U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE

Diversity in District

Management-Level

Positions

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, Subcommittee on the Postal

Service, Committee on Government

Reform, House of Representatives

June 2000

GAO/GGD-00-142

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

B-284782

June 30, 2000

The Honorable Chaka Fattah

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on the Postal Service

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Fattah:

This report supplements our previous report1

 to you in response to your

request for information on the representation of women and minorities in

the Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS) management-level

positions in the U.S. Postal Service (Service). The EAS workforce consists

primarily of employees in EAS levels 11 through 26 positions. EAS

management-level positions generally start at EAS 16 and include such

positions as postmaster, manager of customer services, and manager of

postal operations. This report focuses on EAS levels 16 through 26.

Based on discussions with your office, our objectives were to (1) provide

statistical information on the representation of women and minorities in

EAS levels 16 through 26 in the Service nationwide for fiscal year 19992

 and

(2) describe for the Chicago, IL, and Akron, OH, postal districts (a) the

representation of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26, (b)

initiatives implemented to promote diversity, and (c) lessons identified by

district officials that relate to increasing diversity. As requested, we are

also providing information on alleged equal employment opportunity

(EEO) concerns at the Youngstown, OH, postal site.3

 The Chicago and

Akron postal districts were selected because you were interested in

knowing why the Chicago district office has reportedly achieved a high

level of success in the representation of women and minorities and why

the Akron district office has reportedly not been as successful.

 

1

 See U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in the Postal Career Executive Service (GAO/GGD-00-76, Mar. 30,

2000).

2

 The dates that Service fiscal years end vary by year and conform to the Service’s 13-period accounting

year. Its fiscal year 1999 ended on September 10, 1999. Our use of the term “fiscal year” in this report

refers to the appropriate Service fiscal year.

3

 The Youngstown postal site includes the processing and distribution center, post offices, and

customer service centers.
B-284782

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

When considering the information presented in this report, it is important

to recognize that certain conditions or challenges exist in each district that

may have an impact on that district’s diversity representation and may not

be reflected in the information presented. For example, these conditions

or challenges may include the diversity (e.g., race, ethnic origin, or sex) of

the local civilian labor force (CLF),4 the pool from which the district

generally draws its employees. The CLF may be more diverse in a

metropolitan area than in a rural area. In addition, cultural considerations

may prevent certain minorities who are present in large numbers in the

surrounding population from seeking Service employment. Also, the

Service does not establish quotas that must be met to increase its

representation of women and minorities, and hiring is to be based on

merit.

In addition, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) standard, the comparison of the percentage rate at

which an EEO group is represented in an agency’s workforce to the

percentage rate at which the group is represented in the CLF, as identified

in the most recent census,5

 determines whether underrepresentation exists

for an EEO group in that workforce. The Service also defines

underrepresentation of EEO groups in its workforce in the same manner.

We do not believe that it is appropriate to compare the representation of

women and minorities or EEO group representation in EAS levels 16

through 26, which are generally management-level positions, in the Service

with the CLF because CLF data are not broken down into an appropriate

pool of employees for such comparisons. We compared the representation

of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26 in the Chicago and

Akron district offices with the overall postal district workforce (excluding

16 through 26). However, because the Service states that one of its

diversity goals is to have its districts achieve parity with the CLF, we also

compared the district workforce (including EAS levels 16 through 26) with

the CLF in Chicago and Akron. Further, to provide additional context for

the case studies of Chicago and Akron, we provided similar information on

 

4

 The CLF includes persons aged 16 or older, excluding those in the armed forces, who are employed or

seeking employment.

5

 The census data used in this report are from the 1990 Decennial Census. The 2000 Census data, which

may change the diversity picture, were not yet available.
B-284782

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

the representation of women and minorities for 83 of the Service’s 85

postal districts.6

At the end of fiscal year 1999, women and minorities in the Service’s

districts represented a district average of about 49 percent of the EAS 16

through 26 workforce compared with their average representation of about

56 percent across all district workforces (excluding EAS levels 16 through

26).7

 The representation of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through

26 in the Service’s 83 districts ranged from a low of about 22 percent in the

Middlesex-Central district office to a high of 95 percent in the Los Angeles

district office. Additionally, the representation of women and minorities

was higher than the CLF in over one-third of the Service’s 83 district

offices and lower than the CLF in the remaining two-thirds of the Service’s

district offices.

Concerning the representation of women and minorities in the Chicago

and Akron district offices, we found that, at the end of fiscal year 1999, the

representation of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26 in the

Chicago district office was the second highest among the Service’s 83

district offices. In Chicago, women and minorities represented about 93

percent of the EAS 16 through 26 workforce compared with their overall

workforce representation of 92 percent. In addition, from fiscal years 1995

through 1999, Chicago’s women and minority representation at EAS levels

16 through 26 increased by about 1 percentage point. In Akron, the

representation of women and minorities in the district’s EAS 16 through 26

workforce was about 41 percent compared with their overall workforce

representation of about 46 percent at the end of fiscal year 1999—a

difference of about 5 percentage points. The representation of women and

minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 is relatively close to their

representation in the Akron district’s workforce, the pool from which EAS

16 through 26 employees are generally selected. In addition, from fiscal

years 1995 through 1999, Akron’s women and minority representation at

EAS levels 16 through 26 increased by about 2 percentage points.

Among EEO groups, representation in EAS levels 16 through 26 varied in

both Chicago and Akron. In Chicago, black men and women represented

about 84 percent of the EAS 16 through 26 workforce in fiscal year 1999;

 

6

 The Service has 85 postal districts. However, we are not including two district offices—San Juan and

Honolulu—in our report because they were missing significant amounts of data on sex and/or

race/ethnic origin.

7

 We recognize that women and minorities may serve in lower level EAS management positions.

However, as previously stated, this report focuses on women and minorities in high-level management

positions at EAS levels 16 through 26.

Results in Brief
B-284782

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

white, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American men and women represented

about 16 percent. In Akron, white men and women represented about 81

percent of the EAS 16 through 26 workforce in fiscal year 1999; black,

Hispanic, Asian, and Native American men and women represented about

19 percent.

Although Chicago has had greater management stability in recent years

than has Akron, and began some of its diversity-related initiatives sooner

than did Akron, both districts have implemented several diversity-related

initiatives. For example, both the Chicago and Akron district offices are

using various training programs, including national programs such as the

Associate Supervisor Program (ASP), to increase the representation of

women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26. According to Chicago

and Akron district officials, ASP, which had started in both districts by

fiscal year 1998, has provided opportunities for a diverse group of

employees from lower grade levels (e.g., mail handlers or carriers) to be

trained and eventually promoted into first-level supervisory positions.

From the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998 through the second quarter of

fiscal year 2000, women and minorities accounted for about 91 percent of

the 85 ASP graduates in Chicago and about 68 percent of the 72 ASP

graduates in Akron. In addition, to improve other aspects of diversity, such

as workplace communications, both districts are using a national

alternative dispute resolution program referred to as REDRESS (Resolve

Employment Disputes, Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly) to facilitate

discussion between managers and employees on individual EEO complaint

issues. Locally, Chicago and Akron have also developed their own

individual initiatives to improve communications among all employees or

to promote appreciation for cultural differences, which are considered

integral aspects of diversity.

Officials in both the Chicago and Akron districts identified several lessons

that are related to increasing diversity in their EAS 16 through 26

workforce. According to district officials in Chicago and Akron, (1)

management must demonstrate its commitment to diversity; (2) training

and career development programs must be made available to provide

opportunities for women and minorities to ascend to supervisory and

management-level positions; and (3) an environment that encourages

communications and cultural appreciation between management and

employees must be established.

Finally, regarding the alleged EEO concerns at the Youngstown postal site,

although the number of EEO complaints increased between fiscal years

1997 and 1999, it is not clear whether the complaints stemmed from
B-284782

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

alleged discrimination, lack of communications, or labor/management

problems. District records show that the number of EEO complaints in

Youngstown increased from 16 in fiscal year 1997 to 23 in fiscal year 1999,

and that race and sex discrimination were most often cited as the bases for

the complaints. The issues surrounding the EEO complaints included

assignment of duties, harassment, and terminations.8 However, as of May

2000, 51 of the 57 complaints filed were closed. Of these, one resulted in a

finding of discrimination. Management, union representatives, and

employees had different opinions about the source of the problem. In June

1998, in response to concerns about EEO complaints in Youngstown, the

Allegheny Area Office surveyed about 50 Youngstown processing and

distribution center (P&DC) employees. It found that there was a

perception among some of those employees that diversity problems

existed, particularly in the areas of race and, to a lesser degree, sex.

In contrast, according to some district and union officials, EEO complaints

in Youngstown were based little, if at all, on discrimination, but rather on

poor communications among managers, supervisors, and employees or

poor labor/management relations. Additionally, although some union

representatives have expressed reservations about the REDRESS program,

managers in Youngstown and Akron believed that the program has

fostered better communications and has been effective in addressing and

resolving EEO complaints.

We are recommending in this report that the Service reassess the EEO

situation in Youngstown to determine what the issues are with respect to

the workplace environment, such as discrimination, communications, or

labor/management relations; and what additional actions, if any, are

warranted to address any concerns identified.

The Service had 796,535 career employees at the end of fiscal year 1999.

Service employees include craft employees, the largest group, which

include letter carriers and mail handlers; EAS employees; the Postal

Career Executive Service; and others, such as inspectors for the Postal

Inspection Service. The EAS workforce consists primarily of employees in

EAS levels 11 through 26. EAS management-level positions generally begin

at EAS level 16 and include such positions as postmaster, manager of

customer services, and manager of postal operations. For purposes of this

review, we focused on the EAS 16 through 26 workforce.

 

8

 See the Background section of this report for a discussion of bases and issues.

Background
B-284782

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Currently, the Service has 11 postal areas located throughout the United

States. The 11 areas include 85 performance clusters. Each of the

performance clusters includes a district office and a large P&DC.

Generally, each district office oversees the work performed by employees

in post offices, stations, and branches. The Chicago district office, which is

part of the Great Lakes Area and is located in a large metropolitan area,

had about 12,000 employees at the end of fiscal year 1999. Also, the

Chicago district office includes two main postal facilities—the district

office (including a P&DC) located in the Chicago metropolitan area as well

as another P&DC located outside of the city. The Akron district office,

which is part of the Allegheny Area, is more geographically dispersed and

includes both urban and rural communities. The Akron district includes 5

postal facilities—Canton, Mansfield, Toledo, Youngstown, and Akron—and

has over 455 post offices. This district employed about 8,000 people at the

end of fiscal year 1999. The Youngstown postal facility includes a P&DC,

post offices, and customer service centers.

The Service defines diversity as a mixture of differences and similarities of

its employees, customers, and suppliers. According to the Service, its

organizational mission for diversity is “to create an inclusive organization

by promoting change and growth so that the diverse needs of our

employees, customers, and suppliers are integrated into how we do

business.” To achieve this mission, the Service is to focus on “recruitment,

retention, and selection of employees—developing succession plans and

providing promotional opportunities that strongly support diversity;

thereby creating an even playing field for all employees.”

According to the Service, one of its corporate goals is a commitment to

employees, which includes an effort to provide equal employment

opportunities to all employees, take advantage of its diverse workforce,

and compete effectively in the communications marketplace. To that end,

the Service created its Diversity Development Department in headquarters

in 1992, to foster an all-inclusive business environment. The Vice President

of Diversity reports to the Vice President of Human Resources. The

Department is responsible for, among other things, actively supporting the

recruitment, retention, and upward mobility of women and minorities. In

addition, the Service’s 2000 Annual Performance Plan includes achieving a

diverse workforce as one of its goals.9

 The Service has also developed

preliminary indicators for two diversity-related subgoals for fiscal year

2001; that is, ensure an inclusive and fair environment with opportunities

for all employees and ensure that all employees are given the knowledge,

 

9

 USPS Annual Performance Plan, fiscal year 2000.
B-284782

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

tools, training, and encouragement to successfully meet the expectations

for their positions.10

Under a variety of statutes, federal employees, including postal workers,

can file a complaint alleging unlawful employment discrimination. Each

discrimination complaint contains two key elements that provide

information about the nature of the conflict. The first is the “basis” of the

allegation under antidiscrimination law. An employee can allege

discrimination on any of eight bases: race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, and retaliation. An employee may, under some

circumstances, claim more than one basis when filing an EEO complaint.11

The second element is the “issue,” which refers to the specific condition or

event that is the subject of the complaint. Issues that employees can file

complaints about include nonsexual and sexual harassment; nonselection

for promotion; duties that are assigned to them; and disciplinary actions,

such as reprimand or suspension.

We performed our work from January to May, 2000, in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested

comments on a draft of this report from the Postmaster General. The

Service’s comments are discussed near the end of this letter and reprinted

in appendix V. For further information on our objectives, scope, and

methodology, see appendix I.

Among the Service’s 83 districts, at the end of fiscal year 1999, the

representation of women and minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26

varied, ranging from a low of about 22 percent in Middlesex-Central to a

high of 95 percent in Los Angeles, with an average representation of about

49 percent across all districts, as shown in appendix II.

The overall average district representation of women and minorities

among the 83 districts’ EAS 16 through 26 workforces was about 49

percent compared with a district average of about 56 percent across the

district workforces (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26). In the Chicago

district, women and minorities represented about 93 percent of Chicago’s

EAS 16 through 26 workforce and about 92 percent of the district

 

10 U.S. Postal Service 1999 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations, Preliminary 2001 Annual

Performance Plan, p. 92.

11 For example, an employee complaining about nonselection for a promotion can allege (1) race

discrimination if the person selected was of a different race, (2) sex discrimination if the person

selected was of the opposite sex, (3) age discrimination if the person selected was under 40 years old

while the complainant was 40 years of age or older, and (4) disability discrimination if the person

selected was not disabled but the complainant was.

Overall Representation

of Women and

Minorities in the

Service
B-284782

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

workforce. In the Akron district, women and minorities represented about

41 percent of Akron’s EAS 16 through 26 workforce and about 46 percent

of the district workforce.

In additional analyses, as shown in appendix II, we computed two

representation indexes. The first index indicates the extent to which

women and minorities are represented in EAS levels 16 through 26

compared to their representation in the district’s workforce (excluding

EAS levels 16 through 26). The second index indicates the extent to which

women and minorities are represented in the district workforce (including

EAS levels 16 through 26) as compared with their representation in the

local CLF. The Service states that one of its diversity goals is to have its

districts achieve parity with the CLF. With respect to the first index, 1.00

indicates a representation equal to the district’s workforce; greater than

1.00 indicates a representation that is greater than the district’s workforce;

and less than 1.00 indicates a representation that is less than the district’s

workforce. The second index operates similarly when comparing women

and minority representation in the district workforce (including EAS levels

16 through 26) with the local CLF.

For the first index, of the 83 districts, 1 district’s representation of women

and minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 workforce equaled the district

workforce; 4 districts’ EAS 16 through 26 representation of women and

minorities was greater than their district workforces; and 78 districts’ EAS

16 through 26 representation of women and minorities was less than their

district workforces. Using this index, scores ranged from 1.14 to 0.66. With

respect to the Chicago and Akron districts, Chicago’s score was 1.01 and

Akron’s was 0.90.

For the second index, of the 83 districts, 2 districts’ representation of

women and minorities in its workforce equaled its representation in the

local CLF; 29 districts’ representation of women and minorities was

greater than the local CLF representation; and 52 districts’ representation

of women and minorities was less than the local CLF representation. Using

this index, scores ranged from 1.39 to 0.57. With respect to the Chicago

and Akron districts, Chicago’s score was 1.39 and Akron’s was 0.94.
B-284782

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Appendix II provides information, for fiscal year 1999, on

• the representation of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26 in

83 of the Service’s 85 postal districts compared with the district workforce

(excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) and

• the overall district workforce (including EAS levels 16 through 26)

compared with the local CLF.

The representation of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26 in

Chicago was higher than the district average representation of 49 percent.

Specifically, in the Chicago district, women and minorities represented

about 93 percent, or 634 of the district’s 682 EAS 16 through 26 positions,

and white men represented about 7 percent, as shown in figure 1.

As shown in figure 1, the representation of specific EEO groups at EAS

levels 16 through 26 varied. For example, of the 682 EAS 16 through 26

positions, black women represented about 48 percent; black men, about 36

percent; white women about 3 percent; Hispanic men, about 2 percent; and

Hispanic women, about 2 percent. The remaining groups—Asian and

Native American men and women—collectively represented about 2

percent. Certain EEO groups were not fully represented when comparing

their representation in EAS levels 16 through 26 with their representation

in the Chicago district workforce. For example, as shown in table III.1 in

appendix III, Hispanic men represented 4.21 percent of the district

workforce and 2.49 percent of EAS levels 16 through 26.

Representation of Women

and Minorities in EAS

Levels 16 Through 26 in the

Chicago District
B-284782

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Service workforce data, fiscal year 1999.

During fiscal years 1995 through 1999, women and minority representation

among EAS levels 16 through 26 increased about 1 percentage point in the

Chicago district. The number of employees and the percentage of

representation of the different EEO groups in each fiscal year are provided

in appendix III.

We believe that a comparison of the representation of women and

minorities in the Chicago district’s overall workforce with the local CLF

provides an additional context in which to consider the results of our

analysis. In fiscal year 1999, the representation of women and minorities in

the Chicago workforce was higher than that in the local CLF, as shown in

appendix III. Women and minorities represented about 93 percent of the

EAS 16 through 26 workforce, about 92 percent of Chicago’s overall

Figure 1: Women and Minorities

Represented About 93 Percent of the

682 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions in the

Chicago District at the End of Fiscal

Year 1999
B-284782

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

workforce (including EAS levels 16 through 26), and about 66 percent of

the local CLF. We also found that when comparing the representation of

specific EEO groups in the district’s overall workforce with that in the

local CLF, as of the end of fiscal year 1999, as shown in appendix III, the

representation of black men and women was higher than that in the local

CLF, and white men and women’s representation was lower.

According to Chicago’s district manager, one of the goals of diversity is to

have the district workforce achieve parity with the CLF. However, certain

challenges and limitations may have an effect on a district’s efforts to

improve its diversity representation. For example, according to one district

official, in Chicago it was difficult to recruit Hispanics because postal

requirements that new postal employees often must work on the evening

workshift conflicted with Hispanic culture that the family should be

together in the evening. The official added that white women are also

sometimes difficult to recruit because they are reluctant to work on an

evening shift.

In Akron, women and minorities represented about 41 percent of the

district’s EAS 16 through 26 workforce compared with their overall

workforce representation (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) of about 46

percent at the end of fiscal year 1999—a difference of about 5 percentage

points. The representation of women and minorities at EAS levels 16

through 26 is relatively close to their representation in the Akron district’s

overall workforce, the pool from which EAS levels 16 through 26

employees are generally selected.

As shown in figure 2, the representation of specific EEO groups at EAS

levels 16 through 26 varied. For example, of the 566 EAS level 16 through

26 positions, white women represented about 23 percent, black women

represented about 9 percent, and black men represented about 7 percent.

The remaining groups—Hispanic, Asian, and Native American men and

women—represented about 3 percent. In addition, white men represented

about 59 percent. Certain EEO groups were not fully represented when

comparing their representation in EAS levels 16 through 26 with their

representation in the district workforce. For example, white women

represented 34.76 percent in the district workforce and 22.79 percent in

EAS levels 16 through 26.

Representation of Women

and Minorities in EAS

Levels 16 Through 26 in the

Akron District
B-284782

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Service workforce data, fiscal year 1999.

We found that during fiscal years 1995 through 1999, women and minority

representation among EAS levels 16 through 26 increased by about 2

percentage points in the Akron district. The number of employees and the

percentage of representation of the different EEO groups in each fiscal

year are provided in appendix IV.

We believe that a comparison of the representation of women and

minorities in the Akron district’s overall workforce with that in the local

CLF provides an additional context in which to consider the results of our

analysis. In fiscal year 1999, the representation of women and minorities in

the Akron workforce was lower than their representation in the local CLF,

as shown in appendix IV. Women and minorities represented about 41

percent of Akron’s EAS 16 through 26 workforce, 46 percent of Akron’s

overall workforce, and 49 percent of the local CLF.

Figure 2: Women and Minorities

Represented About 41 Percent of the

566 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions in the

Akron District at the End of Fiscal Year

1999
B-284782

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Finally, as shown in appendix IV, when comparing the representation of

specific EEO groups in the district’s overall workforce at the end of fiscal

year 1999 with their representation in the local CLF, the representation of

white men, black men and women, Hispanic women, and Native American

men and women was higher; while that of white women and Asian men

and women was lower.

With respect to Youngstown, women and minorities represented about 37

percent of the site’s EAS 16 through 26 workforce compared with the site’s

overall workforce representation (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) of

about 40 percent at the end of fiscal year 1999. In addition, to provide

further context, in Youngstown, women and minorities represented about

39 percent of the site’s overall workforce (including EAS levels 16 through

26) compared with their representation of about 64 percent in the local

CLF at the end of fiscal year 1999.

Although Chicago has had greater management stability in recent years

than has Akron and began some of its diversity-related initiatives sooner

than did Akron, both districts have implemented several diversity-related

initiatives. For example, both the Chicago and Akron district offices are

using various training programs to increase the representation of women

and minorities in EAS 16 through 26 positions. These included national

training programs, such as ASP; district-initiated programs; and an

alternative dispute resolution program to improve district

communications. In addition, to establish accountability for diversity and

diversity-related activities among its executives, including those at the

district level, the Service now requires all executives to set indicators in

their performance evaluations for the activities they undertake to promote

diversity. Achievement of diversity goals, along with other goals, are

factors that are to be considered collectively when a determination is

made concerning executives’ overall performance and whether they are to

be awarded salary increases.

Also, to create a greater diversity focus in the selection process for

promotions to EAS positions, the Service now requires (1) mandatory use

of review committees in the selection of candidates for EAS positions

when there are five or more applicants and (2) training in personnel

selection methods for committee members. According to the Service, both

district managers have set such diversity-related indicators; and according

to district officials, review committees are being used as required.

Chicago and Akron

Have Implemented

Various Initiatives to

Differing Degrees to

Promote Diversity
B-284782

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

The Chicago district has actively used three key national training

programs—ASP, the Career Management Program (CMP), and the

Advanced Leadership Program (ALP)—to train, promote, and prepare its

employees for EAS levels 16 through 26 and higher level positions. It is

also using other methods, such as detail assignments (e.g., employees

assigned to positions for specific periods to gain experience), to prepare

its employees for higher levels of responsibility as well as an alternative

dispute resolution process, called REDRESS, to improve district

communications.

One of the key national training programs is ASP, which was implemented

in Chicago in fiscal year 1998. From the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998

through the second quarter of fiscal year 2000, 85 employees had

graduated from ASP, of which 77, or 91 percent, were women and

minorities. ASP is a 16-week training program, which targets employees,

such as mail handlers and carriers, for first-line supervisory positions.

According to Chicago officials, ASP has provided opportunities for

qualified diverse employees from lower levels in the Service, as well as

applicants from outside the Service,12 to be trained and promoted into firstline supervisory positions using an objective application process that is

available to all EEO groups.

The Chicago district office also uses CMP and ALP to foster diversity in

EAS 16 through 26 positions by providing training opportunities for eligible

employees in all EEO groups. CMP was started in the Chicago district in

1999 and targets EAS levels 15 through 22 employees and provides training

in areas identified as critical for successful supervisor and manager

performance, such as supervisory and managerial skills training. Similarly,

ALP was started in Chicago at the beginning of 1999 and seeks to develop a

highly competent managerial base from which future organizational

leaders will emerge, according to the Service. As of October 22, 1999, 21

employees had participated in CMP, and as of November 5, 1999, 12

employees had participated in ALP training.

Chicago has also developed its own individual initiatives that are designed

to promote diversity. For example, Chicago district officials stated that in

1997, they started a local training program referred to as “Roadmaps,”

which established a multiyear, structured training plan designed to

improve the overall effectiveness of every EAS employee in the district.

 12 According to a Service official, the Chicago district has recently recruited externally for ASP

candidates in an effort to address certain underrepresented groups in the district; 118 of 228 applicants

passed the examination and are awaiting interviews.

Chicago’s Efforts to

Promote and Improve

Diversity
B-284782

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

The training plan, or Roadmap, was intended to include courses, in

consultation with the employee’s manager, that are necessary to make the

employee a better employee. In addition, in conjunction with Roadmaps,

the Chicago district offers a tuition reimbursement program that is

available to all EAS employees in the district. As part of the tuition

reimbursement program, when an employee registers for nonpostal

training at an accredited college or university that would benefit both the

employee and the Service from a career development standpoint, the

employee can apply for reimbursement provided the employee receives a

grade of B or higher.

According to Chicago district officials, other initiatives under way include

developmental assignments, such as detail assignments, which involve

employees being assigned to positions for specific periods to gain

experience, and officer-in-charge assignments, which train employees for

some of the district’s executive positions and contribute toward district

succession planning.

To encourage communications between management and employees, the

Chicago district has implemented certain programs, one of which is called

“Speak Out.” According to a district official in Chicago, Speak Out was

started in fiscal year 1998 and is a process that allows all employees the

opportunity to voice their concerns (using a toll-free telephone number)

directly to higher level managers who review the employees’ concerns and

offer suggestions for resolving the concerns. The district also implemented

“Roundtable” in 1994, which according to the district, is a forum by which

selected employees are given an opportunity to discuss issues of concern

with top management staff who can provide solutions to those issues. In

addition, the district manager has addressed communications issues

related to employees who have hearing challenges by sending four

employees to school to become state-certified as interpreters. Also, the

district has provided sign language training since 1997, which, according to

the district diversity specialist, has facilitated communications by

eliminating a lot of writing between hearing and deaf employees and

managers, thereby creating a more efficient, inclusive operation.13

The district also has held numerous cultural appreciation programs,

including Black History Month, Asian-American New Year, Cinco de Mayo,

and an International Fair, to improve the workplace environment. The

 13 According to this official, since 1997, the district has had 2 supervisors (1 deaf and 1 hearing

impaired) who have taught employees basic and advanced sign language, and 122 employees have been

trained to date.
B-284782

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

district also has a full-time diversity specialist who, along with other

duties, takes part in and coordinates diversity training14 and cultural

celebrations at the district. The diversity specialist is also a mandatory

participant on all promotion review committees at the district to address

diversity issues, while the district’s Hispanic program specialist

participates on all ASP boards.

Finally, to improve workplace communications, the Chicago district is

using REDRESS, a national alternative dispute resolution program of the

Service, to facilitate discussion between managers and employees

regarding issues related to EEO complaints. REDRESS was started in the

Chicago district at the end of fiscal year 1998. According to the Service,

REDRESS is a Service mediation program that provides an informal and

speedy alternative to the traditional EEO complaint process; employees

have the option of mediation instead of counseling, as is the case under the

traditional EEO complaint process. Under REDRESS, the employee and

his or her supervisor meet face-to-face to discuss the dispute, and the

employee is allowed to bring a representative of his or her choice to the

mediation. If a settlement is reached, it is to be binding on the parties, and

the EEO complaint will be withdrawn. If no settlement is reached, the

employee has the option of continuing with the EEO complaint process

(i.e., filing a formal complaint). According to district officials and

employees, this process is improving communications at the district

because it allows open discussions between the employee and manager

and is resolving some disputes so that they do not become formal EEO

complaints.

Similar to Chicago, Akron has also recently implemented various

initiatives related to improving diversity. However, unlike Chicago, the

Akron district, over the last 1-1⁄2 years, has experienced turnover in the

positions of district manager, diversity development specialist, and

manager of human resources. Nevertheless, the Akron district office has

implemented several programs, including ASP, developmental details, and

the REDRESS program, to improve diversity, particularly in areas of

training, advancement, and communications.

In fiscal year 1997, the Akron district started using ASP to train, promote,

and prepare its employees for first-line supervisory positions. From the

fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998 through the second quarter of fiscal year

 

14 One program, called the Community Partnership Program, involved the diversity specialist and

managers working with, for example, the visually challenged as well as abused women and children,

for 5 weeks through the United Way Agencies, which made these officials more sensitive to these

issues, according to a Chicago district official.

Akron’s Efforts to Promote

and Improve Diversity
B-284782

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

2000, 72 employees had graduated from ASP, of which 49, or about 68

percent, were women and minorities. As previously stated, ASP is a 16-

week training program, which targets employees, such as mail handlers

and carriers, for first-line supervisory positions. According to Akron

officials, ASP has provided opportunities for a qualified, diverse group of

employees from lower levels in the Service to be trained and promoted

into first-line supervisory positions using an objective application process

that is available to all employees.

In addition, to improve diversity, the Akron district also uses

developmental assignments, such as details and officer-in-charge

assignments. According to an Akron diversity official, developmental

details provide important training opportunities for employees. According

to this official, officer-in-charge assignments are used significantly in the

district and provide opportunities for postal employees to temporarily

substitute for postmasters who are on temporary assignments.

The Akron district also implemented a Networking Conference in fiscal

year 2000, which is to be held quarterly and allow district employees to

meet the district leadership team and ask questions concerning the

different functional areas. During this time, employees may discuss their

career goals and how they can achieve them. Also included are

opportunities for employees to participate in mock interviews and

workshops on the ASP program, prepare an application for promotion

(Form 991), and obtain information on training and developmental

programs. According to Akron’s district manager, the Networking Program

will allow both management and employees to better appreciate the

capabilities of each other.

In addition, the district manager plans to introduce a districtwide

succession-planning program in the future, which he described as a

tailored version of the Service’s succession-planning program. Under the

succession-planning program, employees in EAS levels 22 through 26

positions from each postal facility are to be identified by different

management groups as ready or trainable for promotion. Once identified,

each employee is to be monitored by the management group that identified

him or her. The district manager said that the essence of the succession

planning is to ensure that employees selected for succession planning will

have the necessary skills for management positions as such positions

become available. The district also has various other initiatives, such as its

“Plan-5 Talks,” in which the supervisor and employees meet daily for 5

minutes to discuss the unit’s accomplishments, challenges, and other

issues related to the Service.
B-284782

Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Similar to Chicago, Akron has also held cultural appreciation programs,

such as Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, with the latter

being celebrated for the first time in the Akron district this year. The

district also plans to hold multicultural fairs for its employees, which are

to be held on Sundays in the Youngstown, Akron, and Toledo areas. In

addition, since February 1999, the district has had a full-time diversity

specialist who is devoted solely to the Akron district office and who

reports to the district manager. Previously, an acting diversity specialist

had worked in the district for about 4 months, and before that the district

had a diversity specialist who had been responsible for both the Akron and

Cleveland districts. The district’s current diversity specialist works with

various groups who provide her with information on district diversity

representation and diversity needs within the district. Among other duties,

she takes part in and coordinates employee recruitment, training, new

programs, and cultural celebrations at the district.

Finally, to improve workplace communications, the Akron district is also

using REDRESS to facilitate discussion between managers and employees

of issues related to EEO complaints. According to a district EEO official,

REDRESS was started in the Akron district in June 1999, and the

participation rate is steadily rising. Employees are told of the availability of

REDRESS as soon as they contact an EEO counselor for precomplaint

counseling. According to this official, the EEO environment at the district

has improved over the last year in that formal complaints are decreasing.

Officials in both the Chicago and Akron districts identified several lessons

that are related to increasing diversity in their EAS 16 through 26

workforce. The lessons identified by Chicago and Akron district managers

can be grouped into three major themes. One, management must be

committed to diversity. Two, training and career development programs

must be made available to provide opportunities for women and minorities

to ascend to supervisory and management-level positions. Three, an

environment that encourages communications and cultural appreciation

between management and employees must be established.

Chicago’s district manager commented that achieving a diverse workforce

takes a personal commitment from the leadership and that managers

should be held accountable for achieving diversity. In the area of training

and career development, Chicago’s district manager pointed to a number

of initiatives that he believed were key to improving diversity. As part of its

ASP, Chicago established an approach referred to as “Callback,” whereby

program administrators provide feedback and coaching to employees who

were unsuccessful in completing one or more parts of the requirements for

Chicago and Akron Officials

Identified Several Lessons

Related to Increasing

Diversity
B-284782

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

ASP. The district manager in Chicago also pointed out the importance of

programs such as “Roundtable,” which gives all employees the opportunity

to discuss workplace concerns directly with the district’s managers at a

general meeting held quarterly. He believes that these types of programs

are helpful in improving communications between management and

employees.

Similarly, Akron’s district manager commented that the initiatives

described above, coupled with management’s commitment to diversity, are

important tools in achieving diversity. For example, he pointed out that

when he became district manager in December 1999, he changed the

format of his weekly manager’s meetings so that the diversity specialist

could provide an update of diversity at the beginning of the meeting rather

than at the end of the meeting. He believes that this approach helps

managers to understand that diversity is an important part of the district’s

operations and should not be taken for granted. In addition, he believes

that it is equally important to create a workplace environment that

encourages communications and cultural appreciation between

management and employees. Akron’s district manager said that he attends

and encourages his managers to attend the various cultural appreciation

programs, such as Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month.

Although the number of EEO complaints in Youngstown increased from

fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 1999, it is not clear whether alleged sex, race,

and disability discrimination; lack of communications; or

labor/management relations were the problem. We believe that the lack of

clarity exists because of the inconclusive resolution of many of the EEO

complaints and the differing views of employees and their managers and

union representatives in Youngstown.15 In addition, it is unclear why the

number of EEO complaints increased.

Concerning the disposition of the 57 EEO complaint cases that were filed

during fiscal years 1997 through 1999, in 34, or about 60 percent, the

complaints either were dismissed or decided on the merits, with no

discrimination being found. In the remaining 40 percent of the cases,

discrimination was found in 1 complaint, 16 were settled or withdrawn,

and 6 were at EEOC pending a hearing (see table 2).

 

15 We did not attempt to verify information supporting the views of any management or union official or

employee that we interviewed or that were surveyed.

Unclear Whether EEO

Concerns at the

Youngstown Facility

Represented Alleged

Discrimination,

Communications, or

Labor/Management

Problems
B-284782

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

District records indicated that the number of EEO complaints in

Youngstown increased from 16 in fiscal year 1997 to 23 in fiscal year 1999.

As noted in the Background section of this report, the nature of EEO

complaints involves two elements—bases and issues. As shown in table 1,

sex and race were cited most often as the bases for EEO complaints filed

in Youngstown.

Over the 3-year period, sex was the basis most often cited—in 10 of 16

complaints in 1997, in 10 of 18 complaints in 1998, and in 16 of 23

complaints in 1999. Race was cited as the basis in 5 complaints in 1997, 7

complaints in 1998, and 10 complaints in 1999. Assignment of duties was

the most frequently cited issue in 1997, harassment (nonsexual) in 1998,

and termination and assignment of duties in 1999.

Fiscal year

Number of

complainants

Number of

formal

complaints

Most frequently

cited bases:

(times cited) basisa

Most frequently

cited issues:

(times cited) issue

1997 16 16 (10) Sex (4) Assignments

(5) Race (3) Suspension

(5) Physical disability (2) Harassment

(2) Reprimand

1998 15 18 (10) Sex (6) Harassment

(7) Race (3) Promotion

(7) Age (2) Detail

(2) Working conditions

1999 19 23 (16) Sex (6) Terminations

(10) Race (6) Assignments

(7) Retaliation (4) Reassignments

Total 50b57

a In filing a complaint at the Service, an employee may cite more than one of eight bases.

b

Adding the number of complainants for the 3 years results in a total of 50; however, the actual total

number of employees filing complaints over the 3 years is less than 50 because at least 1 employee

filed 1 or more complaints in more than 1 of the 3 years from 1997 through 1999.

Source: Data compiled from district EEO database by Service EEO official, fiscal years 1997-99.

According to the Service’s data, with respect to the disposition of the 57

EEO complaint cases that were filed during fiscal years 1997 through 1999,

in 34, or about 60 percent, the complaints either were dismissed or decided

on the merits, with no discrimination being found. As shown in table 2,

when 19 complaints were dismissed, such complaints had not reached the

point where any determination of discrimination could be made. When

these 19 complaints are combined with the 15 in which no discrimination

EEO Complaints in

Youngstown Increased

Between Fiscal Years 1997

and 1999

Table 1: Number and Nature of EEO Complaints Filed in Youngstown, Fiscal Years 1997 Through 1999
B-284782

Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

was found on the merits of the complaints, the 34 complaints represent

about 60 percent of the total number of complaints filed. In the other 40

percent of the EEO complaints, 1 resulted in a finding of discrimination, 14

were settled, 2 were withdrawn, and 6 were at the EEOC pending a

hearing.

Disposition of complaints

Fiscal year

Number of

formal

complaints

Complaints

dismisseda

No

discrimation

foundb

Discrimination

foundb

Settled/

Withdrawnc

At EEOC

pending

hearingd

1997 16 4 7 1 4 0

1998 18 7 4 0 6 1

1999 23 8 4 0 6 5

Total 57 19 15 1 16 6

a

These complaints are part of the procedural final agency decisions. In these decisions, the complaint

had been through the informal, precomplaint stage of the process, and the complainant had filed a

formal EEO complaint of discrimination. In accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1614.107, the Service

dismissed the complaint for various reasons, such as the complaint was untimely, or it failed to state a

claim.

b

These complaints represent the results of merit final agency decisions. In such decisions, when the

complaint had been through the investigative stage of the complaint process, the employee could

request a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge, who would issue a recommended decision

that the employee’s agency could accept, reject, or modify.

c

According to a Service official, “settled” means any agreement between the parties (e.g., removal of

disciplinary action) and “withdrawn” means the complainant withdrew the complaint and processing

ceased. Of the 16 complaints, 2 were withdrawn—1 in 1997 and 1 in 1998.

d

“At EEOC pending hearing” refers to cases that have gone through the investigative stage of the

complaint process and the complainant requested an oral hearing before an EEOC administrative

judge, and the case was still pending as of May 2000.

Source: Data compiled from district EEO database by Service EEO official, fiscal years 1997-99.

In filing an EEO complaint at the Service, an employee may cite one or

more of eight bases—race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age,

disability, or retaliation—because the employee may believe that more

than one basis of discrimination led to an action that the employee

believed to be discriminatory to him or her.

Moreover, the number of complaints raised in a year is not necessarily

indicative of the number of people who complained within that year

because any one employee may have raised several complaints in that

time. Several complaints by one employee can generate the appearance,

but perhaps not the reality, that an increase in the number of complaints is

indicative of more widespread workplace conflict. For example, table 1

shows that in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the number of complaints

exceeded the number of complainants, meaning that one or more

Table 2: Disposition of EEO Complaints Filed in Youngstown, Fiscal Years 1997 Through 1999
B-284782

Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

employees each filed more than one complaint in those years. Multiple

filings by any employee could help account for some of the rise in the

number of complaints.

The November 1998 public forum and the class complaint filed by some

Youngstown employees and others in August 1999 raised concerns that a

considerable amount of discrimination existed, particularly with respect to

race, sex, and disability at the Youngstown site. Some Akron district

employees and members of groups outside the postal district, such as the

Urban League, the local chapter of the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People, a congressional staff member, and others

organized the public forum, held in Youngstown to discuss EEO-related

issues. At the public forum, several current and former employees

discussed issues raised in EEO complaints that they had previously filed.

Management officials also attended the forum from the Akron district to

try to answer questions that might be raised. After the Youngstown forum,

the previous district manager, along with several other Akron managers,

held several meetings with a group called the Citizen’s Action Committee,

which was organized pursuant to the forum to represent employees in the

Akron district.

The class complaint was filed in August of 1999 by two Akron district

employees who had previously filed EEO complaints alleging

discrimination against Youngstown postal managers. The class complaint

alleged discriminatory hiring practices and included temporary employees

and people outside the Service who had taken the postal entrance exam

and aspired to be postal employees. Currently, the complaint is at the

EEOC for a decision as to whether those in the class complaint should be

certified as a single class.

In June 1998, the Allegheny Area Office conducted on-site personal

interviews with 50 employees at the Youngstown P&DC.16 The employees

were randomly selected to include management and craft employees in all

functional areas. Of the 50 employees, 8 were from the EAS level and 42

were from the craft level. According to Service officials, the purpose of the

survey was to get an overall sense of the employees’ perceptions about

working in the Center. In the survey, employees were asked to comment

on issues, such as diversity, management, and communications.

 

16 We did not determine whether the results from the number of employees surveyed were projectable

to all of the employees at the P&DC.

Results of Employee

Climate Survey
B-284782

Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

The results of the climate survey showed that the employees identified

several issues; however, the extent to which these issues were perceived

as significant varied among the employees. For example, according to the

rating scale used in the survey, a “highly significant issue“ was one in

which 75 percent or more of the employees indicated that a concern was

an issue; a “very significant issue” was one in which 50 to 74 percent of the

employees indicated a concern was an issue; and a “significant issue” was

one in which 25 to 49 percent of the employees indicated a concern was an

issue. The issue of tools and resources, specifically staffing and forced

overtime, was identified as very significant. The issues of management,

communications, and diversity each received enough employee comments

to be considered a significant issue.

Concerning diversity, 18 of the 50 employees made comments concerning

their perceptions of race and sex discrimination. More specifically, 12 of

the 18 employees made comments about racial discrimination as the

reason for diversity problems, and 6 employees made comments about sex

discrimination as a reason for diversity problems. For example, with

respect to racial discrimination, five employees felt that black employees

were treated unfairly while four other employees felt that white employees

were treated unfairly.

To address problems related to diversity at the Youngstown P&DC,

Allegheny Area officials recommended that to remain fair and consistent

with all employees, regardless of their differences, managers and

supervisors communicate performance expectations to all employees in

terms of productivity, attendance, and work habits as well as

consequences for nonperformance. The acting vice president for Allegheny

area operations also required Youngstown officials to provide him with a

copy of their plan of action to address the areas of concern they believed

to be the most significant and provide quarterly progress reports

thereafter. We obtained and reviewed copies of the plan and follow-up

status reports of actions taken on the plan, including those in the area of

diversity, to see whether district officials were taking action on the plan,

which, according to the status reports, they were.

Although the climate survey showed that employees had concerns about

racial and gender discrimination, the survey report had no analysis that

connected these concerns to communications problems or the

recommendation that managers better communicate performance

expectations.
B-284782

Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Some management and union officials in Youngstown and Akron believed

that the lack of communications among managers, supervisors, and

employees or labor management relations were the problem in

Youngstown. These officials did not believe that race, sex, or disability

discrimination was a problem in Youngstown.

One Akron manager believed that the Youngstown situation, in which

employees complained about managers not dealing with their EEO

complaints in a way that satisfied them, was an illustration of poor

communications between managers and employees. A Youngstown

manager said that he believed that the level of EEO complaints was not

high and that such complaints were based less on discrimination than on

labor/management relations in general. Another district official said that

she had worked in another postal district where the number of EEO

complaints was much higher than in Youngstown or Akron. In addition,

another manager commented that she did not think that the Youngstown

or the Akron district had more EEO problems than did other postal

districts. She believed that that the news coverage of the public forums

and the class complaint caused the EEO concerns in Youngstown to be

viewed as more than what they were, that is, workplace environment

issues. According to this manager, the previous Akron district manager at

the time of the public forums attempted to address the EEO concerns

raised in the public forums by holding periodic meetings with a committee

representing the employees. However, the district manager and his

representatives could not readily determine if the past EEO complaints

discussed at the forum involved discrimination because many of the

complaints occurred in the 1980s, and the records were no longer

available.

Similarly, one union official in Youngstown commented that while he

thought that management treated employees badly, he thought that the bad

treatment was directed toward all employees and was not based on

discrimination. Another union official in Youngstown generally agreed

with this, but noted that two pregnant women in separate instances may

have experienced sex or disability discrimination while attempting to work

light duty.

EEOC, which is responsible for reviewing EEO complaints, also has

shared the view that communications issues could be at the heart of many

EEO complaints.17 According to fiscal year 1998 EEOC data, about 50

 17 Under EEO regulations in effect during fiscal years 1997 through 1999, after an employee’s EEO

complaint was investigated, the employee could request a hearing before an EEOC administrative

judge, who would issue a recommended decision that the employee’s agency could accept, reject, or

Some Officials Believed

That the Lack of

Communications or LaborManagement Relations, Not

Discrimination, Were the

Problem in Youngstown
B-284782

Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

percent of the cases it reviewed were from the Service. In 1996, EEOC said

that a sizable number of complaints governmentwide might not have

involved discrimination issues but instead reflected basic communications

problems in the workplace. According to EEOC, of all the complaints

decided by EEOC administrative judges in 1997 and 1998, less than 10

percent resulted in a finding of discrimination.

According to EEO data on Youngstown, since the implementation of

REDRESS toward the end of fiscal year 1999, the rate at which EEO

complaints are filed in Youngstown has dropped by about 50 percent. For

example, the number of complaints in Youngstown in fiscal year 1999

totaled 23, a rate of about 2 complaints per month. In the first 6 months of

fiscal year 2000, complaints were being filed at the rate of 1 complaint per

month; if sustained throughout the year, this would result in 12 complaints,

or about one-half of the total filed in fiscal year 1999.

Under REDRESS, employees have the option of using mediation to resolve

their EEO complaints before a formal complaint process is implemented.

REDRESS handles only EEO cases—not labor complaints. The process

allows a neutral mediator from outside the Service to facilitate discussion

between the disputing parties during the precomplaint phase.

During the precomplaint phase, an employee discusses his or her issues

with an EEO counselor who advises the prospective complainant about

what options are available. At this point, REDRESS is offered to the

employee, before he or she elects to file a formal complaint. If the

employee elects REDRESS and the employee’s issues are resolved in

REDRESS, no formal complaint can be filed. If the issue is not resolved,

the employee may elect to file a formal complaint, and begin the EEO

complaint process.

Management officials in Youngstown and Akron were proponents of the

REDRESS process because they believed it fostered better

communications among employees, supervisors, and managers and has

been effective in addressing and resolving EEO complaints. For example,

one manager in Youngstown said that an employee who had an EEO

complaint discussed his issue in the REDRESS process with his

supervisor. Although the employee did not get what he wanted, the

communications with his supervisor allowed him to understand his

 modify. After November 1999, regulations provided that administrative judges would issue decisions on

all complaints referred to them for hearings.

REDRESS Appears to

Help Reduce the

Number of EEO

Complaints
B-284782

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

supervisor’s situation and, as a result, he decided not to file a formal EEO

complaint or grievance.

Alternatively, union officials believed that there were some limitations in

the REDRESS process and were not as enthusiastic about it. One union

official commented that in REDRESS, issues of compensation cannot be

addressed and that representatives of management who come to

REDRESS sessions often do not have the authority to settle the issues

involved without later checking with higher management. However,

another union official commented that REDRESS probably produces

better results than does the EEO complaint process and thought that the

Service tries very hard to obtain resolution about the issues addressed in

REDRESS to avoid union involvement in them.18

In fiscal year 1999, the overall representation of women and minorities in

EAS levels 16 through 26 in the Service varied among the Service’s 83

districts; it averaged about 49 percent compared with the average

representation of about 56 percent in the Service’s overall workforce

(excluding EAS levels 16 through 26).

With respect to the Chicago district office, it appears that a number of

factors may have contributed to its high representation—about 93

percent—of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26. First,

women and minorities represented a high percentage—about 92 percent—

of the Chicago district’s overall workforce, thereby providing a large pool

of women and minorities to draw from. Second, Chicago’s management

team has been in position for several years, allowing for a more stable

managerial environment and an opportunity to focus on implementing

some of its diversity-related initiatives earlier than has Akron.

In contrast, Akron’s management team that deals with diversity issues has

been in position for less than 1-1⁄2 years and is in the process of

implementing new programs related to diversity, such as REDRESS and its

Networking program. Nevertheless, the Akron district has made some

progress. From fiscal years 1995 through 1999, women and minority

representation at EAS levels 16 through 26 increased by about 2

percentage points. More specifically, at the end of fiscal year 1999, women

and minorities represented about 41 percent of the EAS 16 through 26

workforce compared with their overall district workforce representation

of about 46 percent—a difference of about 5 percentage points.

 

18 Postal workers can simultaneously file an EEO complaint under the administrative process for

federal employees and an EEO grievance under their collective bargaining agreement.

Conclusions
B-284782

Page 27 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Although the number of EEO complaints in Youngstown increased from 16

in fiscal year 1997 to 23 in fiscal year 1999, it is not clear to us whether the

EEO complaints stemmed from discrimination, lack of communications, or

labor/management problems because of the inconclusive resolution of

many of those complaints, and the conflicting views of employees and

their managers and union representatives. On the one hand, of the 57 EEO

complaints filed during this 3-year period, 34, or about 60 percent, of the

complaints either were dismissed or decided on the merits, with no

discrimination being found. On the other hand, of the remaining 40 percent

of the cases, discrimination was found in 1 case, 2 complaints were

withdrawn, 14 were settled, and 6 were not resolved, as of May 2000.

Moreover, the conflicting views of employees and their managers and

union representatives make it difficult to determine the causes of the EEO

complaints and the perceptions of Youngstown employees who had

expressed concerns about discrimination in the climate survey and in the

public forum held in November 1998. In contrast, the survey report’s

recommendation indicated and postal managers and union representatives

we interviewed believed that poor communications or labor/management

problems in general were the primary causes of the employee concerns

rather than discrimination.

Several changes have taken place recently in the Akron district that could

have an effect on employees’ perceptions about diversity and workplace

conflict. These changes included the appointment of a new district

manager and a full-time diversity specialist as well as the implementation

of several diversity-related initiatives within the last year, such as

REDRESS and the Networking program. We believe that, based on the

recent changes in management and the implementation of initiatives

within the Akron district office, a follow-up review could provide

additional information on the causes of employee concerns at the

Youngstown postal site and is warranted. We also believe that it would be

beneficial to conduct such a follow-up review within the next 6 to 12

months, to allow time for the new management team’s efforts and the

district’s diversity initiatives to have an impact on the workplace

environment and employees’ perceptions of that environment.

We recommend that the Vice President of Operations for the Allegheny

Area Office (1) reassess whether EEO concerns are a problem in

Youngstown by conducting a follow-up review of Youngstown P&DC

employees within the next 6 to 12 months to determine what the

employees believe the issues are with respect to the workplace

environment, such as discrimination, communications, or

Recommendations
B-284782

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

labor/management relations; and (2) based on the results of the review,

determine what actions are needed to address any issues identified.

On June 13, 2000, the Postal Service provided us with written comments

on a draft of this report. The Service’s Senior Vice President of Human

Resources commented that the report reflected the commitment of the

Service to foster diversity at all levels of the organization as well as the

progress being made and efforts to identify and address diversity issues.

He also noted that the Service had recently been recognized for the

success of its diversity efforts by its having received the National

Partnership for Reinventing Government Hammer Award. However, he

said that the Service recognized that it could continue to make progress in

the representation of women and minorities among its first-level

supervisors and mid-level managers, and that there remained much to

achieve in the area of diversity.

On June 15, 2000, the Allegheny Area Offices’ Managing Counsel told us

that the Area Office concurred with our recommendations and intended to

implement them. We also received oral technical comments on a draft of

this report from various Postal program officials, which we have

incorporated, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to Representative John McHugh,

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Postal Service, House Committee on

Government Reform; Mr. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General; and

other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others on

request.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on

(202) 512-8387. Key contributors to this assignment were Tammy

Conquest, Gary Lawson, Hazel Bailey, and William Chatlos.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

 Operations Issues

Agency Comments
B-284782

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions
Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 34

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix II 37

Representation of

Women and Minorities

in the Service’s Postal

Districts

Appendix III 41

Representation of

Women and Minorities

in the Chicago District

Office

Appendix IV 44

Representation of

Women and Minorities

in the Akron District

Office

Appendix V 47

Comments From the

U.S. Postal Service

Table 1: Number and Nature of EEO Complaints Filed in

Youngstown, Fiscal Years 1997 Through 1999 Tables 20

Table 2: Disposition of EEO Complaints Filed in

Youngstown, Fiscal Years 1997 Through 1999

21
Contents

Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Table II.1: Women and Minorities at EAS Levels 16

Through 26 in 83 Districts Compared With Their

Representation in the Overall District Workforce

(Including EAS 16 through 26) and the CLF, Fiscal Year

1999

38

Table III.1: Chicago District Women and Minority

Representation at EAS Levels 16 Through 26 Compared

With Their Representation in the District Workforce

(Excluding EAS Levels 16 Through 26), Fiscal Years

1995 Through 1999

41

Table III.2: Chicago District Women and Minority

Representation in the District Workforce (Including

EAS Levels 16 Through 26) Compared With Their

Representation in the CLF, Fiscal Years 1995 Through

1999

43

Table IV.1: Akron District Women and Minority

Representation at EAS Levels 16 Through 26 Compared

With Their Representation in the District Workforce

(Excluding EAS 16 Through 26), Fiscal Years 1995

Through 1999

44

Table IV.2: Akron District Women and Minority

Representation in the District Workforce (Including

EAS Levels 16 Through 26) Compared With Their

Representation in the CLF, Fiscal Years 1995 Through

1999

46

Figure 1: Women and Minorities Represented About 93

Percent of the 682 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions in the

Chicago District at the End of Fiscal Year 1999

10

Figure 2: Women and Minorities Represented About 41

Percent of the 566 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions in the

Akron District at the End of Fiscal Year 1999

12

Figures
Contents

Page 32 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

Abbreviations

ALP Advanced Leadership Program

ASP Associate Supervisor Program

CLF civilian labor force

CMP Career Management Program

EAS Executive and Administrative Schedule

EEO equal employment opportunity

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P&DC processing and distribution center

REDRESS Resolve Employment Disputes, Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly
Page 33 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 34 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

This report supplements our previous work on diversity in the Postal

Service’s high-level management positions in the Postal Career Executive

Service.1

 We were asked to (1) provide statistical information on the

representation of women and minorities in Executive and Administrative

Schedule (EAS) levels 16 through 26 across all district offices nationwide

for fiscal year 1999 and (2) describe for the Chicago, IL, and Akron, OH,

postal districts (a) the representation of women and minorities in EAS

levels 16 through 26; (b) initiatives implemented to promote diversity; and

(c) lessons identified by district officials that relate to increasing diversity.

We also were asked to provide information on alleged EEO concerns in the

Youngstown, OH, postal site.

With respect to our first objective, we provided statistical information on

the overall representation of women and minorities at EAS levels 16

through 26 in the Service’s district offices for fiscal year 1999. We

obtained personnel and accounting data from the Service’s Diversity

Reporting System and the Personnel Master Files from the Diversity

Development Department and the Minneapolis data center to show the

representation of women and minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 at 83

of the 85 postal districts. This information was as of the last pay period of

each fiscal year between 1995 and 1999. Two districts—San Juan and

Honolulu—were not included because data on race/ethnic origin were

missing or coded differently. We did not verify these data. However, in

1996, Aguirre International, as a part of a contracted study of diversity of

the Service, estimated a 97-percent accuracy rate on minority codes in the

Diversity Reporting System.

We analyzed and presented these data on the basis of the percentage of

women and minorities in the district workforce, EAS 16 through 26 and the

civilian labor force (CLF). We also computed two ratios to compare (1) the

representation of women and minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 with

the district’s workforce (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) and (2) the

representation of women and minorities in the overall district workforce

(including EAS levels 16 through 26) with the CLF.

Our second objective was to describe, for the Chicago and Akron districts

(a) the representation of women and minorities at EAS levels 16 through

26, (b) initiatives implemented to promote diversity, and (c) lessons

identified by district officials that relate to increasing diversity.

Accordingly, we obtained information from the Diversity Development

Department and the Minneapolis data center to show the representation of

 

1

 U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in the Postal Career Executive Service (GAO/GGD-00-76, Mar. 30, 2000).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 35 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

women and minorities in specific equal employment opportunity (EEO)

groups at the Akron and Chicago districts as of the last pay period from

fiscal years 1995 through 1999. We analyzed data on employees’ positions

at EAS levels 16 through 26 and on 10 EEO groups identified on the basis

of gender and race/ethnic origin. We did this to show trends in the

representation of the 10 EEO groups in the Akron and Chicago districts

over a 5-year period, from fiscal years 1995 through 1999. The 10 EEO

groups include white men and women, black men and women, Hispanic

men and women, Asian men and women, and Native American men and

women. We also compared the representation of those in EAS levels 16

through 26 with the Service workforce (excluding EAS 16 through 26) for

each district, and compared representation in the overall Service

workforce with the CLF. We did not compare the different EEO groups’

representation in positions at EAS levels 16 through 26 in the Service,

which are generally management positions, with the overall CLF. Because

CLF data are not broken down into an appropriate pool for comparison

(i.e., similar positions or levels of individuals with relevant qualifications),

we believe such a comparison would not be appropriate.

To obtain information on the diversity-related initiatives being used in the

Akron and Chicago districts and lessons learned concerning efforts

designed to increase diversity, we interviewed management officials at

Service headquarters, area offices, and the Akron and Chicago districts

who have participated in diversity-related efforts. We also held focus

groups with employees who were chosen on the basis of different

geographical locations in the districts and considerations of diversity, such

as race and gender. We also met with union officials to obtain their views

on efforts to improve diversity in Chicago and Akron. In addition, we

obtained and reviewed Service documents that related to diversity in the

Akron and Chicago districts.

To address our third objective, to provide information on alleged EEO

concerns at the Youngstown postal site, we obtained data from Service

headquarters and from the Akron district on the number and nature of

EEO complaints filed between fiscal years 1997 and 1999 at the

Youngstown site and the representation of women and minorities in fiscal

year 1999. Additionally, we obtained and reviewed the results of a 1998

Allegheny Area Office employee climate survey at the Youngstown site to

determine whether employees believed that sex, race, and disability

discrimination existed at the Youngstown facility. We also interviewed

district officials, including managers and union officials, about EEO

concerns in Youngstown, specifically in the Akron district. These officials

included for Akron, the district manager; the diversity specialist; the
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 36 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

human resource manager; the EEO complaints manager; and the labor

relations manager. In Youngstown and Canton, OH, we interviewed plant

managers and postmasters as well as union officials representing the

American Postal Workers Union and the National Association of Letter

Carriers. We also interviewed two Allegheny Area diversity specialists, one

of whom helped conduct the Youngstown employee climate survey.

We performed our work from January through May, 2000, in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II

Representation of Women and Minorities in

the Service’s Postal Districts

Page 37 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

The following table shows for each of 83 of the Service’s 85 postal districts

a comparison of the representation of women and minorities at EAS levels

16 through 26 with their representation in the overall district workforce

(excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) during fiscal year 1999. Information

on the representation of women and minorities in each district’s total

workforce (including EAS levels 16 through 26) and its local CLF are also

included for additional context.

Several points need to be considered in connection with the information

presented. First, when considering a district’s women and minority

representation, it is important to recognize that conditions or challenges

that exist in each district may have an impact on that district’s diversity

representation that may not be reflected in the information presented. For

example, the makeup of a district’s local population, or the CLF, the pool

from which it generally draws its employees, could have an impact on the

extent to which diversity is achieved within that district. Moreover, certain

cultural considerations could prevent some minorities from seeking

Service work even though they may be present in relatively large numbers

in the district’s surrounding population.

Other factors such as competition from surrounding industries for

potential Service employees, the local unemployment rate, and the general

education level of the surrounding population could also have an impact

on the district’s diversity representation. Also, when looking at diversity

representation as a whole for each district, differences in the

representation of individual EEO groups may not be apparent. For

example, a district with a large representation of women and minorities in

its overall workforce, the pool for EAS 16 through 26 positions, could have

a large percentage of one or more EEO groups with a lesser percentage of

the remaining groups, relative to these groups’ representation in that

district’s CLF.

Finally, the Service’s policy regarding the recruitment and movement of

women and minorities has certain limitations, some of which are required

by law. For example, only the best-qualified applicants are to be selected

for positions, and although certain EEO groups could be targeted for such

things as training and development, the Service does not establish quotas

that must be met to increase its representation of women and minorities.
Appendix II

Representation of Women and Minorities in the Service’s Postal Districts

Page 38 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

District workforce EAS 16 through 26 workforce

District

Percentage

of women/

minorities

1990 CLF

Number of

employees

Percentage

of white

males

Percentage

of women/

minorities

Ratio:

Overall

district

workforcea

to the CLF

Number of

employees

Percentage

of white

males

Percentage

of women/

minorities

Ratio:

EAS 16

through 26 to

district

(Excluding

EAS 16

through 26)

Akron 48.56% 7,907 54.45% 45.55% 0.94 566 58.66% 41.34% 0.90

Alabama 56.92 8,771 39.49 60.51 1.06 661 49.77 50.23 0.82

Albany 48.96 8,186 62.94 37.06 0.76 589 72.16 27.84 0.74

Albuquerque 70.10 4,061 28.37 71.63 1.02 267 38.20 61.80 0.85

Anchorage 55.34 2,007 40.96 59.04 1.07 170 48.24 51.76 0.87

Appalachian 48.59 6,656 59.83 40.17 0.83 478 69.46 30.54 0.75

Arkansas 53.35 5,555 52.58 47.42 0.89 392 58.67 41.33 0.86

Atlanta 58.84 12,516 27.21 72.79 1.24 785 35.03 64.97 0.89

Baltimore 61.81 9,651 34.61 65.39 1.06 588 42.01 57.99 0.88

Billings 48.54 2,407 55.34 44.66 0.92 172 69.19 30.81 0.67

Boston 53.35 8,823 69.72 30.28 0.57 528 74.81 25.19 0.82

Capital 66.77 12,404 16.25 83.75 1.25 786 23.41 76.59 0.91

Central Florida* 55.98 9,426 50.36 49.60 0.89 651 52.38 47.62 0.96

Central Illinois 59.68 13,198 40.93 59.07 0.99 767 47.72 52.28 0.88

Central Plains 49.81 10,125 56.61 43.39 0.87 626 60.22 39.78 0.91

Chicago 66.39 11,574 8.04 91.96 1.39 682 7.04 92.96 1.01

Cincinnati* 50.05 10,478 56.27 43.72 0.87 665 59.70 40.15 0.91

Cleveland 48.03 7,757 41.21 58.79 1.22 444 33.33 66.67 1.14

Cntrl New Jersey* 54.84 10,099 52.80 47.19 0.86 666 68.02 31.98 0.66

Columbia 60.79 6,417 38.16 61.84 1.02 484 42.56 57.44 0.92

Columbus 49.08 6,362 53.79 46.21 0.94 399 52.38 47.62 1.03

Connecticut 53.15 11,837 55.31 44.69 0.84 773 64.17 35.83 0.79

Dakotas 48.16 4,346 59.73 40.27 0.84 260 65.77 34.23 0.84

Dallas 59.13 12,351 34.38 65.62 1.11 732 42.35 57.65 0.87

Denver 54.26 14,161 44.91 55.09 1.02 815 51.78 48.22 0.87

Detroit 55.94 10,359 23.53 76.47 1.37 567 29.81 70.19 0.91

Erie 47.21 3,954 64.26 35.74 0.76 278 68.71 31.29 0.87

Fort Worth* 59.45 8,393 45.55 54.44 0.92 548 55.29 44.71 0.81

Gateway 51.45 12,968 45.17 54.83 1.07 774 47.42 52.58 0.96

Greater Indiana 50.48 13,198 45.89 54.11 1.07 804 48.76 51.24 0.94

Greater Michigan 50.09 9,280 52.23 47.77 0.95 580 60.17 39.83 0.82

Greensboro* 58.78 8,789 42.12 57.87 0.98 630 49.05 50.95 0.87

Harrisburg 47.81 7,662 64.24 35.76 0.75 548 71.35 28.65 0.79

Hawkeye 48.00 8,772 60.72 39.28 0.82 550 65.64 34.36 0.87

Houston 63.72 14,225 18.94 81.06 1.27 827 21.52 78.48 0.97

Kentucky* 48.77 8,904 55.99 44.01 0.90 614 62.70 37.30 0.84

Lancaster* 49.08 6,387 58.99 40.99 0.84 445 65.39 34.61 0.83

Las Vegas* 54.14 4,742 44.88 55.10 1.02 315 46.67 53.33 0.97

Long Beach 71.34 8,502 17.07 82.93 1.16 532 27.44 72.56 0.87

Table II.1: Women and Minorities at EAS Levels 16 Through 26 in 83 Districts Compared With Their Representation in the

Overall District Workforce (Including EAS 16 through 26) and the CLF, Fiscal Year 1999
Appendix II

Representation of Women and Minorities in the Service’s Postal Districts

Page 39 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

District workforce EAS 16 through 26 workforce

District

Percentage

of women/

minorities

1990 CLF

Number of

employees

Percentage

of white

males

Percentage

of women/

minorities

Ratio:

Overall

district

workforcea

to the CLF

Number of

employees

Percentage

of white

males

Percentage

of women/

minorities

Ratio:

EAS 16

through 26 to

district

(Excluding

EAS 16

through 26)

Long Island 52.76 9,638 60.01 39.99 0.76 641 68.64 31.36 0.77

Los Angeles 74.86 10,193 4.99 95.01 1.27 617 4.86 95.14 1.00

Maine 47.28 3,874 63.27 36.73 0.78 268 72.76 27.24 0.73

Mid Carolinas* 57.49 8,208 44.35 55.64 0.97 599 47.25 52.75 0.94

Mid-America 50.12 10,991 52.49 47.51 0.95 730 62.05 37.95 0.79

Middlesex-Central 51.02 7,010 69.26 30.74 0.60 484 77.89 22.11 0.70

Milwaukee 49.57 12,765 56.76 43.24 0.87 760 61.97 38.03 0.87

Mississippi 61.91 4,750 44.40 55.60 0.90 384 57.81 42.19 0.74

New Hampshire 47.84 3,489 62.68 37.32 0.78 263 68.82 31.18 0.82

New Orleans 59.88 10,182 32.15 67.85 1.13 668 42.51 57.49 0.84

New York 69.68 16,805 19.05 80.95 1.16 990 28.08 71.92 0.88

North Florida 55.68 8,112 46.13 53.87 0.97 590 47.63 52.37 0.97

North Illinois 61.35 12,541 40.12 59.88 0.98 721 53.81 46.19 0.76

Northern NJ 60.62 13,641 39.65 60.35 1.00 907 57.66 42.34 0.69

Northern Virginia 57.43 7,413 34.52 65.48 1.14 485 41.24 58.76 0.89

Northland 48.57 15,852 63.34 36.66 0.75 980 68.47 31.53 0.85

Oakland 64.24 9,891 14.55 85.45 1.33 563 17.05 82.95 0.97

Oklahoma 54.08 7,897 52.21 47.79 0.88 515 54.17 45.83 0.96

Philadelphia 57.67 11,805 44.85 55.15 0.96 729 51.17 48.83 0.88

Phoenix 58.81 11,390 44.20 55.80 0.95 632 47.78 52.22 0.93

Pittsburgh 48.06 8,415 66.50 33.50 0.70 577 70.54 29.46 0.87

Portland 49.49 8,998 56.39 43.61 0.88 552 66.12 33.88 0.77

Providence 52.34 8,022 67.20 32.80 0.63 572 75.35 24.65 0.74

Richmond 60.11 8,883 31.33 68.67 1.14 580 34.48 65.52 0.95

Royal Oak 55.91 7,950 38.38 61.62 1.10 430 46.98 53.02 0.85

Sacramento* 60.76 8,605 40.46 59.52 0.98 534 49.81 50.19 0.83

Salt Lake City 48.82 4,198 59.70 40.30 0.83 308 71.43 28.57 0.69

San Antonio * 71.51 13,110 30.37 69.63 0.97 828 28.26 71.74 1.03

San Diego 70.75 11,202 31.57 68.43 0.97 699 38.34 61.66 0.90

San Francisco* 63.36 11,959 19.01 80.99 1.28 675 21.63 78.37 0.97

San Jose * 70.45 7,888 26.32 73.67 1.05 522 33.72 66.28 0.89

Santa Ana 69.47 10,365 27.35 72.65 1.05 615 35.45 64.55 0.88

Seattle * 51.89 11,002 42.86 57.12 1.10 737 52.37 47.63 0.82

South Florida 70.28 10,980 25.07 74.93 1.07 627 27.59 72.41 0.96

South Georgia 62.96 5,432 41.22 58.78 0.93 405 50.62 49.38 0.83

South Jersey 55.05 7,025 51.06 48.94 0.89 491 59.88 40.12 0.81

Spokane 50.07 4,559 58.06 41.94 0.84 334 67.66 32.34 0.76

Springfield 49.94 6,314 63.94 36.06 0.72 450 74.67 25.33 0.69

Suncoast 54.56 11,949 53.19 46.81 0.86 793 57.12 42.88 0.91

Tennessee* 53.20 12,506 48.76 51.23 0.96 889 56.36 43.64 0.84

Tri-Boro* 71.20 12,470 34.82 65.17 0.92 766 45.04 54.96 0.83

Van Nuys 71.35 9,464 28.85 71.15 1.00 547 38.57 61.43 0.86
Appendix II

Representation of Women and Minorities in the Service’s Postal Districts

Page 40 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

District workforce EAS 16 through 26 workforce

District

Percentage

of women/

minorities

1990 CLF

Number of

employees

Percentage

of white

males

Percentage

of women/

minorities

Ratio:

Overall

district

workforcea

to the CLF

Number of

employees

Percentage

of white

males

Percentage

of women/

minorities

Ratio:

EAS 16

through 26 to

district

(Excluding

EAS 16

through 26)

Westchester 63.30 7,258 47.64 52.36 0.83 490 59.18 40.82 0.77

Western NY 50.90 8,546 61.81 38.19 0.75 561 71.12 28.88 0.74

Note 1: Of the 85 districts, 2—San Juan and Honolulu—were excluded due to large percentages of

missing gender and/or race/ethnic origin data.

Note 2: Ratios (comparison group percentage divided by base group percentage) as used in this table

show the relative percentage of each district’s women and minority representation as a group (1) in

EAS levels 16 through 26 compared with their percentage of representation in the district’s workforce

(minus EAS levels 22 through 26, but including the small number of executives) and (2) compared

with their percentage of representation in the local CLF. For example, a ratio of 1.00 would indicate

that the group’s representation in the district’s EAS level 16 through 26 workforce equaled their

representation in the district’s overall workforce (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26). A ratio of 1.01

or higher would indicate that women and minority representation was greater at EAS levels 16

through 26 than was their representation in the district’s workforce (minus EAS levels 16 through 26),

whereas a ratio of 0.99 or lower would indicate that the group’s EAS 16 through 26 representation

was lower.

a

Includes EAS levels 16 through 26.

*District had anywhere from one to four employees with unknown gender and ethnic origin data.

These employees are included in the total number of employees and in the computation of

percentages. In these cases, percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding

Source: Service workforce data, fiscal year 1999.
Appendix III

Representation of Women and Minorities in

the Chicago District Office

Page 41 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

For the Chicago district office, tables III.1 and III.2 show various

comparisons for fiscal years 1995 through 1999. Specifically,

• table III.1 shows comparisons of the representation of women and

minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 with their representation in the

district workforce (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) and

• table III.2 shows comparisons of the representation of women and

minorities in the district workforce (including EAS levels 16 through 26)

and the CLF.

EEO group

Workforce

Fiscal years

1995-99

White

male

White

women

Black

male

Black

women

Hispanic

male

Hispanic

women

Asian

male

Asian

women

Native

American

male

Native

American

women

Total

percentage

of women/

minorities

1999

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=682)

7.04%

48

2.93%

20

36.36%

248

47.80%

326

2.49

17

1.61%

11

1.17%

8

0.44%

3

0.15%

1

0.00%

0

92.96%

634

District

workforce (excl.

EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=10,892)

8.10

882

2.09

228

36.60

3,986

44.57

4,855

4.21

459

1.74

189

1.81

197

0.72

78

0.12

13

0.05

5

91.90%

10,010

1998

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=691)

6.37%

44

3.47%

24

36.47%

252

48.48%

335

2.03%

14

1.59%

11

1.01%

7

0.43%

3

0.14%

1

0.00%

0

93.63%

647

District

workforce (excl.

EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=11,276)

8.30

936

2.12

239

36.74

4,143

44.62

5,031

4.02

453

1.64

185

1.69

191

0.71

80

0.12

13

0.04

5

91.70%

10,340

1997

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=733)

7.09%

52

3.00%

22

36.83%

270

47.48%

348

2.59%

19

1.36%

10

0.95%

7

0.55%

4

0.14%

1

0.00%

0

92.91%

681

Table III.1: Chicago District Women and Minority Representation at EAS Levels 16 Through 26 Compared With Their

Representation in the District Workforce (Excluding EAS Levels 16 Through 26), Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Appendix III

Representation of Women and Minorities in the Chicago District Office

Page 42 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

EEO group

Workforce

Fiscal years

1995-99

White

male

White

women

Black

male

Black

women

Hispanic

male

Hispanic

women

Asian

male

Asian

women

Native

American

male

Native

American

women

Total

percentage

of women/

minorities

District

workforce (excl.

EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=11,138)

8.80

980

2.19

244

37.63

4,191

43.59

4,855

3.90

434

1.38

154

1.71

190

0.66

73

0.11

12

0.04

5

91.20%

10,158

1996

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=747)

7.23%

54

2.68%

20

37.22%

278

47.39%

354

2.41%

18

1.34%

10

0.94%

7

0.54%

4

0.27%

2

0.00%

0

92.77%

693

District

workforce (excl.

EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=11,607)

8.84

1,026

2.21

257

37.55

4,358

43.65

5,066

3.81

442

1.44

167

1.69

196

0.69

80

0.09

11

0.03

4

91.16%

10,581

1995

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=777)

8.11%

63

2.83%

22

37.32%

290

47.10%

366

2.19%

17

0.90%

7

0.90%

7

0.51%

4

0.13%

1

0.00%

0

91.89%

714

District

workforce (excl.

EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=11,724)

9.07

1,063

2.14

251

38.02

4,457

43.44

5,093

3.62

424

1.33

156

1.62

190

0.65

76

0.09

10

0.03

4

90.93%

10,661

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Service fiscal year 1995 through 1999 workforce data.
Appendix III

Representation of Women and Minorities in the Chicago District Office

Page 43 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

EEO group

Workforce

Fiscal years

1995-1999

White

male

White

women

Black

male

Black

women

Hispanic

male

Hispanic

women

Asian

male

Asian

women

Native

American

male

Native

American

women

Total

percentage

of women/

minorities

1999

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=11,574)

8.04%

930

2.14%

248

36.58%

4,234

44.76%

5,181

4.11%

476

1.73%

200

1.77%

205

0.70%

81

0.12%

14

0.04%

5

91.96%

10,644

District CLF 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%

1998

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=11,967)

8.19

980

2.20

263

36.73

4,395

44.84

5,366

3.90

467

1.64

196

1.65

198

0.69

83

0.12

14

0.04

5

91.81%

10,987

District CLF 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%

1997

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=11,871)

8.69

1,032

2.24

266

37.58

4,461

43.83

5,203

3.82

453

1.38

164

1.66

197

0.65

77

0.11

13

0.04

5

91.31%

10,839

District CLF 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%

1996

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=12,354)

8.74

1,080

2.24

277

37.53

4,636

43.87

5,420

3.72

460

1.43

177

1.64

203

0.68

84

0.11

13

0.03

4

91.26%

11,274

District CLF 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%

1995

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=12,501)

9.01

1,126

2.18

273

37.97

4,747

43.67

5,459

3.53

441

1.30

163

1.58

197

0.64

80

0.09

11

0.03

4

90.99%

11,375

District CLF 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Service fiscal year 1995 through 1999 workforce data.

Table III.2: Chicago District Women and Minority Representation in the District Workforce (Including EAS Levels 16 Through 26)

Compared With Their Representation in the CLF, Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Appendix IV

Representation of Women and Minorities in

the Akron District Office

Page 44 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

For the Akron district office, tables IV.1 and IV.2 show various

comparisons for fiscal years 1995 through 1999. Specifically,

• table IV.1 shows comparisons of the representation of women and

minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 with their representation in the

district workforce (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) and

• table IV.2 shows comparisons of the representation of women and

minorities in the district workforce (including EAS levels 16 through 26)

and the CLF.

EEO group

Workforce

Fiscal Years

1995-99

White

male

White

women

Black

male

Black

women

Hispanic

male

Hispanic

women

Asian

male

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Total

percentage

of women/

minorities

1999

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=566)

58.66%

332

22.79%

129

6.71%

38

9.01%

51

0.71%

4

0.88%

5

0.18%

1

0.35%

2

0.35%

2

0.35%

2

41.34%

234

District workforce

(excl. EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=7,341)

54.12

3,973

34.76

2,552

4.93

362

4.13

303

0.82

60

0.75

55

0.12

9

0.18

13

0.11

8

0.08

6

45.88%

3,368

1998

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=569)

59.58%

339

21.97%

125

7.03%

40

9.14%

52

0.70%

4

0.70%

4

0.18%

1

0.18%

1

0.35%

2

0.18%

1

40.42%

230

District workforce

(excl. EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=7,309)

54.47

3,981

34.51

2,522

4.95

362

3.98

291

0.82

60

0.77

56

0.11

8

0.19

14

0.11

8

0.10

7

45.53%

3,328

1997

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=555)

60.36%

335

21.44%

119

7.21%

40

8.29%

46

0.72%

4

0.72%

4

0.36%

2

0.18%

1

0.36%

2

0.36%

2

40.00%

220

District workforce

(excl. EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=7,143)

55.41

3,958

33.73

2,409

4.90

350

3.96

283

0.80

57

0.74

53

0.10

7

0.18

13

0.10

7

0.08

6

44.59%

 3,185

Table IV.1: Akron District Women and Minority Representation at EAS Levels 16 Through 26 Compared With Their

Representation in the District Workforce (Excluding EAS 16 Through 26), Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Appendix IV

Representation of Women and Minorities in the Akron District Office

Page 45 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

EEO group

Workforce

Fiscal Years

1995-99

White

male

White

women

Black

male

Black

women

Hispanic

male

Hispanic

women

Asian

male

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Total

percentage

of women/

minorities

1996

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N=545)

60.37%

329

20.55%

112

7.52%

41

8.81%

48

0.73%

4

0.73%

4

0.37%

2

0.18%

1

0.37%

2

0.37%

2

39.63%

216

District workforce

(excl. EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N=7,177)

55.64

3,993

33.62

2,413

4.86

349

3.97

285

0.75

54

0.72

52

0.10

7

0.15

11

0.10

7

0.08

6

44.36%

3,184

1995

EAS 16-26

Percentage

Number

(N= 550)

60.73%

334

19.82%

109

8.36%

46

8.55%

47

0.73%

4

0.73%

4

0.36%

2

0.18%

1

0.18%

1

0.36%

2

39.27%

216

District workforce

(excl. EAS 16-26)

Percentage

Number

(N= 7,217)

55.81

4,028

33.50

2,418

4.78

345

4.07

294

0.71

51

0.69

50

0.10

7

0.14

10

0.10

7

0.10

7

44.19%

3,189

Note: Percentage may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Service fiscal years 1995 through 1999 workforce data.
Appendix IV

Representation of Women and Minorities in the Akron District Office

Page 46 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions

EEO group

Workforce

Fiscal Years

1995-99

White

male

White

women

Black

male

Black

women

Hispanic

male

Hispanic

women

Asian

male

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Total

percentage

of women/

minorities

1999

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=7,907)

54.45%

4,305

33.91%

2,681

5.06%

400

4.48%

354

0.81%

64

0.76%

60

0.13%

10

0.19%

15

0.13%

10

0.10%

8

45.55%

3,602

District CLF 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%

1998

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=7,878)

54.83

4,320

33.60

2,647

5.10

402

4.35

343

0.81

64

0.76

60

0.11

9

0.19

15

0.13

10

0.10

8

45.16%

3,558

District CLF 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%

1997

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=7,698)

55.77

4,293

32.84

2,528

5.07

390

4.27

329

0.79

61

0.74

57

0.12

9

0.18

14

0.12

9

0.10

8

44.23%

3,405

District CLF 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%

1996

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=7,722)

55.97

4,322

32.70

2,525

5.05

390

4.31

333

0.75

58

0.73

56

0.12

9

0.16

12

0.12

9

0.10

8

44.03%

3,400

District CLF 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%

1995

District

workforce

Percentage

Number

(N=7,767 )

56.16

4,362

32.54

2,527

5.03

391

4.39

341

0.71

55

0.70

54

0.12

9

0.14

11

0.10

8

0.12

9

43.84%

3,405

District CLF 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Service fiscal years 1995 through 1999 workforce data.

Table IV.2: Akron District Women and Minority Representation in the District Workforce (Including EAS Levels 16 Through 26)

Compared With Their Representation in the CLF, Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Appendix V

Comments From the U.S. Postal Service

Page 47 GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level Positions
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to

obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

To contact GAO FraudNET use:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(240378)