a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2006 THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE

Additional Insights 

Could Enhance 

Agency Efforts 

Related to Hispanic 

Representation

GAO-06-832
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

August 2006

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

Additional Insights Could Enhance 

Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic 

Representation 

Highlights of GAO-06-832, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Hispanic representation in the 

federal workforce has historically 

been lower than in the Civilian 

Labor Force (CLF). Understanding

factors affecting representation is

important to developing and 

maintaining a high-quality and 

inclusive workforce. In this report, 

GAO identifies and analyzes factors

affecting Hispanic representation 

in the federal workforce, examines 

oversight roles of EEOC and OPM, 

and provides illustrations of 

selected federal agencies’ efforts 

with respect to Hispanic

representation. GAO constructed a 

multivariate logistic regression 

model, with advice from experts, to

determine how factors affected the 

likelihood of Hispanics and nonHispanics being in the federal 

versus nonfederal workforce. 

GAO’s analyses are not intended to

and do not show the existence or

absence of discrimination in the 

federal workforce. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EEOC and

OPM take citizenship into account 

when comparing federal workforce 

representation to the CLF to 

provide a more complete picture 

of, and reasons for, differences in 

representation. In comments on a 

draft of this report, EEOC said 

citizenship data are important but 

EEOC did not address GAO’s 

recommendations. OPM provided 

minor technical comments, which

we incorporated as appropriate, 

but did not otherwise comment on

the report or recommendations. 

U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of the 

measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the federal 

workforce. Our statistical model showed that when accounting for 

citizenship, required for most federal employment, Hispanics were nearly as 

likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce, relative to 

the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF excluding federal 

employees). In addition, the federal workforce has a greater proportion of 

occupations that require higher levels of education than the CLF. When we

compared citizens with similar levels of education, Hispanics were more 

likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce relative to

the nonfederal workforce. Other factors in our model, including age, gender, 

race, veteran’s status, English proficiency, and geography (state where 

employed), had a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of 

Hispanics being in the federal workforce. 

In addition to reporting and comparing representation levels overall and in 

subsets of the federal workforce to the CLF, EEOC and OPM require that 

agencies analyze their own workforces. However, the CLF benchmarks of 

representation that EEOC, OPM, and the agencies use do not differentiate 

between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore do not identify how 

citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to work for the federal 

government. Where these analyses identify differences in representation, 

EEOC, for example, requires agencies to determine if there are barriers to 

participation and develop strategies to address them. OPM provides 

resources and guidance to assist agencies in implementing human capital 

strategies. Through these efforts, OPM has promoted the use of student 

employment programs as a source of qualified candidates. Analyzing agency

use of these programs, including the extent to which agencies convert 

participants to permanent employment, could provide OPM with valuable 

information to assist agencies in maximizing the use of these programs in 

their strategic workforce planning. 

The agencies we reviewed use a variety of approaches to address Hispanic

representation, including recruiting at colleges and universities with large 

Hispanic populations, publicizing employment opportunities in Hispanic 

media, reaching out to Hispanic communities and Hispanic-serving 

organizations, and using student employment, internship, career 

development, and training programs. For example, the U.S. Air Force 

partners with vocational-technical schools to develop aircraft maintenance 

technicians, and staff at selected National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration facilities mentor and tutor students to encourage careers in 

science, technology, engineering, and math. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-832.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact George H. 

Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or 

stalcupg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Citizenship and Education Had the Largest Effect on Hispanic 

Representation in the Federal Workforce 7

EEOC and OPM Have Taken Steps in Their Oversight Roles to 

Address Hispanic Representation 13

Agencies Take Steps to Recruit and Develop Hispanics in the 

Federal Workforce 23

Conclusions 30

Recommendations for Executive Action 31

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II: Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Affecting Hispanic 

Representation in the Federal Workforce 39

Data Sets Used 39

Methodology 41

The Difference between Hispanics’ and Non-Hispanics’ Likelihood 

of Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal 

Workforce 43

The Effect of Citizenship on the Difference between Hispanics’ and 

Non-Hispanics’ Likelihood of Employment in the Federal 

Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce 44

Effect of Remaining Factors among Citizens on the Difference 

between Hispanics’ and Non-Hispanics’ Likelihood of 

Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal 

Workforce 45

Effect of All Factors Considered Simultaneously on the Difference 

between Hispanics’ and Non-Hispanics’ Likelihood of 

Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal 

Workforce 47

Additional Explanatory Analyses 47

Limitations 48

Appendix III: Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. Citizens and 

Nationals 53

Appendix IV: Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade and Federal 

Occupation 56
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce 62

Appendix VI: Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 63

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64

Tables Table 1: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. 

Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 

2000 10

Table 2: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. 

Residents 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 

2000 11

Table 3: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among Non-U.S. 

Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 

2000 11

Table 4: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal 

Employees among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for 

Citizens and Noncitizens, and Odds and Odds Ratios 

Derived from Them, 2000 43

Table 5: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal 

Employees among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for 

Citizens Only, and Odds and Odds Ratio Derived from 

Them, 2000 44

Table 6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of 

Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Citizens Being Employed in the 

Federal Workforce After Controlling for Different 

Factors 45

Table 7: Hispanic Representation in the Federal Workforce by Pay 

Plan and Grade, 1990–2005 56

Table 8: Hispanic Representation in the 2000 CLF and 2000–2005 

Federal Workforce by Federal Occupation 58

Figures Figure 1: Composition of Federal Workforce and CLF by EEOC’s 

Nine Occupational Categories, 2000 9

Figure 2: Hispanic Representation in the Permanent Federal 

Workforce, CLF, and among U.S. Citizens in the CLF, 

1994–2005 16
Contents

Page iii GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Abbreviations

ACE American Council on Education 

ACS American Community Survey

ASEC Annual Social and Economic Supplement 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CLF Civilian Labor Force 

CPDF Central Personnel Data File

CPS Current Population Survey

CSC Civil Service Commission 

CSRA Civil Service Reform Act 

DDCDP District Director Candidate Development Program 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

DRB Disclosure Review Board 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCIP Federal Career Intern Program 

FEORP Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Recruitment Program

FNS Food and Nutrition Service 

HACU Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities 

HCAAF Human Capital Accountability and Assessment Framework 

LULAC League of United Latin American Citizens 

MBA Masters of Business Administration 

MD Management Directive 

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCLR National Council of La Raza 

NSPS National Security Personnel System 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

PATCOB Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, Other 

White-Collar, and Blue-Collar 

PMF Presidential Management Fellows 

PUMS Public Use Microdata Sample 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCEP Student Career Experience Program 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SL/ST Senior Level/Senior Technical

SSA Social Security Administration 
Contents

Page iv GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

USAF United States Air Force 

USPS United States Postal Service 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

August 17, 2006 Letr

Congressional Requesters

Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the Civilian Labor Force 

(CLF),1

 with their representation having increased from 8.5 percent in 1990 

to 12.6 percent in 2005. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have reported 

that Hispanic representation in the federal workforce has also increased, 

but remains lower in the federal workforce than in the CLF. For 2005, OPM 

reported that Hispanics were 7.4 percent of the federal workforce, up from 

5.3 percent in 1990.2

Previous studies have identified factors that can affect Hispanic 

representation in the federal workforce but generally did not assess the 

extent to which these factors influence representation. Understanding how 

the factors affect Hispanic representation in the federal workforce is 

important to guiding agency efforts, under the leadership of OPM and 

EEOC, to develop approaches to recruit, develop, and retain a high-quality 

workforce that uses the talents of individuals from all segments of society. 

In this report, prepared in response to your request, we (1) identify and 

analyze the factors that are affecting Hispanic representation in the federal 

workforce, (2) examine the steps that EEOC and OPM, in their oversight 

roles, are taking related to Hispanic representation, and (3) illustrate the 

efforts within selected federal agencies related to Hispanic representation. 

We will also be providing additional data on Hispanic representation in the 

federal workforce under separate cover. 

In accomplishing our objectives, we interviewed federal agency officials 

and representatives from Hispanic-serving organizations and reviewed 

previous studies to identify factors that can affect Hispanic representation. 

To determine the effect of these factors on Hispanic representation in the 

federal workforce, we constructed a multivariate logistic regression model 

1

The CLF is defined as those 16 and older (including federal workers) who are employed or 

looking for work and not in the military or institutionalized. 

2

These percentages are based on the permanent federal workforce.
Page 2 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

using 2000 Decennial Census data.3 Logistic regression analysis is a very 

common and widely accepted approach to analyze outcomes that have two 

possibilities (such as being in the federal vs. nonfederal workforce) when 

the interest is in determining the net effects of multiple factors that may be 

related to one another. We used the model to measure the extent to which 

the identified factors that could be reliably measured affected the 

likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal workforce, 

as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. In developing the model, we 

obtained the opinions of experts identified by the National Academy of 

Sciences as well as officials from EEOC, OPM, the Department of Justice 

(DOJ), and the Census Bureau. We also obtained the experts’ views on the 

preliminary results of our analyses. Our analyses are not intended to and do 

not show either the existence or absence of discrimination against 

Hispanics or any other group in the federal workforce. Our analyses are at 

an aggregate level encompassing all occupations governmentwide and do 

not reflect factors that affect representation within individual agencies, 

individual occupations, different geographic areas, or any other subsets of 

the federal government.

To examine the steps that EEOC and OPM have taken in their oversight of 

Hispanic representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and 

policies relating to Hispanic representation in the federal workforce; 

interviewed EEOC and OPM officials; reviewed relevant documents; and 

analyzed data on Hispanic representation governmentwide.

To illustrate the efforts related to Hispanic representation within federal 

agencies, we selected five agencies—the U.S. Air Force (USAF), Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Small Business 

Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration (SSA)—

representing different employee populations, geographic locations, and 

concentrations of jobs by grade level and occupational categories. We 

interviewed representatives from the selected agencies and reviewed 

relevant documents. We also reviewed documents provided by and spoke 

with officials from the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence 

for Hispanic Americans. We conducted our work from October 2004 to 

3

For purposes of our logistic regression models, we divided the CLF into two groups—the 

federal workforce and the nonfederal workforce, and we restricted our analyses to 

individuals 18 and older because, with a few exceptions, 18 years is the minimum age for 

federal employment. 
Page 3 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. The details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are in 

appendix I.

Results in Brief U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of the 

measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the federal 

workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce. Our statistical model 

showed that after accounting for citizenship, Hispanics were nearly as 

likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce, relative to 

the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF excluding federal 

employees). Citizenship is required for most federal employment and, in 

2005, 99.7 percent of executive branch employees were U.S. citizens or 

nationals. In addition, a greater proportion of federal occupations require 

higher levels of education than in the CLF. Our statistical model showed 

that, as a result, when we compared citizens with similar levels of 

education, Hispanics were 16 percent or 1.16 times more likely than nonHispanics to be employed in the federal workforce than in the nonfederal 

workforce. Other factors in our model, including age, gender, race, 

veteran’s status, English proficiency, and geography (state where 

employed), had a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of 

Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce. When all factors were 

considered, our analyses showed that Hispanic citizens were 24 percent or 

1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanic citizens to be employed in the 

federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Our analyses did not 

account for differences across and within individual agencies, by grade and 

pay level, occupational category, individual occupation, geographic 

location, or any other subset of the federal workforce.

In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM compare and 

report representation levels overall and in subsets of the federal workforce 

and require that agencies conduct analyses of their own workforces. 

EEOC, for example, requires that agencies compare representation of 

racial, ethnic, and gender groups in major occupations to representation in 

similar occupations in the CLF. Where these analyses identify differences in 

representation, EEOC requires agencies to determine if there are barriers 

to participation and, if so, develop strategies to address them. However, the 

CLF benchmarks that EEOC, OPM, and agencies use to compare 

representation do not differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and 

therefore do not identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons 

qualified to work for the federal government. Such information can help to 

provide a more complete picture of where differences in representation 
Page 4 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

may exist. OPM provides guidance and resources to assist agencies in 

implementing human capital strategies. Through these efforts, OPM has 

promoted broad outreach to all segments of society and has promoted 

establishing relationships with colleges and universities and the use of 

student employment programs as a source of qualified candidates. 

Analyzing data on agency use of student employment programs, including 

conversion rates of participants to permanent employment, could provide 

OPM with valuable information to assist agencies in incorporating student 

employment programs into their strategic workforce planning as they seek 

to recruit and develop talented employees to support agency missions; 

ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and administrative 

needs; and achieve a diverse, quality workforce.

The agencies we reviewed used a variety of approaches to address 

Hispanic representation at their agencies. These approaches included 

recruiting at colleges and universities with large Hispanic populations, 

publicizing employment opportunities in Hispanic media, reaching out to 

Hispanic communities and Hispanic-serving organizations, and using 

student employment, internship, career development, and training 

programs. For example, the USAF partnered with vocational-technical 

schools to develop aircraft maintenance technicians and NASA staff 

mentored and tutored students to encourage careers in science, 

technology, engineering, and math.

We recommend that the Chair of EEOC and the Director of OPM take 

citizenship into account in their comparisons of federal workforce 

representation to the CLF. We also recommend that the Director of OPM 

provide additional tools for agencies to assess the effectiveness of student 

employment programs, such as conversion rates to permanent employment 

by racial/ethnic group.

We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney 

General, and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for their 

review and comment. DOJ and the Department of Commerce had no 

comments. In its written comments, EEOC said it found the report to be a 

useful addition to the ongoing examination of Hispanic representation in 

the federal workforce and plans to use the report as a resource. EEOC 

agreed that citizenship data are important. However, EEOC did not 

specifically address our recommendation that it take citizenship into 

account in its comparison of federal workforce representation to the CLF. 

EEOC also said that while citizenship data are a useful benchmark for 

broad trending, more refined analyses are necessary, including analyses of 
Page 5 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

applicant pools and participation rates for specific occupations. OPM 

provided minor technical comments but did not otherwise comment on the 

report or our recommendations.

Background For more than 35 years, the federal government has implemented 

authorities—applicable to various demographic groups and some specific 

to Hispanics—calling for agencies to ensure equal opportunity in the 

federal workplace. EEOC and OPM or its predecessor agency, the Civil 

Service Commission (CSC), have leadership roles in furthering these 

authorities. Signed in 1969, Executive Order No. 11478, Equal Employment 

Opportunity in the Federal Government, stated that it is the policy of the 

U.S. government to provide equal opportunity in federal employment. 

Later, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 

which extended to federal workers the protections of title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. This law requires each 

federal department and agency to prepare plans to maintain an affirmative 

program of equal employment opportunity and establish training and 

education programs. Pursuant to this and other authorities, EEOC 

establishes equal employment program standards, monitors federal 

agencies’ compliance with equal employment opportunity laws and 

procedures, and reviews and assesses the effectiveness of agencies’ equal 

employment programs. EEOC has carried out its responsibilities by issuing 

regulations and management directives providing guidance and standards 

to federal agencies for establishing and maintaining effective programs of 

equal employment opportunity.

The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 established the merit 

principles governing employment in the federal workforce. The first merit 

principle states:

Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor 

to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should 

be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open 

competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.4

The CSRA also created the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment 

Program (FEORP) to carry out the government’s policy to ensure equal 

4

5 U.S.C. sec. 2301(b)(1).
Page 6 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

employment opportunity. The act required OPM to evaluate and oversee 

agency programs and issue implementing regulations for the program. 

These regulations provide that recruitment processes prepare qualifiable 

applicants (those who have the potential but do not presently meet valid 

qualification requirements) for job openings through development 

programs.

Programs specific to Hispanics include the 16-Point Program for SpanishSpeaking citizens, established in 1970, which outlined steps agencies 

should take to ensure equal opportunity in federal employment for 

Hispanics. In 1997, OPM implemented the 9-Point Plan calling for agencies 

to recruit greater numbers of qualified Hispanic Americans for federal 

service and improve their opportunities for management and senior 

executive positions. More recently, Executive Order No. 13171, Hispanic 

Employment in the Federal Government, signed in 2000, provides that 

agencies, among other actions, (1) develop recruiting plans for Hispanics 

and (2) assess and eliminate any systemic barriers to the effective 

recruitment and consideration of Hispanics. The order requires OPM to 

take the lead in promoting diversity to executive agencies and for the 

director of OPM to establish and chair an Interagency Task Force on 

Hispanic employment in the federal government to review best practices, 

provide advice, assess overall executive branch progress, and recommend 

further actions related to Hispanic representation.5

As an indicator to Congress and the President of the government’s progress 

toward ensuring equal employment opportunity, both EEOC and OPM, in 

their oversight roles, analyze and report on governmentwide and agency 

workforce data. The most recent data show that in September 2005, 

Hispanics constituted 7.4 percent of the permanent federal workforce 

while making up 12.6 percent of the CLF. While both EEOC and OPM report 

these data annually, neither agency has assessed on a governmentwide 

level the factors contributing to the differences in Hispanic representation 

between the two workforces.

5

For further discussion on the government’s policy framework for equal employment 

opportunity and EEOC’s and OPM’s roles and responsibilities, see GAO, Equal Employment 

Opportunity: The Policy Framework in the Federal Workplace and the Roles of EEOC and 

OPM, GAO-05-195 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2005) and Equal Employment Opportunity: 

Improved Coordination Needed Between EEOC and OPM in Leading Federal Workplace 

EEO, GAO-06-214 (Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2006).
Page 7 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Citizenship and 

Education Had the 

Largest Effect on 

Hispanic 

Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Citizenship and educational attainment had the most effect on the 

likelihood of Hispanics’ representation in the federal workforce, relative to 

the nonfederal workforce.6

 Other measurable factors in our statistical 

model—gender, veteran’s status, race, English proficiency, age, disability 

status, school attendance (enrolled or not enrolled), employment status 

(full or part-time), and geography (state where employed)—had a more 

limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being in the 

federal workforce.7

 When we analyzed the effect of all the factors 

simultaneously, we found that, among citizens, Hispanics were 24 percent 

or 1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal 

workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. (See app. II for a detailed 

discussion of the steps we took to conduct our analyses and our results.)

Effect of Citizenship Our analysis showed that citizenship had the greatest effect of the factors 

we analyzed on Hispanics’ representation in the federal workforce. We 

analyzed the effect of citizenship before analyzing any other individual 

factor because of long-standing policy and practice to restrict federal 

government hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals—99.7 percent of federal 

executive branch employees were U.S. citizens or nationals in 2005. (See 

app. III for a discussion of the federal government’s policy and practice on 

the employment of citizens.) Before accounting for the effect of citizenship, 

Hispanics 18 and older were 30 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be 

employed (i.e., represented) in the federal workforce, relative to the 

nonfederal workforce. However, when we analyzed the likelihood of only 

citizens 18 and older being employed in the federal workforce, we found 

that Hispanics were 5 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be 

employed in the federal workforce compared to their representation in the 

nonfederal workforce.

6

Our multivariate analyses identifying citizenship and educational attainment as the primary 

factors accounting for Hispanics’ lower levels of representation in the federal workforce 

compared to the nonfederal workforce was limited to the aggregate federal workforce. Our 

analyses did not account for differences across and within individual agencies, by grade and 

pay level, occupational category, occupation, geographic location, or any other subset of the 

federal workforce. 

7

Because of limitations in the data and the methods we used, we did not include in our 

analyses some variables that were identified during the course of our research that could 

potentially affect Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. These limitations are 

discussed in app. II.
Page 8 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that Hispanics had lower 

citizenship rates than other racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of 

Asians who had similar rates. In 2000, of those 18 and older in the 

combined federal and nonfederal CLF, 65 percent of the Hispanics were 

U.S. citizens compared with 95 percent of blacks, 96 percent of whites, 

65 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and

96 percent of American Indians/Native Alaskans. Additionally, Hispanic 

immigrants have lower naturalization rates than other immigrant groups. 

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 27 percent of the adult foreign-born 

Hispanic population in the United States were naturalized citizens in 2004 

compared with 54 percent of the adult foreign-born non-Hispanic 

population.

Hispanic-serving organizations have undertaken citizenship initiatives. For 

example, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) 

encourages legal residents of the United States to become citizens and 

reports that it conducts a national drive to have those eligible for 

citizenship apply for and attain citizenship.

Effect of Education After citizenship, education had the largest effect on Hispanic 

representation in the federal workforce. We compared Hispanic and nonHispanic citizens with similar levels of education. We limited our 

examination of the effect of education to citizens because citizenship is a 

basic qualification for most federal employment. As discussed above, 

among citizens, Hispanics were 5 percent less likely to be employed in the 

federal government. After accounting for education, Hispanic citizens were 

1.16 times or 16 percent more likely than similarly educated non-Hispanic 

citizens to be in the federal workforce than the nonfederal workforce.

The federal workforce contains a greater percentage of occupations that 

require higher levels of education than the CLF. EEOC divides occupations 

in the federal workforce and the CLF into nine categories, including among 

others professionals, operatives, and laborers. For example, in 2000, the 

year in which EEOC data on the CLF are based, occupations in the 

professional category—those occupations, such as lawyers, engineers, 

accountants, and registered nurses, requiring either college graduation or 

experience of such kind and amount as to provide a comparable 

background—constituted 29 percent of the federal workforce versus 18 

percent of the CLF. Conversely, occupations in the operatives (semiskilled 

workers) and laborers (unskilled workers) categories, which generally do 

not require high education levels, constituted 3 percent of the federal 
Page 9 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

workforce compared to 16 percent of the CLF. Figure 1 shows the 

composition of the federal workforce and the CLF by EEOC’s occupational 

categories.

Figure 1: Composition of Federal Workforce and CLF by EEOC’s Nine Occupational Categories, 2000

Note: Federal workforce percentages do not reflect individuals that could not be classified into 

categories, and CLF percentages do not reflect individuals that were unemployed.

Our analyses showed that the likelihood of being a federal worker 

increased with higher levels of education. A person with some college was 

1.7 times more likely to be a federal worker than a person with only a high 

school diploma, a person with a bachelor’s degree was 2.2 times more 

likely, and a person with more than a bachelor’s degree was 2.7 times more 

likely. OPM reported that in 2004, 42 percent of federal workers had a 

bachelor’s degree or higher. In addition, approximately 60 percent of new 

permanent hires to the federal government in 2005 had at least some 

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Services

Laborers

Operatives

Crafts

Admin-

 Support

Sales

Technicians

Professionals

Officials-

 Managers

Source: GAO analysis of the 2000 Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) and the Census 2000 Special EEO File.

Category

Federal workforce

CLF

24.3

11.2

28.8

18.4

8.2

2.3

0.5

11.4

19.2

16.5

7.2

9.7

2.7

11.6

0.5

4.7

8.7

14.3
Page 10 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

college—20 percent with some college, 23 percent with a bachelor’s degree, 

and 17 percent with more than a bachelor’s degree.

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that regardless of citizenship 

status, Hispanics overall have lower educational attainment than other 

groups, with non-U.S. citizens having the lowest levels of educational 

attainment. Among citizens in the CLF 18 and older, as table 1 shows, 

Hispanics had a higher percentage of those without a high school 

diploma—26.4 percent—and lower percentage of those with a bachelor’s 

degree or higher—15.4 percent—than most other racial/ethnic groups.

Table 1: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

When noncitizens were included, as table 2 below shows, the proportion of 

Hispanics with less than a high school diploma increased and the 

proportion having bachelor’s degree or higher decreased.

Percent

Highest level of education Hispanic White Black Asian

Hawaiian/ 

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian/

Alaska

Native

Less than high school 

diploma 26.4 10.1 18.0 10.5 12.5 17.6

High school diploma 27.0 27.9 30.7 15.8 33.1 29.6

Some college 31.2 33.2 34.5 29.7 37.0 37.3

Bachelor’s degree 10.6 18.8 11.5 28.3 12.4 10.1

Graduate degree 4.8 10.1 5.3 15.7 5.0 5.3
Page 11 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Table 2: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Residents 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

Educational attainment for Hispanics 18 and older in the CLF who were not 

citizens was lower compared with those who were U.S. citizens. Table 3 

shows that, among Hispanics in the CLF who were not U.S. citizens, 62.8 

percent had less than a high school diploma while 6.2 percent had a 

bachelor’s degree or higher.

Table 3: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among Non-U.S. Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

In addition to having lower educational attainment levels than other 

racial/ethnic groups, there were differences in Hispanics’ educational 

patterns. For example, Hispanics have enrolled in 2-year colleges at a 

higher rate than other racial/ethnic groups. According to data reported in 

the American Council on Education’s Minorities in Higher Education, 

Percent

Highest level of education Hispanic White Black Asian

Hawaiian/

Pacific 

Islander

American

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native

Less than high school 

diploma 39.0 11.3 18.4 13.2 15.3 19.3

High school diploma 24.2 27.5 30.5 15.8 32.4 29.2

Some college 24.6 32.6 34.2 25.8 35.4 36.3

Bachelor’s degree 8.2 18.5 11.5 27.4 12.0 9.9

Graduate degree 4.0 10.1 5.4 17.9 4.9 5.3

Percent

Highest level of education Hispanic White Black Asian

Hawaiian/ 

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native

Less than high school 

diploma 62.8 39.9 26.2 18.4 32.9 54.9

High school diploma 19.0 20.2 26.3 15.8 27.8 20.4

Some college 12.0 18.1 28.4 18.4 25.3 14.7

Bachelor’s degree 3.6 11.5 12.2 25.7 9.8 6.1

Graduate degree 2.6 10.3 6.8 21.8 4.2 3.9
Page 12 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Twenty-First Annual Status Report, 2003–2004, 59 percent of Hispanics 

enrolled in postsecondary institutions are enrolled in community colleges, 

compared to 37 percent of whites, 43 percent of blacks, 41 percent of 

Asians, and 50 percent of American Indians. In addition, Hispanics are less 

likely than other groups to complete a bachelor’s degree. According to data 

from the National Center for Education Statistics’ National Educational 

Longitudinal Study beginning in 1988,8

 by age 26, 47 percent of white 

students who had enrolled in postsecondary education had completed a 

bachelor’s degree compared to 23 percent of Hispanics—lower than other 

racial/ethnic groups.9

The federal government and Hispanic-serving organizations have 

implemented initiatives to address gaps in Hispanics’ educational 

achievement. In October 2001, Executive Order No. 13230 created the 

President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic 

Americans, within the U.S. Department of Education, to examine issues 

related to the achievement gap between Hispanic Americans and their 

peers. The commission issued an interim report in September 2002, The 

Road to a College Diploma: The Complex Reality of Raising Educational 

Achievement for Hispanics in the United States, and a final report in 

March 2003, From Risk to Opportunity: Fulfilling the Educational Needs 

of Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century. The commission’s final 

report, concluding its work, contained six recommendations, which 

encompassed the entire education continuum, from early childhood 

through postsecondary, as well as federal accountability and coordination 

and research. According to the White House Initiative on Educational 

Excellence for Hispanic Americans, which provided the staff support and 

assistance to the commission and continues to work within the Department 

of Education, it is taking steps to implement the commission’s six 

recommendations and is working with the Department of Education, other 

federal agencies, and public and private organizations.

In addition to federal government initiatives, Hispanic-serving 

organizations also have ongoing efforts to improve the educational 

8

The Longitudinal study tracked a sample of students from 1988, when they were in the 

eighth grade, to 2000.

9

Watson Scott Swail, Alberto F. Cabrera, Chul Lee, Latino Youth and the Pathway to 

College, Educational Policy Institute (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004),

www.pewhispanic.org, 38–39. The study was conducted through a grant from the Pew 

Hispanic Center. 
Page 13 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

attainment of Hispanics. According to LULAC, the organization has 16 

counseling centers whose mission is to increase educational opportunities 

and attainment for Hispanic Americans through the development and 

implementation of programs in Hispanic communities throughout the 

United States. LULAC also reports that it provides educational counseling, 

scholarships, mentorships, leadership development, and literacy programs. 

According to its Web site, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) works to 

build and strengthen community-based educational institutions, to improve 

the quality of instruction for Hispanic students, and to more effectively 

involve Hispanic families in the education of their children. NCLR reports 

that its education program services and activities are targeted to over 300 

affiliated organizations while its education policy work addresses national 

issues in public education. NCLR also reports that it cochairs the Hispanic 

Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national organizations 

dedicated to improving educational opportunities for Latinos living in the 

United States and Puerto Rico. Other organizations such as the Hispanic 

College Fund also work to provide college scholarships for Hispanic youth.

EEOC and OPM Have 

Taken Steps in Their 

Oversight Roles to 

Address Hispanic 

Representation

In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM report 

representation levels of racial, ethnic, and gender groups overall and in 

subsets of the federal workforce and require that agencies conduct 

analyses of their own workforces. However, the benchmarks that EEOC, 

OPM, and agencies use to compare federal workforce representation levels 

to the CLF do not differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and 

therefore do not identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons 

qualified to work for the federal government. Where differences in 

representation occur, such as within occupations or by grade, agencies are 

to determine if there are barriers to participation and, if so, develop 

strategies to address any barriers. OPM provides human resource guidance 

and resources to agencies to assist agencies in implementing these 

strategies.

EEOC and OPM Reports on 

the Federal Workforce

In its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, prepared pursuant to its 

oversight responsibilities, EEOC provides data on the representation of 

racial, ethnic, and gender groups, including Hispanics, compared to the 

CLF overall, by senior pay and average grade level, and for selected 

agencies with 500 or more employees. To make its comparisons, EEOC 

uses the Census 2000 Special EEO File, which provides workforce data on 

the CLF. The Census 2000 Special EEO File is a special tabulation 
Page 14 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

constructed by the U.S. Census Bureau according to the specifications of, 

and under a reimbursable agreement with, a consortium of agencies—

EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and the Department of Labor (DOL). The Special EEO 

File, which has been prepared every 10 years since 1970 based on the 

Decennial Census, serves as the primary external benchmark to compare 

the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of each employer’s workforce to 

its available labor market. The datasets on the Census 2000 Special EEO 

Tabulation present data on race and ethnicity cross-tabulated by other 

variables such as detailed occupations, occupational groups, gender, 

worksite geography, residence geography, education, age, and industry. 

Data are available at the national level and by state, metropolitan area, 

county, and place.10

However, the Census 2000 Special EEO File data does not include 

citizenship data. According to a Census Bureau official, at DOJ’s request, 

the Census 2000 Special EEO File specifications originally included 

citizenship data for metropolitan statistical areas in four states for persons 

in the CLF 20 to 34 years of age, with 4 or more years of high school, by 

race and ethnicity. Because of narrow data specifications, concerns were 

raised about the privacy of Census respondents and the request was 

withdrawn. The consortium and Census are planning the 2010 Special EEO 

File, which will be based on 5 years (2005–2009) of American Community 

Survey (ACS) data—which is replacing the long form of the Decennial 

Census. Subsequent to the completion of our audit work, EEOC sent a 

letter requesting that the Census Bureau review the possibility of including 

citizenship data in the 2010 Special EEO File. According to the Census 

Bureau, citizenship data can be included but at an additional cost to 

consortium members based on the extent of data requested (e.g., 

geographic or occupational specificity) and amount of staff and 

programming resources to produce the requested data. In addition, the 

Census Bureau said that the extent of geographic or occupational 

specificity of citizenship data could be limited based on the risk of 

disclosing the identity of a respondent. Census Bureau officials also noted 

that because the 2010 Special EEO File will be based on a 5-year roll up of 

10In order to protect the confidentiality of Census 2000 respondents, data are not provided 

for places of less than 50,000 population (or 100,000 in some instances). For counties of less 

than 50,000, data are not provided for more detailed occupational groupings. The Census 

Bureau’s Disclosure Review Board (DRB) reviews the specifications of all Census data 

products to determine that no product format is approved that contains any degree of risk to 

disclose the identity of Census 2000 respondents. 
Page 15 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

annual ACS data, current plans are to produce an updated Special EEO File 

every 5 years.

OPM also presents data on Hispanic representation in its reports to the 

President under Executive Order No. 13171 and to Congress under the 

FEORP. In its Annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in 

the Federal Government, prepared pursuant to Executive Order No. 13171, 

and in Statistical Information on Hispanic Employment in Federal 

Agencies, OPM has included data on Hispanic representation overall, for 

each agency, by pay plan/group, and among new hires.11 The FEORP report 

compares overall representation levels in the federal workforce to the CLF 

and provides representation levels by pay group, in occupational 

categories, and within each agency. OPM also uses the Census 2000 Special 

EEO File when comparing representation of women and minorities within 

agencies to the relevant CLF (the labor force comprising only the particular 

occupations for the particular agency) for its FEORP report. However, in 

making comparisons of the demographic composition of the overall federal 

workforce to the CLF for the FEORP and the statistical reports on Hispanic 

employment, OPM has used the Current Population Survey (CPS). By using 

the CPS, OPM reports more-current CLF data than EEOC’s and reflects the 

changing composition of the CLF. At the time of our review, OPM was 

benchmarking to the September 2005 CPS, which showed Hispanic 

representation in the CLF to be 12.6 percent. In its Annual Report on the 

Federal Workforce, EEOC uses the 2000 Special EEO File as its benchmark 

showing Hispanic representation in the CLF to be 10.7 percent. Although 

using the CPS enables OPM to report more-current data on Hispanic 

representation in the CLF, OPM does not distinguish between citizens and 

noncitizens in its analysis of the CPS data.

Figure 2 shows Hispanic representation in the permanent federal 

workforce compared to the CLF with and without noncitizens from 1994 to 

2005, based on data from the CPS and OPM. These data show how 

citizenship affects the pool of Hispanics eligible for federal employment 

11Until June 2005, OPM had issued annually the Statistical Information on Hispanic 

Employment in Federal Agencies, which contained more detailed data on Hispanic 

representation than the Annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in the 

Federal Government. In commenting on a draft of this report, OPM said it plans to 

consolidate the Statistical Information on Hispanic Employment in Federal Agencies 

report into the Annual Report to the President beginning with the report to be issued at the 

end of calendar year 2006.
Page 16 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

and that, when only citizens are considered in the CLF, Hispanic 

representation in both the federal workforce and CLF is more comparable.

Figure 2: Hispanic Representation in the Permanent Federal Workforce, CLF, and among U.S. Citizens in the CLF, 1994–2005

Note: Prior to 1994, citizenship was not a variable in the CPS.

EEOC and OPM Guidance 

on Workforce Analyses

EEOC’s Mangement Directive 715 (MD-715) provides guidance and 

standards to federal agencies for establishing and maintaining effective 

equal employment opportunity programs, including a framework for 

agencies to determine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity 

exist and to identify and develop strategies to mitigate the barriers to 

participation. EEOC defines barriers as agency policies, principles, or 

practices that limit or tend to limit employment opportunities for members 

of a particular gender, race, or ethnic background, or based on an 

individual’s disability status. EEOC requires agencies to report the results 

of their analyses annually.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Percent

Source: OPM’s Hispanics in the Federal Government, A Statistical Profile, for 1994 federal workforce data, and OPM’s

Fifth Annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government for 1995–2004 federal workforce

data. GAO analysis of the Current Population Survey (CPS), 1994–2002 Annual Demographic File and CPS, 2003–2005

Annual Social and Economic Supplement for the CLF data.

Year

Federal workforce

CLF

CLF-U.S. citizens only
Page 17 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

The initial step is for an agency to analyze its workforce data with 

designated benchmarks. As part of this analysis, in addition to comparing 

the overall workforce to the CLF, EEOC instructs agencies to compare 

major (mission-related and heavily populated) occupations to the CLF in 

the appropriate geographic area in order to get a more accurate picture of 

where differences in representation may exist and to guide further analysis. 

Agencies may use the Census 2000 Special EEO File and the Census 2000 

EEO Data Tool, which allows agencies to tailor the Special EEO File data in 

accordance with EEOC instructions. In their analyses, agencies may find 

that Hispanic representation in some of their major occupations is higher 

than in similar occupations in the CLF, but lower in others. Similarly, our 

review of data on the 47 occupations with 10,000 or more federal 

employees showed that Hispanic representation was higher in the 2005 

federal workforce than the 2000 CLF in 22 of those occupations and lower 

in 25.12 (See app. IV.) EEOC also instructs agencies to analyze workforce 

data by grade level, applicants, new hires, separations, promotions, career 

development programs, and awards to identify where there may be barriers 

to participation. With respect to grade level, our review of data on Hispanic 

representation in the federal workforce showed that Hispanics are more 

highly represented in the lower grade levels than in higher grade levels (see 

app. IV). Our review was based on descriptive data and did not take into 

account citizenship, education, or other factors that can affect an 

individual’s placement in the federal government.

When numerical measures indicate low representation rates, EEOC 

instructs that agencies conduct further inquiry to identify and examine the 

factors that contributed to the situation revealed by the data. Below is an 

example from EEOC’s MD-715 instructions of such an analysis to 

determine the existence of limits or barriers to participation.

An agency has uncovered a lack of Black women in its program analyst occupation at the 

grade 13 level and above. However, below the grade 13 level the program analyst occupation 

is quite diverse, including a significant number of Black females. Further examination of the 

matter reveals that several years ago the agency instituted a requirement that program 

analysts hold a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree in order to be promoted 

to the grade 13 level or above. Few internal candidates, and none of the Black female 

program analysts employed by the agency, hold an MBA. Therefore, the agency was 

recruiting higher level program analysts from a local business school with a student 

population comprised of primarily White males. Over time, program analysts at the grade 13 

12The 47 occupations were those with 10,000 or more federal employees as of September 30, 

2004. Hispanic representation in similar occupations in the CLF is based on data from the 

Census 2000 Special EEO File. 
Page 18 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

and above did not reflect the racial diversity of the program analysts at the lower grade 

levels.

First, the agency should re-visit the issue of whether the skill set represented by an MBA is 

available by some alternative means such as years of work experience in certain areas. This 

experience might be substituted for holding an MBA in rendering an applicant qualified for 

consideration for a higher-graded position. If it is determined that the agency’s requirement 

for an MBA is in fact job-related and consistent with business necessity, the agency should 

consider whether other alternatives exist which will have less impact on a particular group. 

Most obviously, the agency could recruit MBAs from other schools with more diverse 

student populations. In addition, the agency might consider steps it could take to facilitate 

its own lower-graded employees obtaining MBAs.

Under OPM’s FEORP regulations and guidance under the Human Capital 

Accountability and Assessment Framework (HCAAF), agencies are also to 

analyze their workforces. Under FEORP, agencies are required to 

determine where representation levels for covered groups are lower than 

the CLF and take steps to address them. Agencies are also required to 

submit annual FEORP reports to OPM in the form prescribed by OPM. 

These have included (1) data on employee participation in agencywide and 

governmentwide career development programs broken out by race, 

national origin, gender, and grade level and (2) a narrative report 

identifying areas where the agencies had been most successful in 

recruiting, hiring, and formal training of minorities and women, and how 

they were able to achieve those results. The HCAAF, according to OPM, 

fuses human capital management with merit system principles and other 

civil service laws, rules, and regulations and consists of five human capital 

systems that together provide a consistent, comprehensive representation 

of human capital management for the federal government. According to 

recently proposed regulations, each system consists of standards against 

which agencies can assess their management of human capital and related 

metrics.13 The HCAAF practitioners guide outlines suggested performance 

indicators reflecting effective practices in meeting these standards. One 

suggested performance indicator, for example, is that agencies have 

systems that track and analyze workforce diversity trends in missioncritical occupations in order to continually adjust the agency’s recruitment 

and retention strategy to its current state of need.

1371 Fed. Reg. 29,593 (May 23, 2006).
Page 19 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

OPM Assistance to Agencies OPM provides assistance to agencies in recruiting Hispanics as part of 

broad-based recruitment efforts and developing employees onboard 

through (1) governmentwide outreach and recruitment initiatives;

(2) providing information on student employment programs; 

(3) disseminating information on leading practices; and (4) providing 

guidance on training and development of employees.

Governmentwide Outreach and 

Recruitment Initiatives

In 2003 and 2004, OPM held recruitment fairs in cities across the country, 

including those with high concentrations of Hispanics, such as Los Angeles, 

San Antonio, Tucson, Miami, and New York. Additionally, in 2005, OPM 

participated in 25 career fairs sponsored by others including LULAC, the 

National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives, and the University of 

New Mexico. Under its Veteran Invitational Program, launched in 2004, 

OPM has conducted career fairs, visited military installations and veterans’ 

medical facilities, and provided information on employment opportunities 

for veterans on its Web site. In 2004, OPM signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the American GI-Forum—an organization that works 

on behalf of Hispanic veterans—in support of Executive Order No. 13171.

OPM has also taken steps to improve the USAJOBS Web site, the federal 

government’s official source for jobs and employment information. As part 

of its Recruitment–One Stop Initiative, launched in 2003, OPM reports that 

the Web site contains improved search capability options, a more userfriendly resume builder, and a streamlined job application process. 

USAJOBS also links to OPM’s Student Jobs Web site, which contains 

listings of federal student employment positions, and e-scholar, a listing of 

federal educational scholarships, fellowships, grants, internships, 

apprenticeships, and cooperative programs offered by federal departments 

and agencies and partnering organizations. The USAJOBS Web site 

provides information in both English and Spanish.

Student Employment Programs According to OPM, student employment programs can help agencies 

recruit and develop talented employees to support agency missions; ensure 

that they can meet their professional, technical, and administrative needs; 
Page 20 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

and achieve a diverse, quality workforce.14 OPM assists agencies on the use 

of student employment programs by issuing regulations and providing 

technical assistance through its Web site. There are three federal student 

employment hiring programs that can lead to noncompetitive conversion to 

permanent employment—the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP), 

Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP), and Presidential Management 

Fellows Program (PMF).

Under SCEP, agencies may hire students as interns while they are pursuing 

high school diplomas or equivalent vocational or technical certificates, and 

associate’s, bachelor’s, graduate, or professional degrees. Upon completion 

of their degree program and SCEP requirements, agencies may 

noncompetitively convert participants to permanent employment. Recently 

revised SCEP regulations allow agencies to credit up to 320 hours of the 

640 hours of career-related work experience required for conversion from 

active duty military service or from comparable nonfederal internship, 

work-study, or student volunteer programs where work is performed at 

federal agencies.15 Comparable work experience can include those 

internships sponsored by the Hispanic Association of Colleges and 

Universities’ (HACU) National Internship Program. The regulations also 

permit agencies to waive up to 320 SCEP hours of required work 

experience for students who have demonstrated exceptional job 

performance and outstanding academic achievement.

Under FCIP, agencies may appoint individuals to 2-year internships in 

entry-level positions that would lend themselves to internal formal 

14Other special hiring authorities available to agencies include the Bilingual-Bicultural 

Program and the Outstanding Scholar Program, which allow agencies to noncompetitively 

hire individuals for certain positions. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has been 

critical of these programs, and GAO has recommended that OPM review their effectiveness. 

MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring: Why Two Special Hiring Programs Should be 

Ended, (Washington, D.C.: January 2000), and GAO, Human Capital: Opportunities to 

Improve Executive Agencies’ Hiring Processes, GAO-03-450 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 

2003). We further note that OPM is currently involved in litigation concerning the 

Outstanding Scholar Program as it relates to veterans’ preference rights before the MSPB. 

Dean v. Dept. of Agriculture, 99 M.S.P.R. 533 (2005) and Olson v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 

100 M.S.P.R. 322 (2005), request for reconsideration, No. AT-0330-03-0076-N-1 and CH-3443-

01-0706-N-1.

1571 Fed. Reg. 181,161 (Apr. 11, 2006). 5 C.F.R. sec. 213.3202(b).
Page 21 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

training/developmental programs.16 After 2 years, if program requirements 

are met, an agency can noncompetitively convert them to competitive civil 

service status. OPM issued final regulations on FCIP in 2005.17

The Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program is a 2-year 

internship program open to students who have completed graduate degree 

programs, been nominated by their school officials, and passed OPM’s 

assessment. In 2005, OPM issued final regulations implementing Executive 

Order No. 13318, issued in 2003,18 removing the cap on the number of PMF 

appointments, providing agencies greater flexibility in promoting fellows, 

and establishing training and development requirements.19

Other organizations have also realized that various intern programs provide 

valuable recruitment sources. According to the Partnership for Public 

Service, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to revitalizing public service, 

internship programs such as SCEP provide agencies a pool of diverse, 

tested, and easy-to-hire potential employees.20 Yet, the Partnership found 

that very few are drawn from the pool into permanent federal jobs. On the 

basis of the Partnership’s analysis of the rates at which SCEP program 

participants are converted to permanent federal employment, agencies 

may not be realizing the full potential of this program. The Partnership 

reported that in 2001, agencies converted 17 percent of SCEP participants 

to permanent federal employment, and in 2000, 11 percent. In contrast, the 

Partnership’s report stated that more than 35 percent of interns in the 

private sector accepted jobs with the companies for which they interned.

16In September 2005, MSPB issued Building a High-Quality Workforce: The Federal Career 

Intern Program, which reviewed the agency implementation and OPM oversight of the 

FCIP. Among other things, MSPB recommended that agencies vary their recruitment 

methods to ensure that interested applicants from all segments of society are given the 

opportunity to apply and make improvements to the training provided to participants in the 

program, and that OPM provide clearer guidance to agencies on how to implement and 

evaluate FCIP. 

1770 Fed. Reg. 44,219 (Aug. 2, 2005), 5 C.F.R. sec. 213.3202(o).

1868 Fed. Reg. 66,317 (Nov. 25, 2003).

1970 Fed. Reg. 28,775 (May 19, 2005), 5 C.F.R. part 362.

20Partnership for Public Service, Tapping America’s Potential: Expanding Student 

Employment and Internship Opportunities in the Federal Government (Washington, D.C.: 

July 10, 2002).
Page 22 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

While OPM has reported data on SCEP participants governmentwide by 

racial/ethnic group in its Fact Book and on SCEP new hires by agency in its 

statistical reports on Hispanic employment, OPM does not report 

demographic data on SCEP participants by agency and on FCIP and PMF 

participants governmentwide or by agency, or rates of conversion to 

permanent positions for SCEP, FCIP, and PMF either governmentwide or 

by agency. According to OPM, data on conversions to permanent 

employment by racial/ethnic group for SCEP and FCIP are available from 

the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). Currently, OPM does not analyze 

these data. Similar data are available for the PMF. Analyzing data on 

conversion rates could provide OPM with valuable information on agencies 

that appear to be maximizing their use of these programs as well as those 

that are not fully utilizing them. With this information, OPM could then 

provide assistance to agencies to help them incorporate student 

employment programs into their strategic workforce planning as they seek 

to recruit and develop talented employees to support agency missions; 

ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and administrative 

needs; and achieve a diverse, quality workforce. Such information from 

OPM could also enable agencies to perform more complete assessments of 

their programs.

Leading Practices OPM disseminates leading-practices information through the reports it 

issues pursuant to FEORP and Executive Order No. 13171 and through the 

Interagency Task Force on Hispanic employment, chaired by the Director 

of OPM. In its annual FEORP reports, OPM presents a summary of agency 

practices on workforce planning, recruitment and outreach, mentoring, 

and career development based on the information agencies submit to OPM 

in their annual FEORP reports. In its Annual Report to the President on 

Hispanic Employment, OPM presents what agencies report as effective 

recruitment, outreach, career development, and accountability practices. 

To prepare the reports pursuant to the order, OPM annually asks agencies 

to submit information concerning steps taken related to these areas. OPM 

also shares information on leading practices at meetings of the Interagency 

Task Force. Through this guidance, OPM promotes broad outreach to all 

groups and encourages agencies to establish relationships with colleges 

and universities as a means to attract qualified candidates.

Training and Development Once onboard, training and development programs can assist employees in 

further developing skills and helping them qualify for higher-level positions. 

OPM provides guidance to agencies on its training and development Web 

page and has issued regulations on training and development tools 

available to agencies, such as academic degree and other employee training 
Page 23 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

programs. In 2004, OPM finalized regulations21 on a training provision of 

the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title XIII of the Homeland 

Security Act), which expanded agency authority to pay or reimburse 

employees for the cost of academic degree training when such training 

contributes significantly to meeting an identified agency training need, 

resolving an identified agency staffing problem, or accomplishing goals in 

an agency’s human capital management strategic plan.22

Agencies Take Steps to 

Recruit and Develop 

Hispanics in the 

Federal Workforce

The five agencies in our review have taken a variety of approaches to 

address issues concerning Hispanic representation in their workforces, 

particularly in competing for a limited number of qualified candidates and 

addressing Hispanic representation at higher levels. At NASA, where 

Hispanics represented 5.3 percent of the workforce in 2005, one of the 

major occupations is aerospace engineering.23 There, Hispanics 

represented 5.0 percent of aerospace engineers, according to EEOC’s 

Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, 2004. In the CLF, Hispanics 

represented 4.6 percent of aerospace engineers, according to the Census 

2000 Special EEO File. NASA said it must compete with the private sector 

for the pool of Hispanics qualified for aerospace engineering positions, 

which is often attracted by more-lucrative employment opportunities in the 

private sector in more-preferable locations. FNS, where Hispanics 

represented 7 percent of the workforce in 2005,24 reports that its ability to 

successfully recruit Hispanics was affected by low Hispanic representation 

in areas where some of its regional offices are located. Similarly, the USAF, 

with 7.4 percent of its workforce Hispanic in 2005, also reported difficulties 

in recruiting Hispanics at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, 

where Hispanics represent approximately 2 percent of the local CLF, 

according to the USAF. Moreover, the USAF attributes, in part, the decrease 

in overall Hispanic representation levels (from 7.7 percent in 2000 to 7.4 

percent in 2005) to the closure of Air Force bases in the southwestern 

United States where Hispanics were more highly represented than at other 

2169 Fed. Reg. 33,271 (June 15, 2004). 

22Section 1331(a) of Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002), amending 5 U.S.C. sec. 4107.

23Hispanic representation at NASA, the USAF, SSA, and the SBA is based on the percentage 

of Hispanics in the permanent workforce, as reported by OPM in its FEORP reports.

24Hispanic representation is based on the percentage of Hispanics in the permanent 

workforce, as reported by FNS.
Page 24 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

bases. Finally, agencies also reported that Hispanic representation in midand upper-level positions was an issue they were addressing. While both 

SSA, where Hispanics represented 12.5 percent of the workforce in 2005, 

and the SBA, where Hispanics represented 10.8 percent in 2005, reported 

success recruiting Hispanics for lower-level positions, each noted that 

Hispanic representation in certain mid- or upper-level positions was lower.

Steps Agencies Have Taken The agencies reported using a variety of approaches that enhanced their 

ability to recruit and develop Hispanic employees. These included outreach 

to the Hispanic community and Hispanic-serving organizations, including 

participating in conferences sponsored by LULAC and others; recruiting at 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions—defined by statute as an eligible institution 

having an undergraduate enrollment of at least 25 percent Hispanic fulltime students and at least 50 percent of the institution’s Hispanics students 

qualifying as low income;25 sponsoring interns through the HACU National 

Internship Program; use of student employment programs such as SCEP 

and FCIP; advertising in both English- and Spanish-language Hispanic 

media; and career development and training programs. Below we describe 

some of the specific approaches agencies in our study used to recruit and 

provide training and development opportunities for Hispanics. While data 

on the outcomes are limited and we have not assessed the effectiveness of 

these programs, the agencies reported that these approaches have 

enhanced their ability to recruit and develop qualified Hispanics.

Outreach to the Hispanic 

Community

NASA—Part of NASA’s strategy to recruit Hispanics centers on increasing 

educational attainment, beginning in kindergarten and continuing into 

college and graduate school, with the goal of attracting students into the 

NASA workforce and aerospace community. NASA centers sponsor, and its 

employees participate in, mentoring, tutoring, and other programs to 

encourage Hispanic and other students to pursue careers in science, 

engineering, technology, and math. For example, the Marshall Space 

Center in Huntsville, Alabama, annually sponsors a Hispanic Youth 

Conference attended by students from across Alabama that includes 

workshops on leadership development and pursuing NASA career fields 

and provides opportunities to establish mentoring relationships. NASA 

also provides grants to fund educational support programs including in 

locations where there are high concentrations of Hispanics. For example, 

2520 U.S.C. sec. 1101a(a)(5).
Page 25 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, provided a grant for 

the development and implementation of a K-12 technology-awareness 

program designed to expose students to NASA and higher education 

through competitive team activities based on key aeronautic concepts. The 

program has been implemented in schools throughout California that have 

a high percentage of Hispanic students. Various centers also participate in 

high school and college internship programs, such as the Summer High 

School Apprenticeship Research Program where high school students 

spend 8 weeks working with engineers on scientific, engineering, 

mathematical, and technical projects. NASA centers also provide 

scholarships and research grants. For example, Ames provides 

scholarships to Hispanic college students at a community college and the 

Dryden Flight Research Center sponsors fellowships for students in 

engineering and science to continue their graduate studies. In addition, 

NASA has recently developed the Motivating Undergraduates in Science 

and Technology scholarship program designed to stimulate a continued 

interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

USAF—To reach potentially qualified Hispanics from all areas of the 

country, the USAF outreach strategy focuses on partnering and improving 

working relationships with Hispanic-serving organizations at the national, 

regional, and local levels. At the national level, the USAF has established 

relationships with professional, educational, and broad-based Hispanicserving organizations. For example, it signed a memorandum of 

understanding with LULAC agreeing to collaborate on, among other things, 

increasing USAF career opportunities. Through the Department of Defense 

partnership with HACU, the USAF participates in a national working group 

that meets semiannually to develop initiatives to expand recruitment at 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions. At the local and regional levels, the USAF has 

a variety of outreach efforts that involve both providing information to, and 

gaining feedback from, the Hispanic community. It works with 

organizations to educate potential employees on the application process. 

For example, Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico has sponsored “train 

the trainer” workshops with area organizations, high schools, and colleges 

and universities. The USAF also participates in programs working directly 

with local students, such as serving as mentors for Hispanic students. In 

addition, the USAF regularly provides vacancy announcements to, and has 

ongoing dialogues with, local Hispanic community organizations.

Use of Student Hiring Authorities NASA—During fiscal year 2004, NASA implemented the corporate college 

recruitment initiative using FCIP hiring authority to recruit individuals to 

mission-critical positions. As part of this strategy, NASA participates in 
Page 26 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

recruitment events at colleges and universities and conferences around the 

country, which it selects based on academic programs, diversity of 

attendee population, or involvement in NASA research. For each 

recruitment site, it invites academic institutions within reasonable 

geographical proximity, allowing it to maximize opportunities to reach 

students at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In fiscal year 2004, 15 HispanicServing Institutions participated from Arizona, California, Florida, New 

Mexico, New York, Puerto Rico, and Texas, which included universities 

with well-established engineering, science, and technology curricula. Prior 

to each event, NASA publishes event-specific vacancies and encourages 

students to apply in advance in order to create a pool of applicants from 

which to schedule interviews at the site. NASA reported that it was most 

successful in competing for top talent and filling critical competency 

positions at the earliest possible time when it extended job offers at the 

recruitment site or within 30 days after the conclusion of the recruitment 

visit.

USAF—The USAF uses student employment programs to attract Hispanics 

and other qualified applicants for positions ranging from those requiring 

training at the vocational-technical schools to the graduate level. The 

USAF—which employs approximately half of the federal government’s 

civilian aircraft maintenance workers—has implemented the “Grow Your 

Own” aircraft maintenance program at three of its Texas bases. In 

partnership with vocational-technical schools, the program includes both 

on-the-job training and classroom education. It provides the USAF with a 

pool of trained candidates to replace retiring federal employees and a 

vehicle to increase Hispanic representation. Students are initially 

appointed through SCEP, and upon completion of the educational program 

and 640 hours of career-related work, students may be converted to 

permanent employment within 120-days without further competition.

Using FCIP authority, the USAF hires recent college graduates into its 

PALACE Acquire and Copper Cap internship programs. The Copper Cap 

program is designed to train college graduates as contract specialists by 

assigning them to work with professional contracting officers. The 

PALACE Acquire program fills a variety of positions in approximately 20 

career fields including logistics, civilian personnel, scientists and 

engineers, criminal investigator, intelligence specialists, public affairs, and 

education specialists. Participants may be promoted in 1-year intervals up 

to a certain level based on satisfactory or successful performance and are 

eligible for student loan repayment and tuition assistance for graduate 

school.
Page 27 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Career Development Programs SBA—The SBA’s District Director Candidate Development Program 

(DDCDP) is designed to recruit and develop a diverse group of highly 

qualified and trained managers at the General Schedule grade 13, 14, and 15 

levels to fill district director positions on a noncompetitive basis as they 

become vacant. At the SBA, district director positions are key managerial 

career positions responsible for providing agency services to the small 

business community. The program is a 6- to 18-month development 

program and candidates who are competitively selected for, and 

successfully complete, the DDCDP program are eligible for noncompetitive 

selection for a period of 3 years from the time they have successfully 

completed the program.

FNS—Since 2000, FNS has sponsored the Leadership Institute, which is a 

15-month full-time leadership training program. The program focuses on 

five core competencies: leading change, leading people, achieving results, 

business acumen, and building coalitions/communications. Participants, 

who are competitively selected from grades 11–14, attend core seminars on 

such topics as leading teams, problem solving, and decision making and 

participate in individual and team projects. As of February 2006, there were 

98 graduates from five classes.

SSA—SSA sponsors national, headquarters, and regional career 

development programs for employees in grades 5 to 15. At the national 

level, the Leadership Development Program is an 18-month program 

designed to provide employees in grades 9 to 12 with developmental 

experiences through placement in designated trainee positions. The 

Advanced Leadership Program is an 18-month program designed to provide 

employees in grades 13 and 14 experience to become future agency leaders 

through rotational assignments, training, and other developmental 

experiences. Upon successful completion of these programs, participants 

receive a 3-year Certificate of Eligibility for a onetime, noncompetitive 

promotion, used at the discretion of SSA management. SSA also has a 12- to 

18-month Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program to 

prepare individuals in grade 15 or equivalent to assume senior executivelevel responsibilities and develop their executive core qualifications. For 

employees in grades 5 through 8, SSA offers career development programs 

in its Office of Central Operations based in Baltimore and Office of 

Disability Adjudication and Review, which has regional and local hearing 

offices throughout the country. These, as well as other regional and 

headquarters component career development programs, are modeled after 

its three national programs for which employees are competitively 

selected.
Page 28 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Educational Assistance 

Programs

USAF—The USAF provides a variety of opportunities for current 

employees to increase their educational attainment through tuition 

assistance and degree completion programs, in-residence and distancelearning educational programs, and long-term academic programs. Its 

tuition assistance program covers mission-related coursework for 

designated positions toward degrees at a higher-level than the employee 

has already attained. Employees attend courses on a voluntary off-duty 

basis. Degree completion programs offer selected employees in designated 

career fields the opportunity to complete their degree during duty hours on 

a full- or part-time basis. In addition, the USAF also provides opportunities 

for employees to earn graduate degrees from its academic institutions, 

such as the Air Force Institute of Technology. Moreover, its professional 

military education programs—such as the Squadron Officer College and Air 

War College—are available for civilian employees depending upon grade 

level. These programs are offered in residence and by correspondence. 

Both provide opportunities for participants to earn credits toward degree 

programs.

The USAF has obtained the recommendations on college credit for these 

and other courses and training programs from the American Council on 

Education’s (ACE) College Credit Recommendation service. ACE is an 

association of approximately 1,800 accredited, degree-granting colleges 

and universities as well as higher-education-related associations, 

organizations, and corporations. It reviews training programs and courses 

offered by government agencies and corporations and other training 

providers at the providers’ request and makes recommendations 

concerning the type of academic credit, if any, appropriate for the program. 

Approximately 1,200 accredited colleges or universities have agreed to 

consider ACE recommendations for courses, apprenticeship programs, and 

examinations, including community colleges and universities such as the 

University of California at Berkeley, George Washington University, and 

Indiana University, Bloomington.26 ACE has also recommended credit for 

various courses from NASA’s Academy of Program and Project Leadership 

that may be used toward a graduate degree.

26It is at the discretion of colleges and universities to accept credit recommendations as they 

consider appropriate. 
Page 29 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Agencies Identify Lessonslearned in Addressing 

Hispanic Representation

In response to our inquiry, the agencies included in our review reported 

three primary lessons important to the success of their efforts—

commitment of agency leadership, taking a strategic workforce planning 

approach, and working with the Hispanic community:

• Commitment of agency leadership: Agencies reported that their 

programs were most successful when agency leadership was committed 

to addressing Hispanic representation. As we found in our prior work on 

diversity management, leaders and managers within organizations are 

primarily responsible for the success of diversity management because 

they must provide the visibility and commit the time and necessary

resources.27 For example, SSA included diversity as part of its strategic 

and human capital plans and developed an agencywide marketing and 

recruitment strategy to address the representation of any 

underrepresented group, including Hispanics. Additionally, it tracks the 

outcomes of its recruitment and hiring initiatives.

• Strategic workforce planning: Agencies also recognized the importance 

of taking a strategic workforce planning approach in their efforts to 

recruit a diverse workforce. Strategic workforce planning addresses two 

critical needs: (1) aligning an organization’s human capital program with 

its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals and 

(2) developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and 

retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals.28 For example, NASA’s 

recruitment strategy focuses on both developing the pipeline to fill its 

mission-critical occupations by encouraging students to pursue degrees 

in science, technology, engineering, and math and attracting graduates 

into the NASA workforce and aerospace community. Additionally, SSA 

developed a business case for bilingual public contact employees in its 

field offices and bicultural employees in policy-making staff positions in 

its regional offices and headquarters components. Similarly, FNS said it 

began to realize the need for bilingual professionals, and as a result, has 

advertised positions requiring fluency in Spanish.

27GAO, Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and Agency 

Examples, GAO-05-90 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005).

28GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
Page 30 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

• Working with Hispanic communities: Finally, agencies told us that it is 

important to work with Hispanic communities to understand one 

another’s needs and find mutually beneficial solutions. The USAF at 

Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has taken steps in 

this regard. In this geographic area where Hispanics represented 41.6 

percent of the population according to the 2000 Census, the base has an 

alliance with the local public schools and colleges and universities to 

ensure that it is providing career and mentoring opportunities for area 

students and that schools are producing a pipeline of qualified students 

to meet base needs. Base representatives also work with the Hispanic 

Chamber of Commerce on issues pertaining to Hispanic communities.

Conclusions Providing federal agencies with benchmarks that consider citizenship 

would allow agencies to get a more accurate picture of differences in 

representation levels and more effectively identify and address barriers to 

equal employment opportunity. Current CLF benchmarks do not include 

citizenship; however, two annual official data sources—the CPS and ACS—

are available that would allow EEOC and OPM to separate citizens and 

noncitizens in analyzing federal workforce representation by racial, ethnic, 

and gender groups. Additionally, agencies analyze their workforces using 

the Census Special EEO Files prepared at the direction of the consortium 

of agencies—EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and DOL. Although the 2000 Special EEO 

File did not contain citizenship data, EEOC and DOJ have expressed 

interest in and the need for including such data in the 2010 Special EEO 

File but must address issues including cost and privacy.

As part of their barrier analyses, where representation differences between 

occupations in their workforces and similar ones in the CLF exist, agencies 

are to determine whether the qualifications established for those 

occupations are appropriate. Additionally, agencies are required to 

determine whether they have considered all sources of qualified 

individuals. OPM currently provides guidance to federal agencies on 

recruiting at colleges and universities. Because the majority of Hispanics 

enrolled in postsecondary education attend community colleges and 

vocational schools, identifying effective outreach practices to such schools 

could help those agencies that have occupations requiring the education 

and training provided at these institutions to meet workforce needs and 

further equal employment opportunity. OPM already shares effective 

recruiting practices through its Annual Report to the President under 

Executive Order No. 13171.
Page 31 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

OPM has recognized the importance of student employment programs, in 

particular SCEP, in providing a unique opportunity for agencies to recruit 

students from high school through graduate school, depending on agencies’ 

needs. These programs not only serve as a mechanism to address future 

federal workforce needs, they offer students the incentive to complete 

their education as well. OPM has provided data on SCEP new hires in its 

statistical reports on Hispanic employment and SCEP participants 

governmentwide in its Fact Book. While data on conversation rates for 

SCEP and FCIP are available from the CPDF, OPM does not analyze these 

data by agency or governmentwide. Such analyses could provide OPM with 

valuable information to help agencies maximize their use of these 

programs as part of their overall strategic workforce planning. Additionally, 

such information from OPM could enable agencies to perform more 

complete assessments of their programs.

While federal agencies are taking steps to address Hispanic representation 

issues, as an employer, the federal government is limited in its ability to 

address the effects of citizenship and education on Hispanic representation 

throughout the federal workforce. As these are multifaceted issues, 

developing strategies to address them will require partnerships between 

Hispanic-serving organizations, federal agencies, state and local 

governments, educational institutions, and other interest groups.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the Director of OPM and the Chair of EEOC do the 

following:

• Include citizenship in their annual comparisons of representation in the 

federal workforce to the CLF. To help ensure consistency, both agencies 

should agree upon a single source of citizenship data.

• Work with other Consortium agencies and the Census Bureau to 

incorporate citizenship data into the 2010 Census Special EEO File and 

incorporate such data into analyses under MD-715, FEORP, and 

Executive Order No. 13171.

We recommend that the Director of OPM do the following:

• Assess the extent of participation by racial and ethnic groups in student 

employment programs—SCEP, FCIP, and PMF—to help agencies 

maximize the use of these programs in their overall strategic workforce 

plan. This effort should include:
Page 32 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

• analyzing participation in, and conversion rates to, permanent 

positions from these programs and

• reporting governmentwide and agency-specific demographic data for 

the different racial and ethnic groups reflecting participation in, and 

rates of conversion to, permanent employment from these programs. 

These data are in addition to the data already reported on these 

programs in its reports, such as in its statistical reports on Hispanic 

employment and in the Fact Book.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney 

General, and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for their 

review and comment. In an e-mail, DOJ said it had no comments. In a 

written response, the Department of Commerce said it had no comments. 

(See app. V.) In its written comments, EEOC said it found the report to be 

an extremely interesting and useful addition to the ongoing examination of 

Hispanic representation in the federal workforce and indicated its plans to 

use the report as a resource. EEOC agreed that citizenship data are an 

important aspect that appears applicable not only to Hispanics, but to other 

census population groups as well. In this regard, EEOC has requested that 

the Census Bureau review the possibility of including citizenship data in 

the 2010 Special EEO File. The availability of citizenship data would 

enhance the analyses required under MD-715. However, EEOC did not 

address our recommendation that it include citizenship data in its annual 

comparisons of representation in the federal workforce to the CLF, which 

can be based on currently available CPS or ACS data. EEOC also said that 

while citizenship data are a useful benchmark for broad trending, more 

refined analyses are necessary, including analyses of applicant pools and 

participation rates for specific occupations. EEOC also said that analysis of 

the on-board federal workforce, such as analysis of promotions and 

participation in career development, employee recognition, and awards 

programs, is important in assessing equality of opportunity. We agree with 

EEOC that more refined analyses are necessary to assess equality of 

opportunity. EEOC’s comments are reprinted in appendix VI. OPM 

provided minor technical comments via e-mail, which we incorporated as 

appropriate, but did not otherwise comment on the report or our 

recommendations.
Page 33 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. We will then send copies of this report to the Chair of EEOC, the 

Director of OPM, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and 

other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon 

request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9490. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Staff who made major contributions to this report are listed 

in appendix VII.

George H. Stalcup

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 34 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

List of Requesters

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Danny K. Davis

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce

and Agency Organization

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Grace Flores Napolitano

House of Representatives

The Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez

House of Representatives
Page 35 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Our objectives were to (1) identify and analyze the factors that are affecting 

Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, (2) examine the steps 

that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in their oversight roles, are taking 

related to Hispanic representation, and (3) illustrate the efforts within 

selected federal agencies related to Hispanic representation. 

To answer our first objective, we interviewed representatives from 

Hispanic-serving and other relevant organizations,1

 and federal agency 

officials; reviewed previous studies; and obtained the opinions of experts 

identified by the National Academy of Sciences to identify possible factors 

that affect Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. Next, we 

researched available data sources that included sufficiently detailed data 

on Hispanic ethnicity, employer (federal or nonfederal), and the identified 

factors that could be reliably measured. We concluded that the 2000 

Decennial Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent File was 

the best data source for our purposes. We conducted bivariate and 

multivariate analyses of data from the 2000 Decennial Census PUMS to 

determine the effect of the identified factors that could be reliably 

measured in this dataset on Hispanic representation in the federal 

workforce. Our methodology and results of these analyses are more 

specifically described in appendix II. We obtained opinions on our 

methodology from EEOC, OPM, the Census Bureau, and the Department of 

Justice (DOJ). The experts identified by the National Academy of Sciences 

also reviewed and provided comments on both our methodology for 

conducting these analyses and our preliminary results. Our analyses are 

not designed to prove or disprove discrimination in a court of law like 

analyses conducted by EEOC or DOJ, nor do they establish whether the 

differences would require corrective action by any federal agency. Rather, 

our analyses use a standard statistical method designed to provide 

information at an aggregate level about factors that explain levels of 

Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal 

workforce. 

To determine steps EEOC and OPM have taken related to Hispanic 

representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, executive orders, 

1

These included, among others, the League of United Latin American Citizens, National 

Council of La Raza, National Council of Hispanic Employment Program Managers, National 

Association of Hispanic Federal Executives, Coalition for Fairness for Hispanics in 

Government, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and the Partnership for 

Public Service.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

policies, guidance, program information, and reports issued related to 

Hispanic representation in the federal government. At EEOC, we met with 

officials and representatives, including from its Office of Federal 

Operations, Office of General Counsel-—Research and Analytic Services, 

and Office of Legal Counsel. At OPM, we met with officials, including from 

the Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability Division, 

Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, and the Office of General 

Counsel. 

To illustrate the efforts of federal agencies, we selected five Chief Financial 

Officer (CFO) Act agencies or their subagencies of different sizes, 

geographic locations, concentrations of jobs by grade level, and OPM’s 

occupational categories.2

 They were the United States Air Force, Food and 

Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small Business Administration, and 

Social Security Administration. We provided written questions and 

document requests to agency officials and reviewed the responses received 

from each of the five agencies. We also had discussions at each agency 

with officials that oversee offices and programs related to Hispanic 

representation. We also reviewed documents provided by, and spoke with 

officials from, the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for 

Hispanic Americans. 

In addition, we analyzed Hispanic representation in the federal workforce 

governmentwide (1) compared to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF), including 

and excluding noncitizens; (2) in federal occupations compared to similar 

occupations in the CLF;3

 and (3) by pay plan/grade. 

• To compare Hispanic representation in the federal workforce 

governmentwide4

 to the CLF, we used data from 1994 to 2005. For the 

federal workforce, we used data reported by OPM on the permanent 

federal workforce. For the CLF, which includes both permanent and 

nonpermanent employees, we analyzed the March supplements to the 

2

OPM’s six occupational categories are Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, 

Other White-Collar, and Blue Collar, collectively known as “PATCOB.”

3

The CLF is defined as those 16 and older (including federal workers) who are employed or 

looking for work and not in the military or are institutionalized. 

4

We define “governmentwide” as the executive branch excluding the intelligence agencies, 

the U.S. Postal Service, and all active duty military personnel.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Current Population Survey (CPS)—the 1994–2002 Annual Demographic 

Files and the 2003–2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplements 

(ASEC).5

 

• To compare Hispanic representation in federal occupations to similar 

occupations in the CLF, we selected the occupations which in 

September 2004 had 10,000 or more federal employees, 47 occupations 

in total (see app. IV). For this analysis, we included both permanent and 

nonpermanent federal employees for comparability to the CLF. For 

Hispanic representation in these occupations in the federal workforce, 

we analyzed the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) for 2000–2005. For 

Hispanic representation in these occupations in the CLF, we analyzed 

the Census 2000 Special EEO File, which was created from the 2000 

Census.6

 To determine occupations that are similar in the CLF and the 

federal workforce, we used the crosswalk for 2000 provided to us by 

EEOC to match federal occupations with similar occupations in the CLF.

• To examine Hispanic representation by grade governmentwide, we 

analyzed 1990–2005 CPDF data for permanent and nonpermanent 

employees in groupings of General Schedule grades 1–4, 5–8, and 9–12, 

separately for grades 13, 14, and 15, and separately for those in the

Senior Executive Service, in Senior Level/Senior Technical positions, 

and under the Executive Schedule. (See app. IV.)

We believe the CPDF, CPS, and Census 2000 Special EEO File are 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study. Regarding the CPDF, we 

have previously reported that governmentwide data from the CPDF for the 

key variables in this study—race/Hispanic origin, occupation, and pay 

plan/grade—were 97 percent or more accurate.7

 We believe the CPDF data 

are sufficiently reliable for purposes of this study. Regarding the CPS, to 

assess the reliability of its data, we reviewed the technical documentation 

5

The CPS first included citizenship as a variable in 1994. The CPS, Annual Demographic 

File was renamed the ASEC in 2003. The ASEC provides annual tabulations of social, 

demographic, and economic characteristics of persons in U.S. households. 

6

The Census 2000 Special EEO File is a tabulation based on decennial Census data, which 

permits analysis of representation in the CLF by occupation, race, ethnicity, and gender. 

The Census Bureau prepares these files based on specifications set by EEOC, OPM, DOJ, 

and the Department of Labor.

7

GAO, OPM’s Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable to Meet Most 

Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

for these data files, including the coding and definition of variables of 

interest, the procedures for handling missing data, coding checks, and 

imputation procedures for missing data. We also interviewed Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) staff about how federal employment and 

race/ethnicity are reported and imputed and to determine how this would 

affect our analyses. We considered the response rate, allocation rate (or 

the rate at which responses are imputed for unanswered questions), and 

size of confidence intervals. Because the CPS had a very high response 

rate, a low allocation rate, and narrow confidence intervals, the 1994–2005 

CPS data were sufficiently reliable. Regarding the Census 2000 Special 

EEO File, although we and others have cited a number of limitations of 

Census 2000 data, we believe these data are sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this study (see app. II for a full description of what we did to 

assess the reliability of Census data). 

We conducted our work from October 2004 to June 2006 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 39 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce ApendxiI

This appendix describes our analyses of factors that are affecting Hispanic 

representation in the federal workforce. We included those factors 

identified by representatives of Hispanic-serving organizations, agency 

officials, outside experts, and previous studies, which could be reliably 

measured in the data set we used. These factors were citizenship, gender, 

education, veteran’s status, race, English proficiency, age, disability status, 

in-school status, employment status (full- or part-time), and geography 

(state where employed). To assess the effect of these factors on Hispanic 

representation in the federal workforce, we analyzed how these factors 

affect the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the 

federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. We used 

logistic regression models to estimate likelihood of federal employment. 

This is a widely accepted method of analyzing dichotomous or binomial 

outcomes—like being in the federal versus nonfederal workforce—when 

the interest is in determining the effects of multiple factors that may be 

related to one another. In developing the model, we solicited the opinions 

of experts identified by the National Academy of Sciences as well as 

officials from OPM, EEOC, DOJ, and the Census Bureau. We also sought 

the experts’ views on the preliminary results of our analysis.1

Data Sets Used We analyzed data from the 2000 Decennial Census Public Use Microdata 

Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent File because it (1) included variables needed for 

our analyses and (2) had the largest sample size of the datasets containing 

the variables in our analyses.2

 To confirm our results, we also analyzed 

data from the 2004 American Community Survey (ACS) because it contains 

more recent data. In this appendix, however, we present only the results 

using the PUMS data because its larger sample size makes it less prone to 

1

We are grateful to the six experts who assisted us with our study by reviewing and 

providing comments on our methodology and preliminary results. Commenting on both the 

methodology and preliminary results were Katharine Abraham, Professor of Survey 

Methodology and Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Maryland; Robert Bell, 

Statistics Research Department, AT&T Labs—Research; Cordelia W. Reimers, Professor 

Emerita of Economics, Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of 

New York; Teresa A. Sullivan, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the 

University of Texas System; Stephen Trejo, Associate Professor of Economics, University of 

Texas at Austin. Commenting on the methodology was Jeffrey Passel, Senior Research 

Associate at the Pew Hispanic Center. However, we take full responsibility for the accuracy 

of our analysis.

2

We also considered the American Community Survey and the Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to the Current Population Survey.
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 40 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

sampling error than the ACS data.3 In addition, the results of the analyses 

of the ACS data were largely consistent with the results using the PUMS 

data. 

To assess the reliability of the PUMS and ACS, we reviewed the technical 

documentation for these data files, including the coding and definition of 

variables of interest, the procedures for handling missing data, coding 

checks, and imputation procedures for missing data. We also interviewed 

Census Bureau staff about how federal employment and race/ethnicity are 

reported and imputed and to determine how this would affect our analyses. 

We considered the response rate, allocation rate (or the rate at which 

responses are imputed for unanswered questions), and size of confidence 

intervals. Because PUMS and ACS both had a very high response rate, a 

low allocation rate, and narrow confidence intervals, the 2000 PUMS and 

2004 ACS were sufficiently reliable for our objectives. 

The PUMS and ACS both contain self-reported data on whether someone is 

part of the CLF. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines the CLF as 

including persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia, who are not institutionalized (i.e., in penal and mental 

facilities, or homes for the aged) and who are not on active duty in the 

Armed Forces.4

 For purposes of our logistic regression models, we divided 

the CLF into two groups—the federal workforce and the nonfederal 

workforce.5

 Further, we restricted our analyses to individuals 18 and older 

because, with a few exceptions, 18 years is the minimum age for federal 

employment and our analysis of the government’s official personnel data—

the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)—showed that in September 2004 

3

PUMS files have Census 2000 data containing records of characteristics for a 5-percent 

sample of housing units. The ACS is designed to provide estimates for population areas 

larger than 20,000 people whereas PUMS provides estimates for all areas because of its large 

sample size. Because both the ACS and the PUMS files are drawn from probability samples, 

GAO used the appropriate item weights prepared by the Census Bureau for each dataset.

4

We included Puerto Rico in our definition of the CLF. When we compared the results of our 

logistic regression analyses including and excluding Puerto Rico, the results were virtually 

the same.

5

We included employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) as part of the nonfederal 

workforce because the USPS is an independent establishment and not an executive agency 

of the federal government and it is not subject to the government’s employee classification 

requirements and pay rates and pay systems. In addition, the government’s Central 

Personnel Data File does not include USPS data. 
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 41 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

individuals under 18 years of age constituted only 0.10 percent of the 

federal workforce.

Methodology We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models to estimate 

the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal 

workforce relative to being in the nonfederal workforce. There were four 

steps to these analyses.

1. For the first step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to 

estimate the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the 

likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce, relative to the 

nonfederal workforce, before controlling for any of the identified 

factors. 

2. For the second step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to 

determine how our estimated difference in likelihood of Hispanics and 

non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to the 

nonfederal workforce was affected by U.S. citizenship. We estimated 

the difference in likelihood between Hispanic citizens and nonHispanic citizens being employed in the federal workforce relative to 

the nonfederal workforce and compared it to the difference in 

likelihood of federal employment among both citizens and noncitizens 

combined, obtained in step 1. We analyzed the effect of citizenship 

before all other factors because the federal government has a general 

policy and practice of restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals.

3. For the third step, we restricted our analyses to citizens only and used a 

series of multivariate logistic regression models, controlling for each 

factor one at a time, to estimate how each of the other factors affected 

the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic citizens and non-Hispanic 

citizens being in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal 

workforce. Because of the large effect of education on the difference 

between Hispanics and non-Hispanics that was revealed in this step, we 

ran a bivariate model that estimated the effect of education among all 

individuals—citizens and noncitizens combined—on the likelihood of 

being in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce. 

4. In the fourth step, we used a multivariate logistic regression model that 

estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic and non-Hispanic 

citizens being employed in the federal workforce versus the nonfederal 

workforce after controlling for all other factors simultaneously. Among 
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 42 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

citizens, we controlled simultaneously for gender, education, veteran’s 

status, race, English proficiency, age, disability status, school 

attendance (enrolled or not enrolled), employment status (full- or parttime), and geography (state where employed). 

In our analyses, we express differences in the likelihoods of being in the 

federal workforce rather than the nonfederal workforce using odds ratios.6

 

An odds ratio is generally defined as the ratio of the odds of an event 

occurring in one group compared to the odds of it occurring in another 

group—the reference or comparision group. In our analyses, the event of 

interest to us was employment in the federal workforce versus employment 

in the nonfederal workforce. We computed odds ratios to indicate the 

difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being 

employed in the federal workforce (1) before controlling for any of the 

other factors, (2) after controlling for all of the factors one at a time, and 

(3) controlling for all factors simultaneously.

In our analyses, an odds ratio of 1.0 would indicate that Hispanics and nonHispanics were equally likely to be employed in the federal workforce as in 

the nonfederal workforce, or that the ratio of Hispanics to non-Hispanics 

was the same in the two workforces. An odds ratio of less than 1.0 would 

imply that Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanics to be in the federal 

workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce, while an odds ratio 

greater than 1.0 would imply that Hispanics were more likely. For example, 

an odds ratio of 0.5 would indicate that Hispanics were only half or 50 

percent as likely as non-Hispanics to be in the federal workforce as 

opposed to the nonfederal workforce. An odds ratio of 2.0 would indicate 

that Hispanics were twice as likely as non-Hispanics to be in the federal 

workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. We also use odds 

ratios to indicate the effects of the other factors we considered (i.e., 

education, race, etc.), and they can be similarly interpreted. 

Given the large sample size of the PUMS file, all of the results reported are 

statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Thus, we 

concentrated our analysis on the size or magnitude of the odds ratio—that 

is, how much smaller or larger than 1.0 they were—rather than the 

statistical significance of the odds ratios.

6

We used odds ratios rather than percentages because they are more appropriate for 

statistical modeling and multivariate analysis.
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 43 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

The Difference 

between Hispanics’ 

and Non-Hispanics’ 

Likelihood of 

Employment in the 

Federal Workforce 

versus the Nonfederal 

Workforce

We initially estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanics and nonHispanics being employed in the federal workforce versus the nonfederal 

workforce before controlling for any of the identified factors. Table 4 

shows the numbers, odds, and odds ratio derived from the PUMS to 

estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in 

the federal workforce relative to being in the nonfederal workforce. The 

odds ratio of 0.698 indicates that the odds of Hispanics being in the federal 

workforce rather than the nonfederal workforce were about 30 percent 

lower than the corresponding odds for non-Hispanics. 

Table 4: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees among 

Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens and Noncitizens, and Odds and Odds 

Ratios Derived from Them, 2000

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.

We calculated the odds ratio of 0.698 by first deriving the odds of being a 

federal employee rather than a nonfederal employee for both Hispanics and 

non-Hispanics. For Hispanics, we divided the number of the Hispanic 

federal employees by the number of Hispanic nonfederal employees, or 

219,893/15,228,215, which equals 0.0144. This implies that the odds of being 

a federal employee among Hispanics were 0.0144; that is, there were 14.4 

Hispanics who are federal employees for every 1,000 Hispanics who were 

nonfederal employees. For non-Hispanics, by comparison, the odds were 

2,438,122/117,921,113 = 0.0207, which means that there were 20.7 nonHispanics who were federal employees for every 1,000 non-Hispanics who 

are nonfederal employees. The odds ratio, or ratio of these two odds, 

which is 0.0144/0.0207 = 0.698, indicates that the odds on being a federal 

employee (i.e., represented in the federal workforce) were lower for 

Hispanics than non-Hispanics, by a factor of 0.698.

Ethnicity

Number in 

federal 

workforce

Number in 

nonfederal 

workforce

Odds of being 

in federal 

workforce Odds ratio

Hispanic 219,893 15,228,215 0.0144

Non-Hispanic 2,438,122 117,921,113 0.0207 0.698
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 44 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

The Effect of 

Citizenship on the 

Difference between 

Hispanics’ and NonHispanics’ Likelihood 

of Employment in the 

Federal Workforce 

versus the Nonfederal 

Workforce 

We examined the effect of citizenship on the difference in the likelihood of 

Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce, 

relative to the nonfederal workforce, before examining the effect of all 

other factors because the federal government has a general policy and 

practice of restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals. Table 5 shows 

the odds and odds ratio that are obtained when citizens only are used to 

estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in 

the federal workforce relative to being in the nonfederal workforce. When 

these same odds and odds ratio were calculated for citizens only, the odds 

were similar (0.0200 and 0.0210), and the odds ratio of 0.953 implies that 

the odds of being a federal employee, among Hispanic citizens, were lower 

than for non-Hispanic citizens by about 5 percent. Comparing this to the 

odds ratio indicating the difference in the likelihood of Hispanics and nonHispanics being employed in the federal workforce among the both citizens 

and non-citizens—0.698—indicates that citizenship accounts for much of 

the difference in the likelihood of federal employment between Hispanics 

and non-Hispanics, since the difference in the odds changes from about 30 

percent to roughly 5 percent.

Table 5: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees among 

Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens Only, and Odds and Odds Ratio Derived 

from Them, 2000

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.

Ethnicity

Number in 

federal 

workforce

Number in 

nonfederal 

workforce

Odds of being 

in federal 

workforce Odds ratio

Hispanic 198,603 9,905,447 0.0200

Non-Hispanic 2,386,192 113,424,164 0.0210 0.953
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 45 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Effect of Remaining 

Factors among Citizens 

on the Difference 

between Hispanics’ 

and Non-Hispanics’ 

Likelihood of 

Employment in the 

Federal Workforce 

versus the Nonfederal 

Workforce

To determine the effect of the remaining factors on likelihood of Hispanics 

and non-Hispanics being in the federal workforce relative to being in the 

nonfederal workforce, we restricted our analysis to U.S. citizens because 

the federal government has a general policy and practice of hiring only U.S. 

citizens. We then controlled for each of the other factors one at a time 

among U.S. citizens in a series of multivariate logistic regression models. 

Table 6 shows the odds ratios representing the difference between 

Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being employed in the 

federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce, when the other 

factors are controlled one at a time. The effect that each factor has on the 

difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being 

in the federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce can be 

discerned by comparing each of the odds ratios in Table 6 to 0.95—the odds 

ratio indicating the likelihood of Hispanic and non-Hispanic citizens being 

employed in the federal workforce before controlling for the other factors. 

For example, as table 6 shows, controlling for differences in education—or 

estimating the effect of being Hispanic on the likelihood of being in the 

federal workforce after allowing for the differences in education between 

Hispanics and non-Hispanics—changes the odds ratio from 0.95 to 1.16. 

That is, among similarly educated workers, Hispanic citizens were more 

likely than non-Hispanic citizens, by a factor of 1.16, or 16 percent, to be in 

the federal workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. Controlling 

for race, veteran status, and to a lesser extent age also changed slightly the 

estimated difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanics in the likelihood 

of being a federal employee.

Table 6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of Hispanic and NonHispanic Citizens Being Employed in the Federal Workforce After Controlling for 

Different Factors

Factor Category Reference group Odds ratio

Gender Female Male 0.95

Level of education <High school 

diploma

Some college

Bachelor’s degree

>Bachelor’s degree

High school diploma

1.16

Veteran’s status Veteran Not veteran 1.04

Race Black

Other nonwhite

White

0.86

English proficiency Not English-proficienta English-proficientb 1.01
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 46 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.

a

“Not English-proficient” includes responses of “not very well” and “not at all” to Census questions 

about English proficiency.

b

“English-proficient” includes responses of “well” and “very well” to Census questions about English 

proficiency.

c

Age (in years) was entered in our models as a linear covariate; thus, the odds ratio for age represents 

the effect that a 1-year difference in age makes with respect to the likelihood of being a federal 

employee.

Because of the large effect of education on the difference between 

Hispanics and non-Hispanics, we also analyzed the effect of education 

among all individuals. The odds ratios indicating the differences in the 

likelihood of being in the federal workforce between workers who have 

some college, a bachelor’s degree, and more than a bachelor’s degree, 

relative to workers with a high school diploma, were 1.74, 2.15, and 2.69, 

respectively. In other words, each of those three categories of workers was 

almost twice as likely (1.74) or more than twice as likely (2.15 and 2.69) to 

be employed in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce 

as workers with only a high school diploma. Persons with less than a high 

school degree, by contrast, were less than half as likely as persons with a 

high school degree to be employed in the federal workforce relative to the 

nonfederal workforce.

Age c c 1.03

Disability status Disabled Not disabled 0.96

School attendance Enrolled in School Not enrolled 0.96

Work status Full-time Part-time 0.97

State employed Each state except 

reference group 

Ohio

0.98

(Continued From Previous Page)

Factor Category Reference group Odds ratio
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 47 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Effect of All Factors 

Considered 

Simultaneously on the 

Difference between 

Hispanics’ and NonHispanics’ Likelihood 

of Employment in the 

Federal Workforce 

versus the Nonfederal 

Workforce

When we estimated the difference in the likelihood of being in the federal 

workforce between Hispanics and non-Hispanics using a multivariate 

model that accounted for all of the factors simultaneously among citizens, 

we found that the odds of being a federal rather than a nonfederal 

employee were higher for Hispanic citizens than for non-Hispanic citizens, 

by a factor of 1.24. That is, when all other factors we examined were 

controlled, the odds of being in the federal workforce relative to the 

nonfederal workforce were 24 percent higher for Hispanics than nonHispanics. 

Additional Explanatory 

Analyses

In response to comments from expert reviewers on a preliminary draft of 

these results, we conducted additional analyses to determine whether

(1) our results were affected by the method we used to control for 

citizenship, (2) there was any difference between the effect of education 

for Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and (3) Hispanics’ odds of federal 

employment were affected by changing the reference group from all nonHispanics to white non-Hispanics. 

First, we analyzed whether controlling for citizenship by excluding 

noncitizens produced different results than controlling for citizenship by 

including both groups in our model and introducing a control variable for 

citizenship status. We used a multivariate logistic regression model 

controlling for all the factors simultaneously among both citizens and 

noncitizens and controlled for citizenship status using a dummy variable 

(rather than excluding them). When we controlled for citizenship status 

using a dummy variable for citizenship status, the odds ratio indicating the 

difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being 

in the federal workforce was 1.22, not appreciably different from the odds 

ratio of 1.24 reported above. 

Second, we analyzed whether the effect of education on being employed in 

the federal workforce was different for Hispanics and non-Hispanics. We 

used an interaction model, which allowed us to assess whether the effect of 

education on the odds of federal employment varied between Hispanics 

and non-Hispanics. This model revealed that while education affected the 
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 48 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

odds of federal employment for both Hispanics and non-Hispanics, the 

effect of education was generally more pronounced for Hispanics than nonHispanics. For example, Hispanics with a bachelor’s degree were 2.27 

times more likely to be employed in the federal workforce than Hispanics 

with a high school diploma. Among non-Hispanics, those with a bachelor’s 

degree were 2.04 times more likely than those with only a high school 

diploma to be employed in the federal workforce.

Third, to analyze whether Hispanics’ odds of federal employment were 

affected by changing the reference group from all non-Hispanics to white 

non-Hispanics, we used dummy variables for race and ethnicity when 

comparing Hispanics, black non-Hispanics, and other nonwhite nonHispanics, to white non-Hispanics as opposed to comparing Hispanics to 

non-Hispanics when controlling for all other factors. Including dummy 

variables for race and ethnicity yielded an odds ratio distinguishing 

Hispanics from white non-Hispanics of 1.55, which is greater than the odds 

ratio of 1.24 distinguishing Hispanics and non-Hispanics. The greater odds 

ratio resulted from black non-Hispanics and other nonwhite nonHispanics—who were 1.82 and 1.89 times more likely to be employed in the 

federal workforce than white non-Hispanics—being taken out of the 

reference category. We did not analyze the effect of the interaction 

between race and Hispanic ethnicity; that is, comparing odds of federal 

employment among white Hispanics, black Hispanics, and other Hispanics 

because of differences in the reporting of race between Hispanics and nonHispanics.7

Limitations Due to limitations in the data and the methods we used, we did not include 

in our analyses some variables that were identified during the course of our 

research that could potentially affect Hispanic representation in the federal 

workforce. We did not analyze whether discrimination against or attitudes 

towards Hispanics or any other group affected representation in either the 

federal or nonfederal workforces because, using our data sources, it was 

not possible to conduct such an analysis. We did not analyze Hispanic 

subgroup data because of concerns we expressed in our prior work and

7

U.S. Census Bureau, Matched Race and Hispanic Origin Responses from Census 2000 

and Current Populations Survey, February to May 2000, Working Paper no. 79 

(Washington, D.C.: December 2005), 

http//www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0079/twps0079.html.
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 49 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

those expressed by the Census Bureau and outside researchers.8 

Additionally, some factors identified were not asked on the Census and we 

could not identify an adequate proxy suitable for our methodology; we 

cannot say how, or if, these factors would affect the results of our analyses. 

Variables for which we could not control include experience in a particular 

occupation, number of years naturalized U.S. citizens have been citizens of 

the United States, and an individual’s preference for employment in either 

the federal or nonfederal workforce. Additionally, we did not control for 

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area or other geographical units smaller 

than states because these would result in sample sizes too small to control 

for the full range of factors. For foreign-born respondents, we did not 

control for years since arrival in the United States because the data were 

insufficiently reliable. Finally, we could not control for how unemployment 

affects the likelihood of being in the federal workforce because 

unemployment perfectly predicts not being in the federal workforce; 

however, unemployed individuals are considered part of the CLF.

Additionally, with respect to race—one of the factors for which we 

controlled—some have suggested that many Hispanics view race 

differently than non-Hispanics and consider their ethnicity as a separate 

racial category.9

 Such differences in the perception of race could affect our 

estimates on the effect of race on the likelihood of Hispanics and nonHispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to the 

nonfederal workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, among 

Hispanics in the 2000 Decennial Census, 47.9 percent reported themselves 

as white, 2.0 percent as black, 1.2 percent as American Indian/Alaska 

8

See GAO, Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup 

Data Need Refinement, GAO-03-228 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003); U.S. Census Bureau, 

Identification of Hispanic Ethnicity in Census 2000: Analysis of Data Quality for the 

Question on Hispanic Origin, Working Paper no. 75 (Washington, D.C.: July 2004), 

http//www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0075/twps0075.html; Roberto 

Suro, Counting the “Other Hispanics.” How Many Colombians, Dominicans, 

Ecuadorians, Guatemalans and Salvadorans are there in the United States?, Pew 

Hispanic Center (Washington D.C.: 2002), www.pewhispanic.org; John Logan, Hispanic 

Populations and Their Residential Patterns in the Metropolis, Lewis Mumford Center for 

Comparative Urban and Regional Research (Albany, N.Y.: University at Albany, 2002), 

http://mumford.albany.edu/census/report.html.

9

Ruben G. Rumbaut, “The Making of a People,” in Hispanics and the Future of America, ed. 

Marta Tienda and Faith Mitchell, Committee on Transforming Our Common Destiny, 

National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2006), 39–43; see 

also U.S. Census Bureau, Matched Race and Hispanic Origin Responses from Census 2000 

and Current Population Survey February to May 2000.
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 50 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Native, 0.3 percent as Asian, 0.1 percent as native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander, 6.3 percent as two or more races, and 42.2 percent as some 

other race.10 Among non-Hispanics, 79.1 percent reported themselves as 

white, 13.8 percent as black, 0.8 percent as American Indian/Alaska Native, 

4.1 percent as Asian, 0.1 percent as native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander, 1.9 percent as two or more races, and 0.2 percent as some other 

race. Some studies suggest that the difference in the percentage of “other 

race” responses between Hispanics and non-Hispanics—42.2 and 0.2—

reflects many Hispanics’ view that their race is Hispanic, rather than one of 

the racial categories listed in the Census.11 

Additionally, while assessing the reliability of the PUMS for our analysis, 

we found that the number of federal employees reflected in the PUMS was 

larger than the number reported in either OPM’s Central Personnel Data 

File (CPDF) as of September 2000 or OPM’s report Employment and 

Trends (March 2000). In the PUMS there were about 2,658,000 federal 

employees (excluding the Postal Service) compared to slightly less than 2 

million reported by OPM for 2000 in either of its sources. There was also a 

similar discrepancy in 2004, with nearly 2 million federal employees 

reported by OPM (CPDF as of September 2004, Employment and Trends, 

March 2004) compared to about 2,757,000 identified in the ACS. 

Although we were unable to fully account for these differences, we did 

identify some known sources for lower numbers of federal employees 

reported by OPM. Neither of OPM’s data sources include (1) federal 

employees working for the intelligence agencies such as the Central 

Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, National GeospatialIntelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency; (2) most personnel 

on federal installations paid from non-appropriated funds, such as workers 

in military commissaries; and (3) those in the Commissioned Corps of the 

Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. In addition, OPM’s CPDF data do not include judicial and 

some legislative branch employees and employees of the Tennessee Valley 

Authority. Another potential source of the difference in the number of 

federal employees is that employees of federal contractors who work at 

federal agencies or on military installations might have responded on the 

10U.S. Census Bureau, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin, Census 2000 Issue Brief, 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2001), www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cenbr01-1.pdf.

11Rumbaut, “The Making of a People,” 39–43.
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 51 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Census that they were employees of the federal government. Several 

experts who commented on our methodology and results expressed a 

similar view.

To assess whether our results were affected by the difference in the 

number of federal employees in the PUMS and CPDF datasets, we 

substituted the federal employees from the CPDF for the federal employees 

in the PUMS. Our analysis, using the combined CPDF and PUMS data, 

confirmed that citizenship and education accounted for the difference in 

likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal 

workforce. Given these, the large sample size of PUMS, the high response 

rate to the Census 2000 long form that is the basis for PUMS, and the 

quality control measures Census uses in collecting the PUMS data, we 

believe our reported results are sound and the conclusions we reached are 

reasonable.

Like reported federal employment in PUMS, reports of citizenship in selfreporting surveys may be inflated. As we lacked benchmark data to assess 

the potential effect of misreporting of citizenship, we cannot say if or how 

the results would be affected by such misreports. Additionally, because we 

used data from a single census, we cannot make statements regarding 

future trends in the estimates. For example, changes in the number or 

geographic distribution of Hispanics might affect the likelihood of federal 

employment in future censuses. 

Finally, our results are limited and intended to only reflect the effect of 

selected factors on Hispanic employment in the overall federal workforce 

and cannot be applied to individual occupations, grades, agencies, or other 

subsets of the federal government. We attempted to analyze the effect of 

selected factors on the federal occupations that employed 10,000 or more 

federal employees in 2004 and similar occupations in the nonfederal 

workforce, but we found that our results were not reliable. First, sample 

size within job categories is much smaller and subject to much greater 

sampling variability than in the full data set. Sample sizes this small 

preclude controlling for the full range of factors considered in our model. 

Second, PUMS data and our models cannot account for specific skills and 

certification, which might be particularly relevant for a given occupation. 

For example, the education categories do not distinguish between a 

bachelor’s degree in chemistry or in English literature. Third, we could not 

account for the specific career paths required for certain occupations or 

those that can only be obtained on the job. For example, job seekers with a 

background in policing may be more qualified to be a federal officer. 
Appendix II

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors 

Affecting Hispanic Representation in the 

Federal Workforce

Page 52 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Fourth, we could not account for individuals who may be qualified for a 

given occupation, but holding a different one. For example, some of the 

individuals coded as accountants may be qualified to be financial 

specialists, a separate occupation. Restricting the sample to financial 

specialists might result in an understated pool of qualified workers. 
Page 53 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix III

Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. 

Citizens and Nationals ApendxiI

Various authorities have restricted hiring for most federal employment to 

U.S. citizens and nationals. Under Executive Order No. 11935, only U.S. 

citizens and nationals may be appointed into competitive service 

positions.1

 In 2005, 72 percent of executive branch employees were in the 

competitive service.2 In rare cases, noncitizens may be appointed when 

necessary to promote the efficiency of the service, such as if an agency is 

unable to find a qualified citizen to fill a position (5 C.F.R. §7.3(c) and 

§338.101). Such appointments, however, must also be in compliance with 

other laws on federal hiring of noncitizens.3

For decades, Congress has passed an annual ban on the use of 

appropriated funds for compensating federal employees who are not U.S. 

citizens or nationals.4

 Broader in scope than the Executive Order, the 

appropriation ban applies to all compensable positions within the federal 

government, not just to competitive service positions. There are 

exceptions to this ban that permit the compensation of non-U.S. citizens 

who are from certain countries or under special circumstances. For 

example, South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or Laotian refugees paroled in the 

United States after January 1, 1975, are excluded from the ban. Also, 

citizens from Ireland, Israel, or the Republic of the Philippines, or nationals 

of countries “allied with the United States in a current defense effort” are 

excluded from coverage of the appropriation ban. Even though the 

appropriation ban may not apply under a particular circumstance, the 

hiring of a noncitizen may nevertheless be prohibited because the position 

is within the competitive service and covered by the Executive Order ban.

1

41 Fed. Reg. 37,301 (1976). See 5 C.F.R. sec. 7.3. This executive order was issued after the 

Supreme Court invalidated a prior civil service restriction on appointment of noncitizens. 

The validity of the restriction on appointing noncitizens in Executive Order No. 11935 has 

been upheld by the courts. See, Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1980), 

cert. den. 450 U.S. 959 (1981). 

2

Federal civil service employees, other than those in the Senior Executive Service, are 

employed either in the competitive service or the excepted service. Employees in the 

competitive service are hired through the competitive examination process set forth in title 

5 of the U.S. Code. Agencies are not required to follow the competitive examination process 

when hiring for excepted service positions.

3

Although not unique to federal hiring, U.S. immigration law requires that employers must 

ensure that the individuals they hire are eligible to work in the United States.

4

The fiscal year 2006 ban can be found at section 805 of Title VIII of Division A of Pub. L. No. 

109-115, 119 Stat. 2396, 2496 (Nov. 30, 2005). 
Appendix III

Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. 

Citizens and Nationals

Page 54 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Congress has excluded some agencies (or certain types of positions within 

some agencies) from the restrictions on hiring or compensating 

noncitizens. For example, the Department of Defense is excluded from 

restrictions on employment and payment of noncitizens.5

5

10 U.S.C. sec. 1584. Department of Defense’s regulations for its National Security 

Personnel System (NSPS) provide that noncitizens may be appointed into excepted service 

positions in the absence of a qualified U.S. citizen and where immigration and security 

requirements are met. 5 C.F.R. sec. 9901.514.
Page 55 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

This page is left intentionally blank.
Page 56 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix IV

Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade 

and Federal Occupation ApendxiIV

Table 7: Hispanic Representation in the Federal Workforce by Pay Plan and Grade, 1990–2005

Percent

Pay plan/grade 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Blue collar 7.38 7.37 7.49 7.50 7.56 7.75 8.01

Grades 1–4 7.08 7.18 7.31 7.44 7.48 7.84 8.00

Grades 5–8 5.67 5.89 6.11 6.24 6.43 6.78 7.10

Grades 9–12 4.86 4.97 5.06 5.21 5.39 5.55 5.74

Grade 13 2.87 3.05 3.21 3.34 3.51 3.68 3.81

Grade 14 2.26 2.39 2.51 2.64 2.78 2.92 3.09

Grade 15 2.31 2.29 2.40 2.50 2.62 2.75 2.84

SESa 1.28 1.39 1.51 1.54 1.69 1.85 1.94

SL/STb 0.62 1.30 1.19 0.90 1.22 1.49 1.49

Executivesc 3.21 3.42 4.90 4.68 4.39 5.22 5.29

Otherd 4.28 3.62 4.34 4.38 4.57 5.25 5.65
Appendix IV

Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade 

and Federal Occupation

Page 57 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Source: GAO analysis of the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), 1990–2005 for the permanent and nonpermanent federal workforce.

a

SES includes those in the Senior Executive Service and those in the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) who have equivalent positions. These are the highest non-politically-appointed leaders in the 

federal workforce.

b

SL/ST includes those in the Senior Level and Senior Technical pay plans and those in FAA who have 

equivalent positions. These are primarily engineers, scientists, and other top-level professionals. 

They do not have the leadership roles of the SES.

c

Executives include agency leaders who are political appointees above the General Schedule grade 15 

level who are not in the SES.

d

Other includes those that could not be placed in one of the above pay plans or grades. From 1990 to 

2005, the percentage of federal employees that could not be placed in a pay plan or grade increased 

from about 4 percent to 8 percent.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

8.17 8.01 7.66 7.57 7.61 7.58 7.60 7.75 7.81

8.22 8.44 8.65 8.73 8.74 8.80 9.16 9.55 9.70

7.43 7.62 7.75 7.98 8.30 8.64 8.87 8.84 8.83

5.98 6.24 6.45 6.60 6.76 6.94 7.20 7.62 7.94

4.00 4.13 4.24 4.30 4.43 4.58 4.69 4.94 5.08

3.23 3.42 3.64 3.66 3.74 3.83 3.94 4.11 4.21

2.97 3.09 3.14 3.28 3.40 3.43 3.52 3.63 3.71

2.09 2.28 2.47 2.64 2.68 2.95 3.01 3.20 3.41

1.14 1.39 1.46 1.94 1.90 1.94 1.87 2.01 2.59

5.50 5.39 6.39 6.39 5.10 5.43 6.09 7.16 7.25

5.17 5.35 5.65 5.58 5.65 6.54 7.33 7.55 7.91
Appendix IV

Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade 

and Federal Occupation

Page 58 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Table 8: Hispanic Representation in the 2000 CLF and 2000–2005 Federal Workforce by Federal Occupation

Percent

Federal occupational series and titlea 2000 CLF 2000 Federal

Overallb 10.7 6.5

7 Correctional Officer 8.30 12.03

19 Safety Technician 5.39 4.02

83 Police 8.72 6.49

105 Social Insurance Administration 6.25 11.06

201 Human Resources Management 7.75 5.82

301 Miscellaneous Administration & Program 9.98 5.75

303 Miscellaneous Clerk & Assistant 8.06 7.55

318 Secretary 7.43 6.78

340 Program Management 9.98 4.10

343 Management Program Analysis 3.58 3.73

346 Logistics Management 6.32 4.44

401 General Biological Science 4.06 2.71

462 Forestry Technician 6.74 6.74

501 Financial Administration & Program 9.21 4.43

510 Accounting 5.13 4.05

511 Auditing 5.13 4.13

512 Internal Revenue Agent 7.59 5.46

525 Accounting Technician 6.74 6.06

560 Budget Analysis 5.27 4.49

592 Tax Examining 7.59 8.85

602 Medical Officer 5.12 5.78

610 Nurse 3.30 5.61

620 Practical Nurse 5.77 5.49

621 Nursing Assistant 10.46 5.83

640 Health Aid & Technician 10.66 6.10

679 Medical Support Assistance 9.56 6.49

801 General Engineering 3.78 4.51

802 Engineering Technician 7.65 4.39

810 Civil Engineering 4.30 4.77

830 Mechanical Engineering 3.33 3.55

855 Electronics Engineering 4.06 4.97

905 General Attorney 3.28 3.91
Appendix IV

Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade 

and Federal Occupation

Page 59 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

2001 Federal 2002 Federal 2003 Federal 2004 Federal 2005 Federal

6.7 6.9 7.0 7.3 7.4

12.16 12.19 12.28 12.68 12.78

4.33 10.91 12.63 13.32 13.93

6.55 7.24 7.34 7.94 7.99

12.22 12.77 13.59 14.26 14.82

6.16 6.39 6.29 6.36 6.46

5.70 5.48 5.34 5.78 6.36

7.43 7.71 7.95 8.13 8.36

6.86 6.93 6.87 7.13 7.36

4.21 4.34 4.54 4.87 4.94

3.71 3.76 3.86 4.08 4.25

4.10 4.16 4.28 4.50 4.67

2.95 3.04 3.12 5.59 5.77

6.67 6.89 6.94 7.47 7.70

4.61 4.97 5.09 4.89 5.06

4.29 4.44 4.42 4.47 4.46

4.35 4.60 4.65 4.93 5.06

5.57 5.55 5.57 5.53 5.48

6.24 6.64 6.49 6.35 6.28

4.64 4.77 5.06 5.19 5.29

8.79 8.63 8.89 9.16 8.80

5.96 6.13 6.26 6.32 6.29

5.75 5.81 5.83 5.93 5.98

5.56 5.81 6.34 6.78 6.84

5.97 6.00 6.70 6.81 6.91

6.52 6.39 6.45 6.90 7.18

6.81 6.85 7.03 6.96 7.17

4.70 4.93 5.02 5.20 5.38

4.59 4.55 4.56 4.69 4.59

4.80 4.89 4.94 5.12 5.16

3.68 3.72 3.62 3.80 3.94

4.98 5.06 5.08 5.46 5.50

4.00 4.04 4.10 4.15 4.26
Appendix IV

Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade 

and Federal Occupation

Page 60 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

962 Contact Representative 16.87 13.54

1101 General Business & Industry 9.98 5.80

1102 Contracting 6.02 4.19

1701 General Education & Training 7.25 3.20

1801 General Inspection, Investigation & Compliance 7.67 12.34

1811 Criminal Investigating 9.04 8.37

1895 Customs & Border Protection 7.67 c

1896 Border Patrol Agent 9.04 40.17

2005 Supply Clerical & Technician 7.27 7.83

2152 Air Traffic Control 4.77 3.79

2210 Information Technology Management 4.70 3.91

3566 Custodial Working 20.11 6.73

4749 Maintenance Mechanic 12.54 7.88

5803 Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic 8.66 7.66

8852 Aircraft Mechanic 9.85 8.89

(Continued From Previous Page)

Percent

Federal occupational series and titlea 2000 CLF 2000 Federal
Appendix IV

Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade 

and Federal Occupation

Page 61 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Source: GAO analysis of (1) the Census 2000 Special EEO File to determine Hispanic representation in the CLF, (2) the CPDF, 2000–

2005, to determine Hispanic representation in the permanent and nonpermanent federal workforce for each occupation, and (3) OPM’s 

Fifth Annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government for Hispanic representation in the overall 2000–

2005 permanent federal workforce.

a

Data are listed by OPM’s occupational codes and OPM job titles. The EEOC crosswalk also contains 

Census job codes and job titles, and Bureau of Labor Statistics job codes. We analyzed federal 

occupations that had 10,000 or more federal employees as of September 2004.

b

The overall Hispanic representation is based on all occupations in the CLF, according to the Census 

2000 Special EEO File, and the permanent federal workforce, according to OPM. 

c

Federal occupation code 1895 did not exist until 2004.

14.29 14.41 14.77 15.84 16.28

5.80 5.79 5.77 5.94 5.95

4.28 4.36 4.47 4.60 4.82

3.50 3.27 3.36 3.55 3.70

12.14 12.24 14.22 13.67 13.82

8.59 8.81 9.14 9.29 9.32

ccc 27.82 27.91

42.98 49.18 50.49 50.44 50.35

7.81 7.78 8.01 8.30 8.39

3.90 4.01 4.20 4.30 4.41

4.01 4.17 4.32 4.43 4.54

6.66 6.71 6.85 7.13 6.96

8.03 7.91 7.73 7.74 7.74

7.52 7.28 7.47 7.78 7.91

8.88 8.80 8.74 9.26 9.36

2001 Federal 2002 Federal 2003 Federal 2004 Federal 2005 Federal
Page 62 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce ApendxiV
Page 63 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix VI

Comments from the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission ApendxiVI
Page 64 GAO-06-832 Factors Affecting Hispanic Representation

Appendix VII

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact George H. Stalcup, (202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov

Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Belva M. Martin, Assistant 

Director; Carl S. Barden; Jeffrey A. Bass; Benjamin A. Bolitzer; Karin K. 

Fangman; Anthony P. Lofaro; Anna Maria Ortiz; Rebecca Shea; Douglas M. 

Sloane; Tamara F. Stenzel; and Gregory H. Wilmoth made major 

contributions to this report.

(450361)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548