this report under Agency Accomplishments, supra, Summary of EEO Plan Action Items Implemented or Accomplished. 
44 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission FY 2017

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER: 

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

In FY 2014, female attorneys, accountants, examiners, and 

economists received fewer competitive promotions than their male 

counterparts. Notably, only 36% of applications were from women. 

Of 83 competitive promotions in the major occupations during FY 

2014, females received 27, while males received 56.

Of all competitive promotions in FY 2014, one individual with a 

disability received one of the 83 promotions. 

BARRIER ANALYSIS: 

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

The SEC hired a vendor in 2014 to conduct an analysis of barriers 

to promotions at the Commission. This analysis concluded at the 

beginning of FY 2016. The vendor identified two potential barriers 

and provided seven recommendations to eliminate the potential 

barriers. Starting in FY 2016 and through FY 2017, representatives 

of OEEO, OHR, and OMWI initiated and completed actions 

intended to address the recommendations from this study. 

These actions are now complete and this barrier analysis is 

closed. OEEO will monitor data to evaluate the effectiveness of 

actions taken.

STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER: 

Provide a succinct statement of the agency policy, procedure 

or practice that has been determined to be the barrier of the 

undesired condition.

Potential Barrier 1: Due to employee perceptions regarding 

how management fills positions, employees from certain 

demographic groups applied for promotions at lower rates than 

their comparator group.

Potential Barrier 2: Managers were not completely adhering to the 

Office of Personnel Management’s uniform personnel practices and 

guidelines, potentially resulting in unequal treatment of individuals 

competing for promotions.

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired condition.

The vendor recommended the following: 

• Institute workshops for supervisors and selecting officials on 

diversity and inclusion and ways to communicate promotional 

opportunities within the SEC;

• Identify promotional opportunities and actively engage 

employees who have demonstrated skills and aspirations 

outside of the area of consideration when promotional 

opportunities arise within the SEC;

• Continue to develop, utilize, implement, and monitor policies 

for recommending training and offering career development 

opportunities to non-selected and/or interested employees to 

increase competitiveness for promotions; 

• Implement guidelines for processing promotional actions that 

ensure principles and practices are applied in a uniform and 

consistent manner to promote transparency and avoid the 

appearance of pre-selection;

• Develop cohesive working relationships among the 

Divisions and Offices to promote and underscore the 

importance of following uniform procedures and guidelines 

to create an atmosphere that is as free of negative 

perceptions as possible;

• Publish a set of stand-alone standard operating procedures 

for promotions and disseminate when upcoming promotional 

opportunities become available; and 

• Improve the transparency of promotion procedures by taking 

steps to address employees’ perceptions that promotions are 

based on favoritism or other non-merit factors.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR 

Pamela Gibbs, Director, OMWI

Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: December 8, 2014

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: Completed: September 30, 2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 45

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

None All planned activities are complete.

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

As of September 30, 2017, representatives of OEEO, OHR, and OMWI implemented a number of actions responsive to the vendor’s 

recommendations that included the following:

1. Expanding the area of consideration on appropriate hiring announcements to allow for the broadest applicant pool;

2. Developing an enhanced communication plan including open information sessions on available career development options 

such as the Career Horizons program and on the requirements under the revised policy for screening and interviewing 

job candidates (these sessions help to improve transparency and to further educate SEC employees on available career 

opportunities and resources);

3. Implementing an enhancement to the LEAP system which provides personalized information on the available career paths for each 

employee and assists employees to identify opportunities for career development;

4. Enhancing the use of the Individual Development Plan (IDP) and encouraging more ongoing feedback and career conversation 

between managers and employees;

5. More consistently posting internal detail and permanent vacancy postings on the main page of the intranet and in SEC Today;

6. Continuing to establish standardized selection tools for key mission critical positions, including making available a comprehensive 

interview question bank for use by those involved in the hiring process;

7. Publishing revised policy on Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job Candidates that requires documentation for each 

hiring action;

8. Conducting training for all employees about the revised policy and more specifically mandatory training for anyone involved in the 

selection process;

9. Enhancing OHR recordkeeping by completing the transition to electronic selection case files;

10. Increasing the quality of interaction between HR Specialists and hiring managers toward more strategic conversation, greater use of 

selection best practices, and more consistent use of the Hiring Toolkit;

11. Continuing to evaluate applicant flow data to determine progress towards removing the potential barriers;

12. Maintaining the active participation of OEEO and OMWI in the development and implementation of the Agency’s Human Capital 

Strategy; and

13. Working with NTEU, the Diversity Council, employees, and managers in support of efforts to promote equality of opportunity and 

diversity at the Agency.

This barrier analysis is now closed. OEEO will continue to monitor and evaluate the responsive actions taken for evidence of improvement 

in the perception of and the outcomes related to promotions for MCO positions. OEEO will use the results of a Workplace Experience 

Survey conducted in early FY 2018 to assess any improvement in employee perceptions of promotions and career opportunity. OEEO will 

use these survey data in combination with workforce data to assess progress in these area in future annual self-assessments.
46 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission FY 2017

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER: 

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

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 time-off 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+, males received an average 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. 

BARRIER ANALYSIS: 

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

In conducting the barrier analysis, OEEO reviewed and analyzed 

qualitative and quantitative data, including:

• Workforce data tables, especially Table A13 and B13 from 

the FY 2012 – FY 2016 reports; 

• Distribution of discretionary time-off and cash awards 

documented in the Federal Personnel Payroll System for 

FY 2013 – FY 2016; 

• 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;

• EEO complaints filed between FY 2012 – FY 2016 where the 

distribution of awards was an issue raised; 

• Employee survey data from the Agency’s Exit Survey, and 

FEVS on indices and items related to recognition and awards;

• Interviews with subject matter experts in OHR and Office of 

Financial Management; 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.

OEEO is compiling information to identify any areas for 

improvement.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 47

STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER: 

Provide a succinct statement of the agency policy, procedure 

or practice that has been determined to be the barrier of the 

undesired condition.

OEEO is conducting further review to determine whether there are 

needed improvements to policy, practice, or procedure related to 

discretionary cash and time-off awards.

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired condition.

As of September 30, 2017, the following areas were identified for 

further review:

• Statistical analysis (e.g., multiple regression) on the 

distribution of awards in FY 2017, 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

• Agreement among stakeholders to a set of recommendations 

intended to address this study’s results.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO

Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR 

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: December 8, 2014

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: Modified: September 30, 2018

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore employee 

perceptions of recognition and awards. November 30, 2017

OEEO will integrate and interpret quantitative and qualitative data, statistical results, trends across 

years, root causes, and identified triggers. December 31, 2017

OEEO will expand statistical analysis and trends over time to cover FY 2017 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.

March 31, 2018

To the extent areas needing improvement in recognition and awards processes are found, the SEC 

will begin to develop an action plan to help foster equal employment opportunity. July 31, 2018

OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on the work completed on 

this study. September 30, 2018

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

OEEO has completed in depth statistical analysis of awards and other quantitative data and has summarized data from document 

reviews and interviews. Analyses show evidence of improvement over time in the observed triggers related to the distribution of awards. 

In contrast to overall Agency-wide results, statistical modeling shows that the number and value of awards granted to women and men, 

some minority groups, and persons with disabilities provides evidence of fewer areas of concern for equal employment opportunity in 

recent years. Processing and procedural improvements instituted since triggers were originally observed have 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. 

OEEO will use these survey data in combination with the statistical data already summarized to inform recommendations for the 

Agency’s consideration. 
48 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission FY 2017

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER: 

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

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 

Occupational CLF (over 16 percentage points). The White female 

accountant CLF is 44.23%, whereas White females comprised 

27.52% of the SEC’s accountants. 

BARRIER ANALYSIS: 

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

In conducting the barrier analysis, OEEO reviewed and analyzed 

qualitative and quantitative data, including:

• Workforce data tables and participation rates for women in 

the accounting occupation;

• Applicant flow, new hire, and competitive promotion data 

from FY 2013 – FY 2016 for the accounting occupation;

• Training records 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;

• EEO complaint activity filed between FY 2012 – FY 2016 

to identify any trends in complaints filed by applicants or 

employees in the accountant occupation; 

• 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;

• 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 and group interviews with Agency leaders about 

recruiting and hiring process support, including focus group 

sessions with regional leaders;

• Position descriptions and vacancy announcements for the 

job of accountant; 

• Written policies and formally established procedures 

affecting the employment of females, and in particular, the 

employment of females 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; and

• Information about best practices in recruiting women in 

accounting in the federal government and private industry.

OEEO conducted structured research activities to explore the data 

analyzed, including:

• Developing and implementing procedures 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 triggers; and

• 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.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 49

STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER: 

Provide a succinct statement of the agency policy, procedure 

or practice that has been determined to be the barrier of the 

undesired condition.

No barrier has yet been identified, pending further analysis. 

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired condition.

As of September 30, 2017, the following areas were identified for 

further analysis and review:

• Processes for the career development and promotion of 

accountants at the Agency, and 

• Retention of men and women in the accounting profession 

at the Agency.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO

Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR 

Pamela Gibbs, Director, OMWI

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 30, 2010

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: Modified: June 30, 2019

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore perceptions 

of different aspects of the employee lifecycle among accountants. November 30, 2017

OEEO will continue review and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data on career development, 

promotion, and retention processes for the accountant occupation. June 30, 2018

OEEO will integrate and interpret quantitative and qualitative data, trends across years, root causes, 

and identified triggers to establish evidence for any areas in need of improvement. July 31, 2018

To the extent areas needing improvement for female accountants at the Agency are found, the SEC 

will develop an action plan to help foster equal employment opportunity. March 30, 2019

OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on the work completed on 

this study. June 30, 2019

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

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.
50 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission FY 2017

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER: 

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

The participation rate of men in attorney 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 male attorneys.

Male attorneys at the SEC had participation rates lower than the 

Occupational CLF (by 9.10 percentage points) in FY 2014. Male 

attorneys comprised 66.70% of the Occupational CLF and 57.60% 

of the SEC’s major occupation category.

BARRIER ANALYSIS: 

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

In conducting the barrier analysis, OEEO reviewed quantitative and 

qualitative data, including, but not limited to:

• Analyzed workforce demographic data from FY 2012 – FY 

2016 to review the participation rates for men in the total 

workforce and in the attorney occupation; 

• Analyzed available applicant flow data for attorney hiring 

from FY 2012 – FY 2016;

• Developed questions for interviews with stakeholders using 

the EEOC decision tree root cause framework;

• Began reviewing the Agency’s hiring policies and formally 

established procedures; 

• Began reviewing attorney position descriptions to determine 

the existence of standardized duties and requirements based 

on grade level and across divisions/offices; 

• Began reviewing attorney vacancy announcements to 

determine the existence of language that could disincentivize applicants from particular demographic groups 

from applying, as well as any discrepancies between the 

duties and requirements in the vacancy announcement and 

corresponding position description; and

• Conducted background research regarding the occupational 

civilian labor force for attorneys, and in particular, for male 

attorneys by race/ethnicity.

STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER: 

Provide a succinct statement of the agency policy, procedure 

or practice that has been determined to be the barrier of the 

undesired condition.

No barrier has yet been identified, pending further analysis. 

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired condition.

This barrier analysis is ongoing. As a result, the Agency has 

not determined if any policies, procedures or practices need to 

be revised.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO 

Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR 

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 30, 2010

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: Modified: December 31, 2019 
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 51

EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience Survey of the Agency workforce to explore perceptions 

of different aspects of the employee lifecycle among attorneys. November 30, 2017

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.

June 30, 2018

OEEO will begin conducting interviews and/or focus groups with subject matter experts involved in 

the recruitment, hiring, development, recognition, and retention of attorneys. October 1, 2018

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. January 31, 2019

To the extent areas needing improvement for male attorneys at the Agency are found, the SEC will 

begin to develop an action plan to help foster equal employment opportunity. June 30, 2019

OEEO will begin to design an evaluation plan to monitor results based on the work completed on 

this study. December 31, 2019

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

OEEO analyzed and will continue to analyze applicant flow data for attorney hiring on a quarterly basis. OEEO also conducted 

background research on the attorney demographics in the civilian labor force, in particular, by gender and race/ethnicity and developed 

questions for internal stakeholders using the EEOC’s decision tree framework. In addition, OEEO began reviewing position descriptions, 

vacancy announcements, and relevant written policies and established procedures related to the employment of male attorneys.
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 53

SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR 

THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, 

ADVANCEMENT, AND RETENTION OF 

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (PART J)

To capture agencies’ affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with 

targeted disabilities (PWTD), EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and MD-715 require 

agencies to describe how their plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention 

of applicants and employees with disabilities. All agencies, regardless of size, must complete this Part 

of the MD-715 report.

SECTION I: EFFORTS TO REACH REGULATORY GOALS

EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific numerical 

goals for increasing the participation of persons with reportable and targeted disabilities in the 

federal government.
54 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 two ways 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 statistics in the totality of the circumstances. First, this report shares results based on 

established crosswalks between General Schedule (GS) grades and the SEC’s alternative pay 

plan SK grade levels. For the GS to SK levels, the grade levels, with corresponding numbering 

in the SK structure, are the same as in the General Schedule. Hence, an SK-11 is the same as 

a GS-11. The SEC’s Senior Officer ranks are the SEC’s highest level leadership, in the same 

manner as is the Senior Executive Service at other Agencies.

Second, this review presents cluster results based on locality adjusted salary, as specified in 

the revised regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, compared to the 

locality adjusted salary of a GS-11, step 1, in the Washington, DC area. For FY 2017, that 

salary was $66,510.

The Agency did not identify an anomaly involving PWD in the SK-01 to SK-10 grade level 

cluster in the permanent workforce; 22.30% of permanent employees in this cluster were 

PWD compared to the 12% benchmark.

The Agency noted an anomaly involving PWD in the SK-11 to SO grade level cluster; 6.63% 

of employees in these higher grade levels were PWD compared to the 12% benchmark.

For employees with salaries below a GS-11, step 1, the Agency did not have a trigger involving 

PWD; 31.82% 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 noted a 

difference involving PWD; 7.03% of employees in this cluster were PWD compared to the 

12% benchmark.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 55

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 X No 0

Applying the same comparisons to PWTD as described in section I.1, the SEC presents 

information on trigger identification among PWTD in the permanent workforce.

In the SK-01 to SK-10 grade level cluster in the permanent workforce, 8.78% of permanent 

employees in this cluster were PWTD compared to the 2% benchmark.

The Agency noted a difference involving PWTD in the SK-11 to SO grade level cluster; 1.56% 

of permanent employees in this cluster were PWTD compared to the 2% benchmark.

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

variance involving PWTD; 4.55% of employees in this cluster were PWTD compared to the 

2% benchmark.

For employees with salaries above a GS-11, step 1, the Agency noted a difference involving 

PWTD; 1.78% of employees in this cluster were PWTD compared to the 2% benchmark. The 

Agency notes that the one area for PWTD in which a variance was found was a difference 

very small in magnitude. This difference was found not to be statistically significant.

3. Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers 

and/or recruiters.

Hiring goals for PWTD (i.e., 2% of the total workforce) are communicated to hiring 

managers during quarterly Office of Human Resources Steering Committee meetings.

Additionally, metrics for disability hiring are published monthly and at the end of the year by 

the SEC’s Office of the Chief Operating Officer. The overall percentage of employees who are 

PWTD is posted in the Diversity Dashboard sponsored by OMWI and the Diversity Council.

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
56 | 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 April 2017, OEEO led monthly 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 monthly 

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.

In FY 2017, OEEO developed an automated reporting tool, the Equal Employment 

Opportunity—Analytic Tool (EEO-AT) that will improve the efficiency and accuracy of 

information shared with the working group in FY 2018 and going forward.

In FY 2018, the material shared through these various channels will be updated to include the 

broader goal for PWD (i.e., 12% of the workforce) and to report separately on participation 

of PWD and PWTD for higher and lower level jobs. Information shared in the quarterly 

Office of Human Resources Steering Committee meetings and metrics in the monthly 

dashboard published by the Agency’s Office of the Chief Operating Officer will also be 

updated to reflect the defined goals for PWD and PWTD.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 57

SECTION II: MODEL DISABILITY PROGRAM

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

to recruit and hire persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, administer the 

reasonable accommodation program and special emphasis program, and oversee any other disability 

hiring and advancement program the agency has in place.

Plan to Provide Sufficient and Competent Staffing for the Disability Program

1. Has the agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability program 

during the reporting period? If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to improve the staffing for the 

upcoming year.

Yes X No 0

The Agency designates talent acquisition resources and FTE to Special Programs classification, 

recruitment, and staffing in support of the disability program.

2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the agency’s disability employment program by the 

office, staff employment status, and responsible official.

Disability Program Task

Number of Full-Time Equivalent Staff by 

Employment Status

Responsible Official

Full Time Part Time (Name, Title, Office, Email)

Collateral 

Duty

Processing applications from PWD 

and PWTD 

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 2 1 Dia Gonsalves, Disability Program 

Officer, Office of Human Resources, 

gonsalvesd@sec.gov

Section 508 Compliance 1 0 0 Remi Pavlik-Simon, Policy and Administration 

Branch, Office of Information Technology,

PavlikSimonR@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, OSOOBO; Carla Hairston; Program Analyst, 

OSO-OBO

Special Emphasis Program for PWD 

and PWTD

2 0 0 Stephen Brown, Assistant Director, Office of 

Human Resources, brownst@sec.gov
58 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

3. Has the agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out their 

responsibilities during the reporting period? If “yes”, describe the training that disability program 

staff have received. If “no”, describe the training planned for the upcoming year.

Yes X No 0

The two full-time employees who work on the disability program staff came to the Agency 

with significant experience in the federal government’s reasonable accommodation programs 

and the responsibilities inherent in responding to reasonable accommodation requests.

They periodically attend training programs and review recent case law to stay apprised of 

the current developments in this area. Additionally, the Disability Program Manager and 

Disability Program Officer complete courses specific to recruiting, accommodating, hiring, 

and retaining PWD via OPM’s HR University and the SEC’s Learning Management System, 

LEAP, in addition to the general training received.

More generally, all of the SEC’s HR Specialists have completed training courses related to staffing 

and placement offered by the USDA Graduate School or OPM and through various other 

platforms. The Agency’s training and development office also offers learning options that include 

processing applications for PWD. The Agency will continue these practices in the future.

In the coming year, changes are planned in line with implementation of requirements 

and recommendations under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. 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 meet the needs to 

successfully implement the disability program.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 59

SECTION III: PLAN TO RECRUIT AND HIRE INDIVIDUALS WITH 

DISABILITIES

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1)(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to increase the 

recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to identify 

outcomes of the agency’s recruitment program plan for PWD and PWTD.

Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities 

1. Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, 

including individuals with targeted disabilities.

OHR has taken 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 

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

effective recruitment and outreach efforts that brand the Agency as an employer of choice.

The following provides detail on recruitment-related activity during FY 2017 to identify and 

encourage applications from potentially qualified PWD and PWTD.

The Agency attended the National Federation of the Blind Job Fair, Careers & the Disabled 

Magazine’s Career Expo, Corporate Gray Military Job Fair, and Hiring Our Heroes & the 

American Legion Job Fair. These events allowed the SEC to reach a key constituency and 

promote a variety of positions.

The SEC also hosted its second annual Informational and Networking Event for Individuals 

with Disabilities at SEC Headquarters. The event provided 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. The SEC hosted this event 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. After this event, 

OHR shared contact information for attendees with hiring managers for their consideration.

The SEC created an internal resume database for applicants with disabilities that is accessible 

to hiring managers for all hiring actions.

The SEC plans to continue these efforts in FY 2018.

In FY 2018, OHR will continue to leverage the Disability Issues Advisory Committee 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.
60 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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

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

permanent workforce.

The Agency uses a variety of available resources that support hiring through Schedule A and 

other hiring authorities that take disability into account.

During FY 2017, the Special Programs Manager identified potential candidates from the 

Workforce Recruitment Program database for Schedule A hiring.

The Special Programs Manager sourced potential candidates for open positions from the 

OPM’s Shared List of People with Disabilities.

The Special Programs Manager is registered to receive notifications and newsletters from the 

following groups and transmits information to OHR staff engaged in recruiting:

n EARN—Employer Assistance Resource Network: askearn.org

n JAN—Job Accommodation Network: askjan.org

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

dol.gov/odep/
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 61

3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into 

account (e.g., Schedule A), explain how the agency (1) determines if the individual is eligible for 

appointment under such authority and (2) forwards the individual’s application to the relevant 

hiring officials with an explanation of how and when the individual may be appointed.

The 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.

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.

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.
62 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

4. Has the agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities that take 

disability into account (e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe the type(s) of training and frequency. If 

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

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

OHR has 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 2017, new SEC managers participated in mandatory training as part of the LD 

307 Fundamentals of Human Resource Management training. Specific sections in the 

Fundamentals of HR Management highlight special hiring authorities, including Schedule A, 

and requests for reasonable accommodation in the job application process. The Disability 

Program Officer presents this training content.

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.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 63

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 makes a concerted effort to establish and maintain 

contact with organizations that assist PWD in securing and maintaining employment. The 

Special Programs Manager updates the SEC’s list of affinity organizations to maintain contact 

and foster relationships for recruitment events and candidate sourcing.

The Special Programs Manager maintains an ongoing relationship with the SEC’s Disability 

Interests Advisory Committee and the Veterans Committee.

In addition to outreach and recruitment efforts conducted by OMWI and described elsewhere 

in this report, OHR took steps to ensure the SEC has a pipeline of talent in the disability and 

veteran communities by:

n Building relationships with over 10 professional organizations that handle disability and 

veteran affairs;

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 affinity groups in an effort to bring awareness to 

SEC personnel regarding disability and veteran hiring initiatives.

To improve its outreach to veterans, including those with disabilities, the SEC participated 

in two Vets on Wall Street events and is in the process of implementing an Operation 

Warfighter (OWF) internship program. The SEC also addressed professional veteran-focused 

organizations and veterans’ hiring events.

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 X No 0
64 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Data from FY 2017 presented in Table B8 was reviewed for evidence of differences in hiring 

into the permanent workforce. From these data, the Agency did identify an anomaly in the 

participation rate for PWD among new hires in the permanent workforce. In FY 2017, the 

participation of PWD among permanent new hires was 5.30% as compared to the goal of 12%.

The Agency also noted a difference in the participation of PWTD among new hires. In FY 

2017, the participation of PWTD among permanent new hires was 0.76% as compared to the 

goal of 2%.

The Agency notes that the hiring freeze, implemented early in FY 2017, impacted the efforts 

towards filling open positions and affected results toward increasing the participation of PWD 

and PWTD.

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD 

among the new hires for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe 

the triggers below.

a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

FY 2017 data that underlie Tables B7 and B8 was reviewed for evidence of triggers in 

the hiring of permanent employees into MCO positions. Triggers did not exist in the 

Accountant, IT Management, Attorney, or Economist MCOs. No triggers were found 

in permanent new hires for PWTD. A difference was found for PWD in the Securities 

Compliance Examiner occupation.

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 in the data from Table B7.

As described above (see Part E, Analysis of Workforce Profiles, Applicant Flow Data 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 qualified applicant pool data summarized here reflect the pool of 

applications deemed qualified for permanent and/or temporary vacancies announced through 

USAJOBS during FY 2017.

In contrast, Table B8 presents data on permanent new hires onboarded during the course 

of the fiscal year. Some newly-hired staff applied for a vacancy posted in a prior fiscal 

year. Differences may be observed in comparing the demographic statistics of the qualified 

applicant pool in Table B7 and that of new hires onboarded in Table B8. Triggers comparing 

the composition of PWD and PWTD in applicant flow versus new hire data should be 

interpreted with theses difference in mind.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 65

For Economists, the qualified applicant pool was 0.00% for PWD and PWTD. There were 

five new hires (one permanent and four temporary). None of the newly hired permanent 

Economists were PWD or PWTD. No trigger was evident in these data.

For Attorneys, the qualified applicant pool was 1.38% PWD, and the qualified applicant 

pool for PWTD was 0.88%. There were 13 temporary attorneys hired and 59 newly hired 

permanent attorneys. PWD were 5.08% of newly-hired permanent attorneys, and PWTD 

were 1.69% of permanent new hires. No trigger was found in these data.

For Accountants, the qualified applicant pool for PWD was 0.71%, and PWD were 11.11% 

of permanent new hires. There were 11 total new hires, nine permanent and two temporary.

The qualified applicant pool was 0.00% for PWTD, and PWTD were 0.00% of permanent 

new hires. Again, no trigger is found in these data.

For IT Management, no applicant flow data were collected from postings during FY 2017; 

therefore, the qualified applicant pool was 0.00% PWD, and PWD were 12.5% of new 

hires. The one new hire among IT Management specialists was hired in October 2016 from 

an announcement that closed in a prior fiscal year. The qualified applicant pool was 0.00% 

PWTD, and none of the permanent new hires were PWTD. There were 8 permanent new 

hires; no temporary IT Management specialists were hired in FY 2017.

For Securities Compliance Examiners, a difference was identified for PWD. The qualified 

applicant pool was 3.13% PWD, and no permanent new hires were PWD. No anomaly 

was evident in new hires for Securities Compliance Examiners. The qualified applicant pool 

for PWTD was 0.00%, and none of permanent new hires were PWTD. There were 28 total 

permanent new hires; no temporary Securities Compliance Examiners were hired in FY 2017.

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
66 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

In the FY 2017 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, Accountant, 

and Securities Compliance Examiner.

The RAP was defined for each MCO based on the number of employees holding the same 

MCO 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; and for the Information Technology Management occupation, the RAP included all 

employees in the 2210 series.

Differences were also identified for PWTD within the internal competitive promotion data for 

the MCOs Attorney, Accountant, and Securities Compliance Examiner.

No internal competitive promotions were processed for Economists or IT Management; therefore, 

no anomaly was found for PWD or PWTD in those occupations.

For Attorneys, the RAP for PWD was 4.39%, and PWD represented 2.53% of the qualified 

internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.38%, and PWTD were 0.00% of the qualified 

internal applicants for Attorneys.

For Accountants, the RAP for PWD was 5.87%, and PWD were 0.00% of the qualified 

internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.11%, and PWD were 0.00% of the qualified 

internal applicants.

For Securities Compliance Examiners, the RAP for PWD was 6.94%, and PWD represented 

2.56% of the qualified internal applicants. The RAP for PWTD was 1.16%, and PWTD were 

0.00% of the qualified internal applicants.

For Economists, there were no internal vacancies posted. The RAP was 1.02% for PWD, and 

0.00% for PWTD.

For IT Management, there were no internal vacancies posted. The RAP for PWD was 

10.16%. The RAP for PWTD was 0.66%.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 67

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

In the FY 2017 data presented in Table B9, 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 Securities Compliance Examiner occupation.

The QAP for PWD was 2.56%, and 0.00% of those promoted were PWD. The QAP for 

PWTD was 0.00%, and 0.00% of those promoted were PWTD. There were nine promotions.

In the Attorney occupation, there were no differences among those selected for internal 

promotions. The QAP for PWD was 2.53%, and 8.33% of those selected for promotion were 

PWD. The QAP for PWTD was 0.00%, and PWTD were 0.00% of promotions. There were 

24 promotions.

In the Accountant occupation there were no triggers among internal promotions. The QAP 

was 0.00% for PWD and PWTD, which drove a result of 0.00% among internal promotions 

for PWD and PWTD. There were seven promotions.

In the Economist and IT Management occupations there were no internal promotions during 

FY 2017, so no triggers were identified.
68 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

SECTION IV: PLAN TO ENSURE ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1)(iii), agencies are required to provide sufficient advancement 

opportunities for employees with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and 

mentoring programs, career development opportunities, awards programs, promotions, and similar 

programs that address advancement. In this section, agencies should identify, and provide data on 

programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities.

Advancement Program Plan

1. Describe the agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities 

for advancement.

To promote equal employment opportunity, the Agency takes a number of steps to ensure 

that opportunities for advancement are open and available to all, including PWD and 

PWTD, in the workforce. Information about training and career development options 

is widely shared with the workforce. The following describes those efforts to promote 

opportunities for advancement.

n OHR implemented and maintains a new, 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 circulates job 

postings and 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.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 69

Career Development Opportunities

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its employees.

The SEC provides numerous opportunities for employees to acquire the skills and 

certifications needed to succeed in their technical positions and to progress in their careers.

Classroom-style and e-Learning programs offer an extensive array of learning opportunities in 

technical areas (e.g., courses on Hedge Funds, Mutual Funds, and Credit Derivatives, etc.) as 

well as in leadership development to SEC senior leaders and non-supervisory staff alike.

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 2017, OHR implemented 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 

them to progress toward their career goals. SECU established initial career paths based on prior 

projects to define competency requirements for a variety of occupations. In FY 2018, OHR 

and SECU will gather additional data to support the competency development of professional 

and leadership positions to enhance the value of the new LEAP career path options.

Relatedly, in FY 2018, the Agency will solicit input and consider options for the design of a 

mentoring program that will support the career development of all employees, including PWD 

and PWTD, into and within leadership levels.

Among the many career development options for SEC employees, the Agency offered four 

career development programs in FY 2017: Women in Leadership, Excellence in Government 

Fellows Program, Aspiring Leaders, and Upward Mobility. Data about applicants and 

participants in these programs is presented in Table B12.
70 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

2. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development 

programs? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the 

applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

From the FY 2017 data presented in Table B12, this report summarizes information on career 

development data in three groups: career development programs for employees in grades 

SK-05 to SK-12, career development for SK-13 to SK-14, and career development for SK-15 

to SK-17.

The following summarizes comparisons between the participation of PWD and PWTD in 

first, the relevant applicant pool (RAP) and the applicants for career development programs 

and second, between the applicants for and selections/participants in career development 

programs for employees in these grade levels.

In the SK-05 to SK-12 programs, the Agency did find an outlier among PWD applicants 

for career development. The RAP was 15.18% PWD, and applications from PWD were 

13.89%. The Agency also noted a difference among PWD participants; PWD were 7.14% 

of participants, and 13.89% of applicants.

In the SK-13 to SK-14 programs, the Agency did not have a trigger among applicants for 

career development. The RAP was 6.89% PWD, and applications from PWD were 10.34%.

The Agency noted a difference among PWD participants. PWD were 1.72% of participants, 

and 10.34% of applicants.

In the SK-15 to SK-17 programs, there was an anomaly among applicants for career 

development. The RAP was 4.99% PWD, and applications from PWD were 0.00%. The 

Agency did not find a trigger among PWD participants. PWD were 0.00% of participants, 

and 0.00% of applicants.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 71

3. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development 

programs identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for applicants 

and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Applying the same comparisons to PWTD as described in section IV, Career Development 

Opportunities, 2, this report presents information on participation in career development 

programs among PWTD.

In the SK-05 to SK-12 programs, the Agency did not find a trigger among PWTD applicants 

for career development. The RAP was 5.43% PWTD, and PWTD were 11.11% of 

applicants. The Agency did note an anomaly among PWTD participants. PWTD were 0.00% 

of participants, and 11.11% of applicants.

In the SK-13 to SK-14 programs, the Agency did not find a trigger among applicants. The RAP 

was 1.62% PWTD, and PWTD were 3.45% of applicants. The Agency did note a difference 

among PWTD participants. PWTD were 0.00% of participants, and 3.45% of applicants.

In the SK-15 to SK-17 group, the Agency did note a difference among applicants. The RAP 

was 1.35%, and 0.00% of applicants were PWTD. The Agency did not have an anomaly 

among PWTD participants. PWTD were 0.00% of participants and 0.00% of applicants.

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 2017 data reflected in 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.

Continued on the next page
72 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 anomalies in: time-off awards of 9 hours or 

more and cash awards of more than $500. A difference was found for PWD in time-off 

awards of 9 hours or less but not for PWTD. No trigger was found for either PWD or PWTD 

in the distribution of cash awards of $100 to $500.

For time-off awards of 9 hours or less, the inclusion rate for PWD was 24.22%, and 

the inclusion rate for people with no disability was 27.43%, indicating an anomaly. The 

inclusion rate for PWTD was 29.63%, and the inclusion rate for people with no targeted 

disability was 27.15%.

For time-off awards of more than 9 hours, the inclusion rate for PWD was 27.33%, and the 

inclusion rate for people with no disability was 30.46%. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 

25.93%, and the inclusion rate for people with no targeted disability was 30.32%.

For cash awards of more than $500, the inclusion rate for PWD was 37.58%, and the 

inclusion rate for people with no disability was 46.13%. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 

29.63%, and the inclusion rate for people with no targeted disability was 45.81%.

There was no trigger identified in cash awards of $100 to $500. The inclusion rate for 

PWD was 26.71%, and the inclusion rate for people with no disability was 21.38%. The 

inclusion rate for PWTD was 34.57%, and the inclusion rate for people with no targeted 

disability was 21.52%.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 73

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 X No 0

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes X No 0

To address the question posed here, the following summarizes data from performance-based 

pay increases distributed under the Agency’s Performance Management Program. Data 

summarized here include those personnel actions coded under nature of action (NOA) Code 

891, Regular Performance Pay, in accordance with EEOC instruction for presenting this 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 2017, 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).

For PWD, the Agency found a variance in these performance rating based pay increases. The 

inclusion rate for PWD was 72.98%, and for people without disabilities and those who did 

not self-identify with a disability, it was 74.96%.

The inclusion rate for PWTD was calculated by comparing the number and percent of PWTD 

who received a performance-based pay increase (NOA 891) to the number and percent of 

employees without a targeted disability (i.e., the combined total of persons with no disability, 

those who do not identify as having a disability, and those with a disability that is not 

targeted) who received such a performance-based pay increase.

For PWTD, the Agency found a trigger in performance rating based pay increases. In these 

performance rating based pay increases, the inclusion rate for PWTD was 74.07%, and for 

people without targeted disabilities (including those with no disability, those who did not selfidentify as having a disability, and those with a disability that is not targeted), it was 74.84%.

The observed differences are small in magnitude and partially driven by recent hiring 

and onboarding of PWD and PWTD. Specifically, 153 employees who did not receive 

a performance-based pay increase came on rolls to the Agency on or after September 1, 

2016. These new employees, among whom 10 (6.54%) are PWD and one is a PWTD, 

were not eligible in FY 2017 to receive a performance-based pay increase for performance 

during FY 2016.
74 | 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 0 N/A X

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X

The Agency instituted a Gift Card Recognition Program in late FY 2016. At the time this 

report was prepared, data for this program were not available to compare the demographic 

information of the recipients of this awards program. The Agency plans to conduct analysis of 

gift cards distributed under this program during FY 2018.

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 X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. Grade GS-14

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

d. Grade GS-13

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 75

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. Table B11 presents the relevant FY 2017 

data to assess whether triggers exist with regard to promotions to senior grade levels.

At the SO level, the Agency noted a difference involving PWD among internal selections for 

promotions. The Relevant Applicant Pool (RAP), comprised of all employees at grade levels 

SK-14 and higher, was 5.81% and among qualified internal applicants, 5.88% were PWD.

Zero selections 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 5.80%, while the participation of PWD among qualified 

internal applicants was 1.56%. The Agency did not have a trigger involving internal selections 

for senior grade levels at the SK-15 and SK-17 levels; 4.76% of selections were PWD 

compared to their participation among qualified internal applicants at 1.56%.

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 6.36%, and the participation of PWD among qualified 

internal applicants was 2.88%. On the other hand, 6.25% of selections were PWD compared 

to 2.88% of qualified internal applicants.

At the SK-13 level (GS-13 equivalent), the Agency identified a difference involving PWD 

among qualified internal applicants. The RAP was 12.37%, and the participation of PWD 

among qualified internal applicants was 0.00%. The Agency did not have a trigger involving 

internal selections. Zero selections for internal promotions at the SK-13 level were PWD, and 

none of the qualified internal applicants were PWD.

2. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant 

applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For 

non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) 

in the text box.

a. SES

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b Grade GS-15

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X
76 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 Promotions, 1, the 

Agency presents information on trigger identification for PWTD in promotions to senior 

grade levels.

At the SO level, the Agency notes that the RAP was 1.37%, and the participation among 

qualified internal applicants of PWTD was 0.00%. No anomaly was found for the selections 

to SO positions; zero selections for SO positions were PWTD among the qualified internal 

applicants who were also 0.00% PWTD.

At the SK-15 and SK-17 level (GS-15 equivalent), the Agency had an anomaly involving 

PWTD among qualified internal applicants. The RAP was 1.37%, and among the qualified 

internal applicants, none were PWTD. No trigger was found for the internal selections to 

grades SK-15 and SK-17; 0.00% of the qualified internal applicant pool was PWTD. Zero 

selections for SK-15 or SK-17 positions were PWTD.

At the SK-14 and SK-16 level (GS-14 equivalent), the Agency the RAP was 1.35% while 

0.00% of the qualified internal applicants were PWTD. Zero selections for SK-14 or SK-16 

positions were PWTD. Zero selections for SK-14 or SK-16 positions were PWTD among the 

qualified internal applicant pool which was also 0.00% PWTD; therefore, no trigger was 

found in these data.

At the SK-13 level (GS-13 equivalent), the Agency had an anomaly involving PWTD among 

qualified internal applicants. The RAP was 4.47%, and the participation of PWD among 

qualified internal applicants was 0.00%. The Agency did not have a trigger involving internal 

selections. None of the qualified 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 box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Yes X No 0

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes 0 No X

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes 0 No X
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 77

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described in section IV, Promotions, 1, the 

Agency presents information on trigger identification for PWD new hires to senior grade levels 

based on reviewing data underlying Tables B7 and B8.

As described above (see Part E, Analysis of Workforce Profiles, Applicant Flow Data and 

Part J, Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring), 2, supra), the qualified applicant 

pool from Table B7 summarizes data where the applicant self-identified with a disability and 

was deemed 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 onboarded during the 

course of the fiscal year; some of whom applied for a vacancy posted prior to the start of the 

fiscal year. Differences may be observed in the demographic statistics of those selected versus 

those onboarded as new hires. Triggers comparing the composition of PWD and PWTD in 

applicant flow versus new hire data should be interpreted with these difference in mind.

At the SO level, the Agency did not have a trigger involving PWD among new hires. The 

qualified applicant pool was 0.00% PWD, and none of the 12 newly hired SOs, four 

permanent and eight temporary new hires, were PWD.

At the SK-15 and SK-17 levels, the qualified applicant pool was 2.65% PWD, however none 

of the six permanent new hires for SK-15 and SK-17 positions were PWD. There were no 

temporary hires in these grade levels.

At the SK-14 and SK-16 levels, the qualified applicant pool was 4.34% while 7.14% (or two) 

of the 28 permanent new hires to SK-14 and SK-16 positions were PWD. There were 39 total 

new hires in these grades, of whom 28 were permanent, and 11 were temporary new hires.

At the SK-13 level, the qualified applicant pool was 4.20% while 6.67% (or three) of the 

45 new hires to SK-13 positions were PWD. There were 47 total new hires in this grade, of 

whom 45 were permanent, and two were temporary new hires.

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the 

approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Yes X No 0

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) Yes X No 0

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes X No 0
78 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described in section IV, Promotions, 1, and 

Tables reviewed in section IV, Promotions, 3, the Agency presents information on trigger 

identification for PWTD new hires to senior grade levels.

At the SO level, the Agency did not have a trigger involving PWTD among new hires. The 

qualified applicant pool was 0.00%, and none of the 12 new hires to SO positions were 

PWTD. There were 12 new SO hires, four permanent and eight temporary.

At the SK-15 and SK-17 levels, the qualified applicant pool was 1.23%, however none of 

the six permanent new hires to SK-15 and SK-17 positions were PWTD. There were no 

temporary hires in these grade levels.

At the SK-14 and SK-16 levels, the qualified applicant pool was 2.90%, though none of the 

28 permanent new hires to SK-14 and SK-16 positions were PWTD. There were 39 total new 

hires in these grades, of whom 28 were permanent, and 11 were temporary new hires.

At the SK-13 level, the qualified applicant pool was 2.33% and 2.22% (or one) of the 45 

permanent new hires to SK-13 positions was PWTD. There were 47 total new hires in this 

grade, of whom 45 were permanent, and two were temporary new hires. The Agency notes 

the small magnitude of the observed difference between the qualified applicant pool and new 

hires for the SK-13 level (0.11%).

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 X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Managers

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X

c. Supervisors

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 79

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. FY 2017 data underlying Table B11 presents the data relevant for assessing 

whether triggers exist with regard to promotions to supervisory positions.

For executives, the Agency had a trigger involving internal selections. The RAP, comprised 

of permanent managers at the SK-17 level, was 5.85%, and the qualified internal applicants 

were 5.88% PWD. None of the internal selections for SO positions were PWD.

For managers, the RAP, comprised of permanent supervisors at the SK-13 through SK-15 

levels, was 5.65%, but the qualified internal applicant pool was 1.92%. PWD were 10.00% 

of 10 SK-17 manager selections. Therefore, no trigger existed for manager selections.

For supervisors, the Agency had 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 7.08% PWD, and the qualified internal applicants included no (0.00%) PWD.

There was no anomaly identified for internal selections; none of the qualified internal 

applicants were PWD, and none were selected.

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) Ye X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. Managers

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

c. Supervisors

Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X
80 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described in section IV, Promotions, 1, 

the Agency presents information on trigger identification for PWTD internal promotions to 

supervisory positions from data underlying Table B11.

For executives, the RAP was 1.27% PWTD though 0.00% of the qualified internal applicants 

were PWTD. The Agency did not identify an anomaly involving internal selections; no PWTD 

were among the qualified internal applicants for SO positions, and none were selected.

For managers, the RAP was 1.41% PWTD though 0.00% of the qualified internal applicants 

were PWTD. The Agency did not identify an anomaly involving internal selections; no PWTD 

were among the qualified internal applicants for manager positions, and none were selected.

For supervisors, the RAP was 1.63%, though 0.00% of the qualified internal applicants were 

PWTD. The Agency did not identify an anomaly involving internal selections; no PWTD were 

among the qualified internal applicants for supervisor positions, and none were selected.

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 0 No X

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Yes X No 0

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Yes X No 0

Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described in section IV, Promotions, 1, the 

Agency presents information on trigger identification for PWD new hires into supervisory 

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 following question). Anomalies were found in FY 2017 new hire data for 

PWD at the manager and supervisor levels.

As described above (see Part E, Analysis of Workforce Profiles, Applicant Flow Data and 

Part J, Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring), 2, supra), the qualified applicant 

pool from Table B7 summarizes data where the applicant self-identified with a disability and 

was deemed 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 onboarded during the 

course of the fiscal year; some of whom applied for a vacancy posted prior to the start of the 

fiscal year. Differences may be observed in the demographic statistics of those selected versus 

those onboarded as new hires. Triggers comparing the composition of PWD and PWTD in 

applicant flow versus new hire data should be interpreted with these differences in mind.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 81

For executives, the qualified applicant pool was 0.00%, and none of the newly-hired 

permanent executives were PWD. No trigger was found.

For managers, the qualified applicant pool was 0.75%, and none of the newly-hired 

permanent managers were PWD, providing evidence of a variance.

For supervisors, the qualified applicant pool was 1.94%, and none of the newly-hired 

permanent supervisors were PWD. These data suggest the presence of a trigger.

8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) 

in the text box.

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Yes X No 0

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Differences were found in FY 2017 new hire data for PWTD at the manager level. No PWTD 

were selected as new hires for executive or supervisory positions in FY 2017.

For executives, no anomaly was found as the qualified applicant pool was 0.00%, and none 

of the newly-hired permanent executives were PWTD.

For managers, the qualified applicant pool was 0.37% PWTD, though none of the newlyhired permanent managers were PWTD.

For supervisors, the qualified applicant pool was 0.00% PWTD, and none of the newly-hired 

permanent supervisors were PWTD. Supervisor data do not suggest the presence of a trigger.
82 | 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))? If 

“no”, please explain why the agency did not convert all eligible Schedule A employees.

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

The SEC maintains discretion on conversions to a career or career-conditional appointment 

among employees on Schedule A appointments. As a general practice, those Schedule A 

employees who were not converted voluntarily accepted a new Schedule A appointment 

within the Agency.

Eight employees were converted to the competitive service under the Schedule A legal 

authority during FY 2017. Seven of those employees were converted within two years of 

entering on duty with the SEC. One employee was successfully converted to the competitive 

service during FY 2017 after serving multiple Schedule A appointments; this employee was 

converted within two years of being placed into the 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 2017 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).

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 83

For voluntary separations, the percentage of PWD exceeded that of persons without 

disabilities. The inclusion rate for PWD was 5.59%, and for people without disabilities, 

including those who did not self-identify, the inclusion rate was 4.47%.

For involuntary separations, the percentage of PWD exceeded that of persons without 

disabilities. The inclusion rate for PWD was 0.93%, and for people without disabilities, 

including those who did not self-identify, the inclusion rate was 0.07%.

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary and 

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger below.

a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0

b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Using data from Table B14 to calculate the inclusion rates for PWTD, the following was 

found in FY 2017 data. Inclusion rates were calculated as the number of PWTD who 

separated among all PWTD in the workforce, compared to that same proportion among 

persons with no disability (this group also includes those who did not self-identify as having a 

disability and those with a disability that is not targeted).

For voluntary separations, the percentage of PWTD exceeded that of persons without targeted 

disabilities. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 9.88%, and for people without targeted 

disabilities, it was 4.45%.

For involuntary separations, the percentage of PWTD exceeded that of persons without 

targeted disabilities. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 1.23%, and for people without 

targeted disabilities, the inclusion rate was 0.11%.

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.

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 91 employees who completed the Exit Survey in FY 2016, five self-identified as having 

a disability (5.49%). Among exiting employees who reported a disability in FY 2016, three 

reported that they were provided reasonable accommodation.

Continued on the next page
84 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

The Exit Survey continued in FY 2017. Through July 31 (Q3), 70 departing employees 

completed the Exit Survey, and four (5.71%) self-identified as having a disability. A smaller 

percentage of employees with disabilities completed the Exit Survey (5.71%) as compared to 

their participation among those who separated from the Agency (9.95%) and as compared to 

their total workforce participation at the end of the year (7.15%). Among exiting employees 

who reported a disability through Q3 of FY 2017, two reported that they were provided 

reasonable accommodation.

The small number and percentage 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.

In FY 2018, the Agency will compile information from the Exit Survey across years to support 

more general conclusions about why employees with disabilities left the SEC.

Accessibility of Technology and Facilities

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and employees 

of their rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b) concerning the 

accessibility of agency technology, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151–4157) 

concerning the accessibility of agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to inform individuals 

where to file complaints if other agencies are responsible for a violation.

1. Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining 

employees’ and applicants’ rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a 

description of how to file a complaint.

Information specific to the accessibility of Agency technology under Section 508 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 is posted on SEC.gov (sec.gov/disability/

sec_access.htm and sec.gov/accessibility/sec-accommodation-procedures.pdf).

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 at opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/disability-employment/selectiveplacement-program-coordinator-directory/.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 85

OHR has also built a separate page providing more in-depth information about hiring PWD 

(sec.gov/ohr/sec-disability-program-page.html). This page includes a link to an online form

(sec.gov/forms/ada4applicants#no-back) for requesting accommodations in the technologyenabled job application process and information on alternate methods for contacting the 

Disability Program at the SEC.

The SEC posts information on how to file an EEO complaint at sec.gov/eeoinfo/eeocomplaints.htm.

In line with the Agency’s plans for implementing the required and recommended elements 

of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Agency will update the SEC website with 

applicable procedures under Section 508 related to technology accessibility.

These 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.

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 workspace 

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 plans for implementing the required and 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.

Continued on the next page
86 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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. That plan was posted to the sec.gov website 

(technologyplan.sec.gov/). 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 also conduct a review assessing current policy and procedure related to 

accessibility of facilities as required by the Architectural Barriers Act during FY 2018.

Reasonable Accommodation Program

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and make 

available to all job applicants and employees, reasonable accommodation procedures.

1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable 

accommodations during the reporting period. (Please do not include previously approved requests 

with repetitive accommodations, such as interpreting services.)

The SEC has established a Reasonable Accommodation (RA) processing timeline of 20 

business days from the day of request to fulfillment, absent extenuating circumstances.

Excluding the provision of Adjustable Height Tables (AHTs), in FY 2017, 72% of initial 

requests for accommodation were processed within 20 business days.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 87

SEC is currently engaged in a system design of an automated electronic case management 

system for processing reasonable accommodation 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 2017 for capturing data related to processing reasonable accommodation requests. From 

those data, the time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodation 

during FY 2017 was 22.3 days. Requests for AHT were processed in 21.6 days. RA requests, 

excluding requests for AHT, were processed in 23 days.

2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the agency’s 

reasonable accommodation program. Some examples of an effective program include timely 

processing requests, timely providing approved accommodations, conducting training for 

managers and supervisors, and monitoring accommodation requests for trends.

The interactive portal, AskHR, on the Agency’s intranet described above 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 2016, 

the Disability Program Office developed and issued a new policy and standard operating 

procedures to clarify the process and guidelines for the Temporary Medical Telework (TMT) 

program. In FY 2017, the SEC processed 117 TMT requests, processed 244 RA requests, of 

which 106 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: Disability Accommodations, 

Reasonable Accommodation, Temporary Medical Telework, Telework, and Leave (i.e., 

annual/sick, advance leave, and FMLA, etc.). This information is also included in the New 

Employee Handbook and made available on the new AskHR portal.

Continued on the next page
88 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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. During the requirements gathering phase for the new system, 

opportunities were identified that could 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 

reasonable accommodation cases.

Going forward, 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 Agency’s policy on reasonable accommodation is currently undergoing final 

review for approval following OHR’s standard policy development procedures. During FY 

2018, the Agency will review the electronic case management system’s business requirements, 

the new policy, and related procedural changes that support reasonable accommodation for 

employees and applicants for employment. This review will address coverage of required and 

recommended elements defined under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 

2017. Changes to reasonable accommodation procedures will likely necessitate updates to 

training, job aids, notices, and other information sources in FY 2019 and beyond.

Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate 

in the Workplace

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action, are 

required to provide personal assistance services (PAS) to employees who need them because of a 

targeted disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the Agency.

1. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS 

requirement. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests for 

PAS, timely providing approved services, conducting training for managers and supervisors, 

and monitoring PAS requests for trends.

The Disability Program Office recently updated the reasonable accommodation policy to 

include requests for PAS. The policy is in OHR’s internal review process and will be sent to 

EEOC for final review thereafter. In the interim, the Agency entered into a contract to support 

employees needing PAS. The Agency currently has one employee using PAS. OHR proactively 

reached out to this employee and shared the recent EEOC regulations on PAS earlier in FY 

2017. OHR is developing communications to share with employees and managers regarding 

the availability of PAS for those in need.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 89

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 X No 0 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.

The Agency did not have any findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on 

disability status.

EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging 

failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable 

accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a 

reasonable accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken 

by the agency.

The Agency did not have any findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a 

reasonable accommodation.
90 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

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 X No 0 N/A 0

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 is a lower-than-expected participation rate of Persons with Targeted Disabilities in the total workforce 

and in promotions to higher level positions. The participation rate of PWTD in the SEC’s workforce was less 

than 1% in FY 2014 based on the then-current Standard Form 256 (SF-256) Self Identification of Disability. 

Participation has increased based on the revised categories reflected in the new October 2016 version of the 

SF-256 to 1.84% in FY 2017.

Barrier(s)

No barrier has yet been identified, pending further analysis.

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:

• 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;

• Consistency and structure in the posting, screening, and interview processes for selection;

• Awareness on the part of hiring managers and subject matter experts or others involved in recruitment 

and selection about the requirements for and flexibilities available under government-wide programs 

supporting PWD and the affirmative action plan for PWTD; and

• Employment programs, especially reasonable accommodation and disability programs, supportive of 

PWD and PWTD.

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 this barrier analysis focused on persons 

with targeted disabilities. Going forward, as the Agency prepares for implementation of the revised 

regulation in FY 2018, OEEO will leverage or expand this prior work to include the population of persons 

with disabilities in the workforce.

The objective of these efforts will be to continue to implement action plans developed to address PWTD and 

expand those plans in line with revised regulation. Additional action will focus on:

• Analysis of quantitative data and 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.
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 91

Responsible Official(s) Performance Standards Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Lacey Dingman, Chief Human Capital Officer, OHR

Peter Henry, Acting Director, OEEO Yes

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

Yes No

Sources of Data

Sources 

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes Analyzed applicable workforce demographic data from 

FY 2011 – FY 2015.

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes Reviewed complaints filed by PWTD during 

FY 2013 – FY 2016 for any trends.

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 Reviewed Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results 

from FY 2013 through FY 2015 to compare responses from 

persons with disabilities to those with no disability.

Exit Interview Data Yes Reviewed Exit Survey data from FY 2016 and 

FY 2017 provided by persons with disabilities.

Focus Groups No

Interviews Yes Interviewed 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 Reviewed 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 Researched and reviewed the law and federally mandated 

hiring and promotions policies, practices, and procedures 

applicable to recruitment and retention of PWTD;

Reviewed the Agency’s hiring and promotions policies, 

practices, and procedures applicable to people with 

disabilities, including PWTD;

Reviewed the efficiency and effectiveness of the SEC’s 

reasonable accommodation program; and

Reviewed selection case files (hiring and promotions) for the 

second half of FY 2014 and the first half of FY 2015.
92 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

11/30/2017 OEEO will conduct a Workplace Experience 

Survey of the Agency workforce to explore 

employee perceptions among the population 

of PWD and PWTD as well as those without 

disabilities on, among other topics, the 

recruitment, hiring, promotion, recognition, and 

retention of talent.

Yes

01/31/2018 The Agency will establish a cross-functional 

working group with representatives from 

OEEO and OHR to develop action plans 

and implement required and recommended 

activity under Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Yes

02/28/2019 OEEO will implement feasible changes to the 

workforce data tables providing information on 

PWD and PWTD in collaboration with a shared 

service provider. 

Yes

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2017 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 (Q)2 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%).
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 93

2017 continued 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. 

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%).

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 resurveyed the SEC workforce to determine if there was a change in the disability status of employees.

OHR completed, and has continued to focus on, 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 its targeted recruitment strategy and performance metrics to measure the 

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.

OEEO considered launching a Workplace Experience survey in the summer of 2017. To 

avoid interfering with an OHR survey focused on career development of employees currently 

holding SK-15, SK-16, and SK-17 levels into higher level leadership ranks, the OEEO 

Workplace Experience survey was rescheduled for October and early November of 2017.
94 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

5. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those activities 

toward eliminating the barrier(s).

Representatives of OEEO and OHR agreed to take action toward enhancing equal 

employment opportunity for PWTD and proposed 15 actions to address recommendations 

from the study of PWTD.

As of September 30, 2017, 12 of those actions have been closed or completed, one was 

transitioned to an ongoing monitoring status, and two are under review pending some action 

or decision.

The actions toward improvement related to:

n Embracing best practices suggested by OPM and EEOC on recruiting, hiring, retaining, 

and promoting PWD and PWTD;

n Adding structure to programs for the hiring, development, advancement, and retention 

of PWD and PWTD, including programs focused on training persons with no disability 

toward greater inclusion of PWTD;

n Issuing, communicating, and training those directly involved in the hiring or promotions 

process on the policy memorandum entitled: Requirements for Screening and Interviewing Job 

Candidates (PM-2016-001) to include the requirement of documenting decisions made at all 

phases of the selection process;

n Expanding and leveraging relations with external affinity groups and with DIAC to 

support strategic relationships with professional organizations focused on individuals 

with disabilities;

n Proactively developing and implementing strategies with and through DIAC to retain 

employees who are PWTD;

n Developing communications and hosting events focused on PWTD to highlight successes 

from that population;

n Improving tracking and analysis of complaints and other relevant data for PWTD; and

n Formalizing the responsibilities of a Selective Placement Program Manager within OHR 

to focus on employment programs and initiatives for PWTD.

Continued on the next page
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 95

Because of the relatively small size of the PWTD population, 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 over the five years ending in FY 2017:

n Over the five year period from FY 2013 through FY 2017, the permanent workforce 

of PWTD experienced net growth of 9 persons or 12.50%, which approximates the 

13.08% net growth in the total permanent workforce over that same time period. The 

participation rate of permanent PWTD employees in the SEC’s workforce remained 

virtually unchanged over this period (a decline of .01% points), and the participation rate 

of PWTD SK-11 and higher declined .15% points to 1.56%.

n Over the five year period from FY 2013 through FY 2017, the permanent workforce 

of PWD experienced net growth of 118 persons or 57.84%. The participation rate of 

permanent PWD employees in the SEC’s workforce grew at a rate of 22.65% to 7.15%, 

and the participation rate of PWD SK-11 and higher increased 1.69% points (a growth 

rate of 19.96% or nearly 20%) to 6.63% over this five year period.

The SEC 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. Please note, data from SF-256 collected prior to October 2016 were 

recharacterized against the definitions found in the revised form in order to estimate the 

five year trends. As such, the numbers of employees who are reported in this trend analysis 

as PWTD and/or PWD in prior years may underestimate the workforce due 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, as reflected above, continue to require focused 

attention toward improvement. Starting in FY 2016 and through FY 2017, representatives of 

OEEO and OHR initiated and completed actions intended to address the recommendations 

to improve equal employment opportunity. These actions will continue into FY 2018.

In the interim, the EEOC issued revised guidance and regulation focused on PWD and PWTD 

in the federal workforce. Changes to regulation require and recommend additional affirmative 

action on the part of agencies regarding the recruitment, hiring, development, advancement, 

recognition, and retention of PWD and PWTD.

The Agency will be implementing additional required and recommended actions during FY 

2018 and beyond.
This page intentionally left blank
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 97

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY POLICY

JAY CLAYTON

DATE

November 14, 2017

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, 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, Conflict2Resolution (C2R), when the use of C2R 

is approved by the EEO 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 webpage on The INSIDER provides additional information.

Thank you for your continued efforts to make the promise of equal employment opportunity a reality.

Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
98 | 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, 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 becomes severe or pervasive 

or otherwise rises to the level of illegal harassment. EEO-based 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 webpage on The INSIDER. 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.

OEEO’s Responsibility

OEEO, in coordination with management and/or the Office of Human Resources, 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 its 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 and he/she 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 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)

November 14, 2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 99

FISCAL YEAR 2017 462 REPORT

The SEC previously submitted the FY 2017 462 Report to the EEOC.
100 | 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 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 Strategic Initiatives

n Support Operations
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 101

SEC ORGANIZATION CHART
102 | 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 2017 | 103

WORKFORCE DATA TABLES8

(FOOTNOTES)

8 Note: As per EEOC instruction dated 12/06/2017, which reads in part: “The new targeted disability columns 

[from the October 2016 version of SF 256] will not be included in the workforce data tables for the FY 2017 

MD-715 report ... so the sum of the types of targeted disabilities (columns H – P) will not need to equal the 

Targeted Disability column (column G).” As such, the total count of PWTD in this report does not match the 

detail counts in the uploaded workforce data tables for the FY 2017 report. Please contact OEEO with any 

questions regarding the actions taken as a result of this change.
104 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PAY PERIOD 201621 TO 201721 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 # 4685 2537 2148 133 115 1868 1217 230 517 288 275 1 4 13 6 4 14 % 100% 54.15% 45.85% 2.84% 2.45% 39.87% 25.98% 4.91% 11.04% 6.15% 5.87% 0.02% 0.09% 0.28% 0.13% 0.09% 0.30% Current 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% 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 # -86 -52 -34 4 3 -39 -25 -12 -20 -4 5 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 5 Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.12% 0.12% 0.14% 0.12% -0.10% -0.06% -0.17% -0.23% 0.03% 0.22% -0.02% -0.02% 0.02% -0.02% -0.02% 0.11%

Net Change % -1.84% -2.05% -1.58% 3.01% 2.61% -2.09% -2.05% -5.22% -3.87% -1.39% 1.82% -100% -25.00% 7.69% -16.67% -25.00% 35.71%PermanentPrior FY

# 4582 2473 2109 132 111 1829 1199 222 512 272 266 1 2 13 6 4 13% 100% 53.97% 46.03% 2.88% 2.42% 39.92% 26.17% 4.85% 11.17% 5.94% 5.81% 0.02% 0.04% 0.28% 0.13% 0.09% 0.28%

Current 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%

Difference # -78 -46 -32 4 3 -40 -27 -7 -18 -2 6 -1 0 1 -1 -1 5Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.08% 0.09% 0.14% 0.11% -0.20% -0.15% -0.07% -0.21% 0.06% 0.23% -0.02% 0.00% 0.03% -0.02% -0.02% 0.12%Net Change % -1.70% -1.86% -1.52% 3.03% 2.70% -2.19% -2.25% -3.15% -3.52% -0.74% 2.26% -100% 0.00% 7.69% -16.67% -25.00% 38.46%TemporaryPrior FY

# 103 64 39 1 4 39 18 8 5 16 9 0 2 0 0 0 1% 100% 62.14% 37.86% 0.97% 3.88% 37.86% 17.48% 7.77% 4.85% 15.53% 8.74% 0.00% 1.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.97%

Current 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%

Difference # -8 -6 -2 0 0 1 2 -5 -2 -2 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0Ratio Change % 0.00% -1.09% 1.08% 0.08% 0.33% 4.24% 3.58% -4.61% -1.70% -0.80% -0.32% 0.00% -0.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08%Net Change % -7.77% -9.38% -5.13% 0.00% 0.00% 2.56% 11.11% -62.50% -40.00% -12.50% -11.11% 0.00% -50.00% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 105

TABLE A2: REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIVISIONS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721

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

# 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%

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

# 2873 1503 1370 71 62 1083 735 157 389 179 166 0 2 10 3 3 13% 100% 52.31% 47.69% 2.47% 2.16% 37.70% 25.58% 5.46% 13.54% 6.23% 5.78% 0.00% 0.07% 0.35% 0.10% 0.10% 0.45%

NYRO

# 391 217 174 12 14 170 106 7 27 27 25 0 0 1 0 0 2% 100% 55.50% 44.50% 3.07% 3.58% 43.48% 27.11% 1.79% 6.91% 6.91% 6.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51%

CHRO

# 233 143 90 5 5 124 53 7 23 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 61.37% 38.63% 2.15% 2.15% 53.22% 22.75% 3.00% 9.87% 3.00% 3.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

LARO

# 163 84 79 9 7 48 39 4 13 23 20 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 51.53% 48.47% 5.52% 4.29% 29.45% 23.93% 2.45% 7.98% 14.11% 12.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

BRO

# 148 82 66 2 1 68 49 5 4 7 12 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 55.41% 44.59% 1.35% 0.68% 45.95% 33.11% 3.38% 2.70% 4.73% 8.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

PLRO

# 128 74 54 3 3 56 40 9 7 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 57.81% 42.19% 2.34% 2.34% 43.75% 31.25% 7.03% 5.47% 4.69% 3.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

FWRO

# 118 67 51 4 3 53 42 7 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 56.78% 43.22% 3.39% 2.54% 44.92% 35.59% 5.93% 3.39% 2.54% 0.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85%

SFRO

# 125 62 63 5 2 41 30 2 5 13 23 0 0 1 1 0 2% 100% 49.60% 50.40% 4.00% 1.60% 32.80% 24.00% 1.60% 4.00% 10.40% 18.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.80% 0.80% 0.00% 1.60%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
106 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A2: REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIVISIONS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721 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 # 100 63 37 4 1 46 19 12 15 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100% 63.00% 37.00% 4.00% 1.00% 46.00% 19.00% 12.00% 15.00% 1.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00%

MIRO # 104 65 39 21 12 39 14 3 7 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 62.50% 37.50% 20.19% 11.54% 37.50% 13.46% 2.88% 6.73% 1.92% 5.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

DRO # 104 59 45 0 3 55 39 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0

% 100% 56.73% 43.27% 0.00% 2.88% 52.88% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 1.92% 2.88% 0.00% 0.00% 1.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SLRO # 17 8 9 0 1 6 6 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 47.06% 52.94% 0.00% 5.88% 35.29% 35.29% 11.76% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 107

TABLE A3-1: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721

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 ManagersExecutive/ Senior Level

# 140 83 57 3 0 74 48 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 59.29% 40.71% 2.14% 0.00% 52.86% 34.29% 2.14% 2.86% 2.14% 2.86% 0.00% 0.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Mid-Level

# 392 241 151 13 3 201 111 11 18 15 17 0 0 1 0 0 2% 100% 61.48% 38.52% 3.32% 0.77% 51.28% 28.32% 2.81% 4.59% 3.83% 4.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51%

First-Level

# 357 230 127 16 6 166 73 16 30 30 18 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 64.43% 35.57% 4.48% 1.68% 46.50% 20.45% 4.48% 8.40% 8.40% 5.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other

# 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%

Officials and Managers—TOTAL

# 894 557 337 32 9 443 234 30 52 49 39 0 1 3 0 0 2% 100% 62.30% 37.70% 3.58% 1.01% 49.55% 26.17% 3.36% 5.82% 5.48% 4.36% 0.00% 0.11% 0.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.22%

Professionals— Program Work

# 2792 1600 1192 88 65 1197 766 116 147 188 199 0 1 8 4 3 10% 100% 57.31% 42.69% 3.15% 2.33% 42.87% 27.44% 4.15% 5.27% 6.73% 7.13% 0.00% 0.04% 0.29% 0.14% 0.11% 0.36%

Professionals—Business/ Financial Administration

# 707 245 462 14 35 141 156 55 233 32 31 0 0 3 1 0 6%

100% 34.65% 65.35% 1.98% 4.95% 19.94% 22.07% 7.78% 32.96% 4.53% 4.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.42% 0.14% 0.00% 0.85%

Administrative Support Workers

# 111 25 86 2 5 8 16 14 62 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 22.52% 77.48% 1.80% 4.50% 7.21% 14.41% 12.61% 55.86% 0.90% 2.70% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
108 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A3-2: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721 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 Executive/ Senior Level # 140 83 57 3 0 74 48 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 % 3.11% 3.42% 2.74% 2.21% 0.00% 4.14% 4.10% 1.40% 0.81% 1.11% 1.47% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mid-Level # 392 241 151 13 3 201 111 11 18 15 17 0 0 1 0 0 2 % 8.70% 9.93% 7.27% 9.56% 2.63% 11.24% 9.47% 5.12% 3.64% 5.56% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% First-Level # 357 230 127 16 6 166 73 16 30 30 18 0 0 2 0 0 0 % 7.93% 9.48% 6.11% 11.76% 5.26% 9.28% 6.23% 7.44% 6.07% 11.11% 6.62% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other

# 5 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.11% 0.12% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Officials and Managers— TOTAL

# 894 557 337 32 9 443 234 30 52 49 39 0 1 3 0 0 2% 19.85% 22.95% 16.23% 23.53% 7.89% 24.76% 19.97% 13.95% 10.53% 18.15% 14.34% 0.00% 50.00% 21.43% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11%

Professionals—Program Work

# 2792 1600 1192 88 65 1197 766 116 147 188 199 0 1 8 4 3 10% 61.99% 65.93% 57.39% 64.71% 57.02% 66.91% 65.36% 53.95% 29.76% 69.63% 73.16% 0.00% 50.00% 57.14% 80.00% 100% 55.56%

Professionals— Business/ Financial Administration

# 707 245 462 14 35 141 156 55 233 32 31 0 0 3 1 0 6% 15.70% 10.09% 22.24% 10.29% 30.70% 7.88% 13.31% 25.58% 47.17% 11.85% 11.40% 0.00% 0.00% 21.43% 20.00% 0.00% 33.33%

Administrative Support Workers

# 111 25 86 2 5 8 16 14 62 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 2.46% 1.03% 4.14% 1.47% 4.39% 0.45% 1.37% 6.51% 12.55% 0.37% 1.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTALEmployees

# 4504 2427 2077 136 114 1789 1172 215 494 270 272 0 2 14 5 3 18% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 109

TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT EMPLOYEES—PAY PERIOD 201721

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

# 5 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-05

# 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-06

# 8 3 5 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 37.50% 62.50% 12.50% 0.00% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-07

# 56 10 46 1 4 4 10 5 29 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 17.86% 82.14% 1.79% 7.14% 7.14% 17.86% 8.93% 51.79% 0.00% 5.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-08

# 23 1 22 0 1 0 2 1 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 4.35% 95.65% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 8.70% 4.35% 78.26% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-09

# 52 9 43 0 4 3 6 6 29 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2% 100% 17.31% 82.69% 0.00% 7.69% 5.77% 11.54% 11.54% 55.77% 0.00% 3.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.85%

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

# 134 34 100 8 11 16 29 8 51 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0% 100% 25.37% 74.63% 5.97% 8.21% 11.94% 21.64% 5.97% 38.06% 0.75% 6.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00%

SK-12

# 262 96 166 3 8 58 62 24 74 10 18 0 0 1 1 0 3% 100% 36.64% 63.36% 1.15% 3.05% 22.14% 23.66% 9.16% 28.24% 3.82% 6.87% 0.00% 0.00% 0.38% 0.38% 0.00% 1.15%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
110 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT 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 # 436 223 213 17 10 129 90 37 89 35 24 0 0 4 0 1 0

% 100% 51.15% 48.85% 3.90% 2.29% 29.59% 20.64% 8.49% 20.41% 8.03% 5.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.92% 0.00% 0.23% 0.00%

SK-14 # 2124 1174 950 63 61 875 594 88 130 143 154 0 0 4 2 1 9

% 100% 55.27% 44.73% 2.97% 2.87% 41.20% 27.97% 4.14% 6.12% 6.73% 7.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.09% 0.05% 0.42%

SK-15 # 367 245 122 17 5 180 74 16 27 30 16 0 0 2 0 0 0

% 100% 66.76% 33.24% 4.63% 1.36% 49.05% 20.16% 4.36% 7.36% 8.17% 4.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16 # 494 299 195 10 6 243 143 13 17 31 24 0 1 2 2 0 2

% 100% 60.53% 39.47% 2.02% 1.21% 49.19% 28.95% 2.63% 3.44% 6.28% 4.86% 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.40% 0.00% 0.40%

SK-17 # 394 243 151 13 3 203 111 11 18 15 17 0 0 1 0 0 2

% 100% 61.68% 38.32% 3.30% 0.76% 51.52% 28.17% 2.79% 4.57% 3.81% 4.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51%

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 # 140 83 57 3 0 74 48 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0

% 100% 59.29% 40.71% 2.14% 0.00% 52.86% 34.29% 2.14% 2.86% 2.14% 2.86% 0.00% 0.71% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 111

TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXTEMPORARY EMPLOYEES—PAY PERIOD 201721

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

# 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-03

# 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-04

# 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-05

# 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%

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

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33%

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

# 6 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 4 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
112 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-1: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX TEMPORARY 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 # 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-14 # 27 17 10 0 0 8 6 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 62.96% 37.04% 0.00% 0.00% 29.63% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 14.81% 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 # 32 22 10 0 1 20 6 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

% 100% 68.75% 31.25% 0.00% 3.13% 62.50% 18.75% 0.00% 0.00% 6.25% 6.25% 0.00% 3.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer # 12 10 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 83.33% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 113

TABLE A4-2: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721

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

# 5 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.11% 0.12% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.47% 0.40% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-05

# 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.07% 0.04% 0.10% 0.00% 0.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.47% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-06

# 8 3 5 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.18% 0.12% 0.24% 0.74% 0.00% 0.06% 0.09% 0.47% 0.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-07

# 56 10 46 1 4 4 10 5 29 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.24% 0.41% 2.21% 0.74% 3.51% 0.22% 0.85% 2.33% 5.87% 0.00% 1.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-08

# 23 1 22 0 1 0 2 1 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0.51% 0.04% 1.06% 0.00% 0.88% 0.00% 0.17% 0.47% 3.64% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-09

# 52 9 43 0 4 3 6 6 29 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2% 1.15% 0.37% 2.07% 0.00% 3.51% 0.17% 0.51% 2.79% 5.87% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11%

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% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 134 34 100 8 11 16 29 8 51 1 9 0 0 0 0 1 0% 2.98% 1.40% 4.81% 5.88% 9.65% 0.89% 2.47% 3.72% 10.32% 0.37% 3.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00%

SK-12

# 262 96 166 3 8 58 62 24 74 10 18 0 0 1 1 0 3% 5.82% 3.96% 7.99% 2.21% 7.02% 3.24% 5.29% 11.16% 14.98% 3.70% 6.62% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 20.00% 0.00% 16.67%

SK-13

# 436 223 213 17 10 129 90 37 89 35 24 0 0 4 0 1 0% 9.68% 9.19% 10.26% 12.50% 8.77% 7.21% 7.68% 17.21% 18.02% 12.96% 8.82% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 33.33% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
114 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-2: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—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-14 # 2124 1174 950 63 61 875 594 88 130 143 154 0 0 4 2 1 9

% 47.16% 48.37% 45.74% 46.32% 53.51% 48.91% 50.68% 40.93% 26.32% 52.96% 56.62% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 40.00% 33.33% 50.00%

SK-15 # 367 245 122 17 5 180 74 16 27 30 16 0 0 2 0 0 0

% 8.15% 10.09% 5.87% 12.50% 4.39% 10.06% 6.31% 7.44% 5.47% 11.11% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-16 # 494 299 195 10 6 243 143 13 17 31 24 0 1 2 2 0 2

% 10.97% 12.32% 9.39% 7.35% 5.26% 13.58% 12.20% 6.05% 3.44% 11.48% 8.82% 0.00% 50.00% 14.29% 40.00% 0.00% 11.11%

SK-17 # 394 243 151 13 3 203 111 11 18 15 17 0 0 1 0 0 2

% 8.75% 10.01% 7.27% 9.56% 2.63% 11.35% 9.47% 5.12% 3.64% 5.56% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11%

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% 0.12% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer # 140 83 57 3 0 74 48 3 4 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0

% 3.11% 3.42% 2.74% 2.21% 0.00% 4.14% 4.10% 1.40% 0.81% 1.11% 1.47% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL # 4504 2427 2077 136 114 1789 1172 215 494 270 272 0 2 14 5 3 18

% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 115

TABLE A4-2: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721

SK, SO, AND RELATED GRADES

TOTAL EMPLOYEES

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non-Hispanic or Latino

White

Black or African

American Asian

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

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.05% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-03

# 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.05% 1.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 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 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 2.11% 1.72% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-05

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1.05% 1.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 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

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% 3.16% 0.00% 8.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100%

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% 1.05% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 25.00% 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% 1.05% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-11

# 6 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 6.32% 5.17% 8.11% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-12

# 4 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 4.21% 1.72% 8.11% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-13

# 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 2.11% 0.00% 5.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
116 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A4-2: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—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 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-14 # 27 17 10 0 0 8 6 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 28.42% 29.31% 27.03% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 64.29% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-15 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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 # 32 22 10 0 1 20 6 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

% 33.68% 37.93% 27.03% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 25.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

SK-17 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

All Other(Non-SK, Non-SO)

# 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 2.11% 3.45% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Senior Officer # 12 10 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 12.63% 17.24% 5.41% 0.00% 0.00% 22.50% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL # 95 58 37 1 4 40 20 3 3 14 8 0 1 0 0 0 1

% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 117

TABLE A6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721

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

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%0510 Accountant

# 898 508 390 28 26 398 244 33 47 47 68 0 0 2 1 0 4% 100% 56.57% 43.43% 3.12% 2.90% 44.32% 27.17% 3.67% 5.23% 5.23% 7.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.22% 0.11% 0.00% 0.45%

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%0905 General Attorney

# 1923 1067 856 44 35 879 618 56 78 85 117 0 1 3 3 0 4% 100% 55.49% 44.51% 2.29% 1.82% 45.71% 32.14% 2.91% 4.06% 4.42% 6.08% 0.00% 0.05% 0.16% 0.16% 0.00% 0.21%

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%1831 Securities Compliance Examining

# 331 220 111 19 2 157 62 11 18 32 27 0 0 0 0 1 2% 100% 66.47% 33.53% 5.74% 0.60% 47.43% 18.73% 3.32% 5.44% 9.67% 8.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.60%

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

# 298 220 78 20 3 102 27 32 35 60 13 0 0 4 0 2 0% 100% 73.83% 26.17% 6.71% 1.01% 34.23% 9.06% 10.74% 11.74% 20.13% 4.36% 0.00% 0.00% 1.34% 0.00% 0.67% 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%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
118 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX TEMPORARY WORKFORCE—PAY PERIOD 201721 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 0110 Economist # 16 10 6 1 0 3 2 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 62.50% 37.50% 6.25% 0.00% 18.75% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 37.50% 25.00% 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%0510 Accountant # 17 9 8 0 1 8 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 52.94% 47.06% 0.00% 5.88% 47.06% 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%0905 General Attorney # 19 14 5 0 1 13 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 73.68% 26.32% 0.00% 5.26% 68.42% 15.79% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 5.26% 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%1831 Securities Compliance Examining

# 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 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%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 119

TABLE A7: APPLICANT FLOW DATA FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXCLOSING DATES IN FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017)

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 2017 Applicant Flow Data, one economist application was marked as selected.2TOTAL Received # 12Voluntarily Identified

# 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 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%

Selected of Those Identified

# 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% 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%General Attorney (0905): In FY 2017 Applicant Flow Data, 22 attorney applications were marked as selected.TOTAL Received # 1979Voluntarily Identified

# 1225 752 473 73 58 516 289 100 64 55 51 0 3 0 7 8 1% 100% 61.39% 38.61% 5.96% 4.73% 42.12% 23.59% 8.16% 5.22% 4.49% 4.16% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.57% 0.65% 0.08%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 610 375 235 26 18 281 170 31 19 35 26 0 0 0 1 2 1% 100% 61.48% 38.52% 4.26% 2.95% 46.07% 27.87% 5.08% 3.11% 5.74% 4.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 0.33% 0.16%

Selected of Those Identified

# 17 11 6 1 0 7 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 64.71% 35.29% 5.88% 0.00% 41.18% 29.41% 0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 5.88% 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%

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 9/30/2017 (i.e., between 10/1/2016 and 09/30/2017).2 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2017, 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 Analytic File X for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
120 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A7: APPLICANT FLOW DATA FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX CLOSING DATES IN FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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 Accounting (0510): In FY 2017 Applicant Flow Data, 7 accountant applications were marked as selected.2 TOTAL Received # 578 Voluntarily Identified # 349 177 172 24 11 59 31 68 87 22 39 0 0 4 0 0 4 % 100% 50.72% 49.28% 6.88% 3.15% 16.91% 8.88% 19.48% 24.93% 6.30% 11.17% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% 0.00% 0.00% 1.15% Qualified of Those Identified # 206 101 105 19 8 34 23 36 50 10 20 0 0 2 0 0 4 % 100% 49.03% 50.97% 9.22% 3.88% 16.50% 11.17% 17.48% 24.27% 4.85% 9.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00% 0.00% 1.94% Selected of Those Identified # 7 3 4 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 % 100% 42.86% 57.14% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 28.57% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 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%

Securities Compliance Examining (1831): In FY 2017 Applicant Flow Data, 10 examiner applications were marked as selected.TOTAL Received # 161

Voluntarily Identified

# 111 76 35 4 7 48 10 12 3 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 68.47% 31.53% 3.60% 6.31% 43.24% 9.01% 10.81% 2.70% 10.81% 13.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of Those Identified

# 47 30 17 3 5 20 7 1 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 63.83% 36.17% 6.38% 10.64% 42.55% 14.89% 2.13% 2.13% 12.77% 8.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of Those Identified

# 8 6 2 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 12.50% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 12.50% 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%

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 9/30/2017 (i.e., between 10/1/2016 and 09/30/2017).2 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2017, 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 Analytic File X for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 121

TABLE A7: APPLICANT FLOW DATA FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXCLOSING DATES IN FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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

Information Technology Management (2210): In FY 2017 Applicant Flow Data, 0 information technology management applications were marked as selected.Total Received # 0

Voluntarily Identified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified of ThoseIdentified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of ThoseIdentified

# 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%

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 9/30/2017 (i.e., between 10/1/2016 and 09/30/2017).2 Selected in this reference reflects all candidates who were marked as selected for a vacancy that closed during the fiscal year ending on 9/30/2017, 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 Analytic File X for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
122 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A8: NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT–DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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 # 132 79 53 5 4 56 30 5 5 11 13 0 0 2 0 0 1

% 100% 59.85% 40.15% 3.79% 3.03% 42.42% 22.73% 3.79% 3.79% 8.33% 9.85% 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.76%

Temporary # 34 21 13 1 1 16 9 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 61.76% 38.24% 2.94% 2.94% 47.06% 26.47% 0.00% 5.88% 11.76% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL New Hires # 166 100 66 6 5 72 39 5 7 15 14 0 0 2 0 0 1

% 100% 60.24% 39.76% 3.61% 3.01% 43.37% 23.49% 3.01% 4.22% 9.04% 8.43% 0.00% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60%

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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 123

TABLE A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXFY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017)

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 ApplicationsReceived

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 70.41% 29.59% 2.04% 3.06% 46.94% 14.29% 4.08% 0.00% 15.31% 12.24% 0.00% 0.00% 2.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Job Series of Vacancy: General Attorney (0905)TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 304 212 92 6 4 188 64 7 14 8 8 0 0 3 0 0 2% 100% 69.74% 30.26% 1.97% 1.32% 61.84% 21.05% 2.30% 4.61% 2.63% 2.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.66%

Qualified

# 277 193 84 5 3 172 58 6 13 7 8 0 0 3 0 0 2% 100% 69.68% 30.32% 1.81% 1.08% 62.09% 20.94% 2.17% 4.69% 2.53% 2.89% 0.00% 0.00% 1.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.72%

Selected

# 24 15 9 2 0 10 7 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 62.50% 37.50% 8.33% 0.00% 41.67% 29.17% 0.00% 4.17% 12.50% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 55.51% 44.49% 2.31% 2.14% 44.95% 31.56% 3.29% 3.98% 4.62% 6.35% 0.00% 0.06% 0.23% 0.17% 0.12% 0.23%

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: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File X for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
124 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 

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: Accounting (0510)TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 23 17 6 3 1 11 3 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 73.91% 26.09% 13.04% 4.35% 47.83% 13.04% 8.70% 0.00% 4.35% 8.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 18 12 6 2 1 7 3 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 11.11% 5.56% 38.89% 16.67% 11.11% 0.00% 5.56% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 7 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 71.43% 28.57% 14.29% 0.00% 57.14% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 55.26% 44.74% 2.99% 3.10% 42.86% 28.24% 3.54% 5.54% 5.76% 7.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.11% 0.00% 0.44%

Job Series of Vacancy: Securities Compliance Examining (1831)TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 52 35 17 5 4 20 8 4 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 67.31% 32.69% 9.62% 7.69% 38.46% 15.38% 7.69% 5.77% 11.54% 3.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified # 39 26 13 3 4 18 5 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 7.69% 10.26% 46.15% 12.82% 7.69% 5.13% 5.13% 5.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected # 9 6 3 1 0 4 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 11.11% 0.00% 44.44% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 62.72% 37.28% 5.49% 0.58% 43.35% 18.50% 3.76% 10.12% 9.83% 7.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.29%

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: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File X for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 125

TABLE A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXFY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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: Information Technology Management (2210)TOTAL Applications

Received

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 74.75% 25.25% 6.89% 0.98% 32.79% 8.85% 11.48% 10.49% 21.64% 4.92% 0.00% 0.00% 1.31% 0.00% 0.66% 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: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File X for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
126 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A10: NON-COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS—TIME IN GRADE—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PAY PERIOD 201721 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

# 358 187 171 15 10 130 85 18 47 23 28 0 0 0 0 1 1% 100% 52.23% 47.77% 4.19% 2.79% 36.31% 23.74% 5.03% 13.13% 6.42% 7.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 0.28%

Time in grade in excess of minimum1 – 12 months # 12 5 7 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 41.67% 58.33% 0.00% 8.33% 25.00% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

13 – 24 months # 11 6 5 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 54.55% 45.45% 0.00% 0.00% 36.36% 27.27% 9.09% 18.18% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

25+ months # 4 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 127

TABLE A11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS (SK-13 THROUGH SK-17 AND SO-01) BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXFY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017)

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-13TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 6 3 3 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 4 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool1 % 100% 36.43% 63.57% 1.37% 3.44% 21.31% 23.71% 9.62% 28.18% 3.78% 6.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.34% 0.34% 0.00% 1.37%Grade of Vacancy: SK-14TOTAL ApplicationsReceived

# 49 33 16 2 1 24 10 2 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 67.35% 32.65% 4.08% 2.04% 48.98% 20.41% 4.08% 8.16% 10.20% 2.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 32 22 10 1 0 18 5 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 68.75% 31.25% 3.13% 0.00% 56.25% 15.63% 3.13% 12.50% 6.25% 3.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 7 6 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 85.71% 14.29% 14.29% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 100% 50.74% 49.26% 3.82% 2.34% 29.72% 20.38% 8.28% 20.38% 7.64% 5.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 0.21% 0.42% 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.Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
128 | 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 FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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-16 TOTAL Applications Received # 79 50 29 2 3 38 17 4 2 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 % 100% 63.29% 36.71% 2.53% 3.80% 48.10% 21.52% 5.06% 2.53% 6.33% 6.33% 0.00% 0.00% 1.27% 0.00% 0.00% 2.53% Qualified # 72 45 27 1 3 35 16 4 1 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 % 100% 62.50% 37.50% 1.39% 4.17% 48.61% 22.22% 5.56% 1.39% 5.56% 6.94% 0.00% 0.00% 1.39% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% Selected # 9 5 4 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 55.56% 44.44% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 11.11% 0.00% 11.11% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 100% 56.81% 43.19% 3.17% 2.55% 42.01% 27.39% 4.17% 6.13% 7.16% 6.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.07% 0.04% 0.33%Grades of Vacancies: SK-15 & SK-17TOTAL Applications Received

# 210 154 56 8 4 132 39 7 8 5 5 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 73.33% 26.67% 3.81% 1.90% 62.86% 18.57% 3.33% 3.81% 2.38% 2.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 192 139 53 6 4 121 37 6 7 4 5 0 0 2 0 0 0% 100% 72.40% 27.60% 3.13% 2.08% 63.02% 19.27% 3.13% 3.65% 2.08% 2.60% 0.00% 0.00% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 21 15 6 3 0 11 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 71.43% 28.57% 14.29% 0.00% 52.38% 23.81% 0.00% 4.76% 4.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 100% 57.75% 42.25% 2.98% 2.31% 43.38% 27.52% 3.92% 5.59% 7.14% 6.32% 0.00% 0.06% 0.27% 0.12% 0.06% 0.33%Grade of Vacancy: SO-01TOTAL Applications Received

# 35 24 11 1 1 23 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 68.57% 31.43% 2.86% 2.86% 65.71% 22.86% 0.00% 2.86% 0.00% 2.86% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Qualified

# 34 23 11 1 1 22 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 67.65% 32.35% 2.94% 2.94% 64.71% 23.53% 0.00% 2.94% 0.00% 2.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

# 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 100% 58.12% 41.88% 2.99% 2.15% 44.30% 27.62% 3.77% 5.49% 6.75% 6.11% 0.00% 0.05% 0.27% 0.11% 0.05% 0.35%

1 “Relevant Applicant Pool” = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.Notes: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 129

TABLE A12: PARTICIPATION IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXFY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017)

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

# 36 7 29 0 1 1 4 6 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

% 100% 19.44% 80.56% 0.00% 2.78% 2.78% 11.11% 16.67% 61.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.56%

Participants

# 14 0 14 0 1 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 85.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Pool2 % 100% 29.39% 70.61% 2.40% 5.27% 15.02% 20.61% 9.42% 37.38% 2.24% 6.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 0.16% 0.16% 1.12%Career Development Programs for SK 13 – 14Slots1 # 36

Applied

# 87 46 41 4 1 33 24 4 11 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 39.76% 60.24% 1.20% 4.82% 27.71% 25.30% 7.23% 18.07% 3.61% 8.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.61%

Participants

# 30 14 16 1 2 9 6 2 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1% 100% 46.67% 53.33% 3.33% 6.67% 30.00% 20.00% 6.67% 20.00% 6.67% 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.33%

Relevant Pool % 100% 54.51% 45.49% 3.05% 2.69% 39.03% 27.11% 4.85% 8.37% 7.18% 6.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.11% 0.11% 0.32%Career Development Programs for SK 15 – 17Slots1 # 14

Applied

# 31 5 26 1 0 1 18 1 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 16.13% 83.87% 3.23% 0.00% 3.23% 58.06% 3.23% 9.68% 6.45% 16.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Participants

# 15 5 10 0 0 4 6 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 26.67% 40.00% 0.00% 6.67% 6.67% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Pool % 100% 62.82% 37.18% 3.13% 1.14% 49.86% 26.21% 3.13% 4.77% 6.20% 4.49% 0.00% 0.14% 0.43% 0.14% 0.07% 0.28%

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 SK13 – 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: SECU LEAP system, Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File X for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
130 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A13: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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

# 1736 871 865 61 37 657 524 69 196 81 99 0 1 2 4 1 4% 100% 50.17% 49.83% 3.51% 2.13% 37.85% 30.18% 3.97% 11.29% 4.67% 5.70% 0.00% 0.06% 0.12% 0.23% 0.06% 0.23%

TOTAL Hours 11,850 6,019 5,831 406 252 4,561 3,513 471 1,320 557 678 0 8 16 32 8 28Average Hours 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 8 8 8 8 7Time-Off Awards: 9+ hoursTOTAL Time-OffAwards Given

# 1323 641 682 48 49 486 424 36 119 70 84 0 0 1 3 0 3% 100% 48.45% 51.55% 3.63% 3.70% 36.73% 32.05% 2.72% 8.99% 5.29% 6.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.23% 0.00% 0.23%

TOTAL Hours 24,889 11,990 12,899 890 886 9,122 8,259 648 2,098 1,306 1,552 0 0 24 56 0 48Average Hours 19 19 19 19 18 19 19 18 18 19 18 0 0 24 19 0 16Cash Awards: $100 – $500TOTAL CashAwards Given

# 1299 664 635 42 31 490 347 67 188 60 59 0 2 5 3 0 5% 100% 51.12% 48.88% 3.23% 2.39% 37.72% 26.71% 5.16% 14.47% 4.62% 4.54% 0.00% 0.15% 0.38% 0.23% 0.00% 0.38%

TOTAL Amount $462,607 $241,799 $220,808 $15,761 $12,186 $178,871 $117,817 $21,501 $65,988 $24,016 $22,192 $0 $375 $1,650 $1,000 $0 $1,250Average Amount 356 364 348 375 393 365 340 321 351 400 376 0 188 330 333 0 250

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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 131

TABLE A13: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEXPERMANENT WORKFORCE—FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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+TOTALCashAwards Given

# 2476 1426 1050 77 53 1124 638 78 218 137 129 0 1 7 3 3 8

% 100% 57.59% 42.41% 3.11% 2.14% 45.40% 25.77% 3.15% 8.80% 5.53% 5.21% 0.00% 0.04% 0.28% 0.12% 0.12% 0.32%

TOTALAmount $3,022,351 $1,749,365 $1,272,986 $91,818 $60,753 $1,383,005 $793,458 $91,266 $236,997 $173,526 $163,498 $0 $3,200 $6,250 $4,276 $3,500 $10,804

Average Amount 1221 1227 1212 1192 1146 1230 1244 1170 1087 1267 1267 0 3200 893 1425 1167 1351

Quality Step Increases (QSI): N/ATOTAL

QSIsAwarded

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL 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 0.00

Average 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017
132 | EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT TABLE A14: SEPARATIONS BY TYPE OF SEPARATION—DISTRIBUTION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND SEX PERMANENT WORKFORCE—FY 2017 (10/01/2016 THROUGH 09/30/2017) 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 # 205 121 84 5 3 90 55 11 18 13 6 0 0 1 1 1 1

% 100% 59.02% 40.98% 2.44% 1.46% 43.90% 26.83% 5.37% 8.78% 6.34% 2.93% 0.00% 0.00% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49%

Involuntary # 6 1 5 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 16.67% 83.33% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

TOTAL Separations # 211 122 89 5 4 90 57 12 19 13 7 0 0 1 1 1 1

% 100% 57.82% 42.18% 2.37% 1.90% 42.65% 27.01% 5.69% 9.00% 6.16% 3.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47% 0.47%

TOTAL Workforce # 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%

Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding.Source: Datamart FPPS Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 10/10/2017
FISCAL YEAR 2017 | 133

TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES]PAY PERIOD 201621 TO 201721

EMPLOYMENT TENURE TOTAL

TOTAL BY DISABILITY STATUS DETAIL FOR TARGETED DISABILITIES

No Disability 

[05]

Not Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

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

# 4685 4147 246 292 91 0 0 30 14 2 8 7 6 1 19 1 3% 100% 88.52% 5.25% 6.23% 1.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.30% 0.04% 0.17% 0.15% 0.13% 0.02% 0.41% 0.02% 0.06%

Current FY

# 4599 4024 249 326 83 0 1 33 10 2 7 7 2 1 16 1 3% 100% 87.50% 5.41% 7.09% 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%

Difference # -86 -123 3 34 -8 0 1 3 -4 0 -1 0 -4 0 -3 0 0Ratio Change % 0.00% -1.02% 0.16% 0.86% -0.14% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08% -0.08% 0.00% -0.02% 0.00% -0.09% 0.00% -0.06% 0.00% 0.01%Net Change % -1.84% -2.97% 1.22% 11.64% -8.79% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% -28.57% 0.00% -12.50% 0.00% -66.67% 0.00% -15.79% 0.00% 0.00%Federal Goal % 2.00%PermanentPrior FY

# 4582 4058 237 287 88 0 0 29 13 2 8 7 6 1 18 1 3% 100% 88.56% 5.17% 6.26% 1.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.28% 0.04% 0.17% 0.15% 0.13% 0.02% 0.39% 0.02% 0.07%

Current FY

# 4504 3938 244 322 81 0 1 33 9 2 7 7 2 1 15 1 3% 100% 87.43% 5.42% 7.15% 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%

Difference # -78 -120 7 35 -7 0 1 4 -4 0 -1 0 -4 0 -3 0 0Ratio Change % 0.00% -1.13% 0.24% 0.89% -0.12% 0.00% 0.02% 0.10% -0.08% 0.00% -0.02% 0.00% -0.09% 0.00% -0.06% 0.00% 0.00%Net Change % -1.70% -2.96% 2.95% 12.20% -7.95% 0.00% 0.00% 13.79% -30.77% 0.00% -12.50% 0.00% -66.67% 0.00% -16.67% 0.00% 0.00%TemporaryPrior FY

# 103 89 9 5 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0% 100% 86.41% 8.74% 4.85% 2.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.97% 0.97% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.97% 0.00% 0.00%

Current FY

# 95 86 5 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0% 100% 90.53% 5.26% 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%

Difference # -8 -3 -4 -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ratio Change % 0.00% 4.12% -3.47% -0.64% -0.81% 0.00% 0.00% -0.97% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00%Net Change % -7.77% -3.37% -44.44% -20.00% -33.33% 0.00% 0.00% -100% 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 Application and Analytic File V for pay period 201721, downloaded on 12/11/2017

OFFICE OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549