U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE

Diversity in High-Level

EAS Positions

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the

Honorable Danny K. Davis

House of Representatives

February 1999

GAO/GGD-99-26

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-281375

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

GAO

February 26, 1999

The Honorable Danny K. Davis

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Davis:

This report supplements our previous letter to you in response to your

request for information related to the promotion of women and minorities

to high-level Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS) management

positions (EAS 17 and above) in the U.S. Postal Service (the Service).1

 As

you requested, this report provides (1) information about the overall

extent to which women and minorities have been promoted to or are

represented in EAS 17 and above positions in the Service; (2) our

observations on the methodology used by a private contractor, Aguirre

International, to study workforce diversity at the Service;2 (3) the status of

the Service’s efforts to address the recommendations contained in the

Aguirre report; and (4) our analysis of whether the Service could better

capture and use data to achieve its diversity objectives.

We obtained and analyzed certain Service data—employees’ EAS

positions, promotions, and equal employment opportunity (EEO) groups

identified on the basis of gender and race/national origin—that were

related primarily to the cluster-level workforce.3

 We compared the

representation of specific EEO groups at the cluster level at the end of

fiscal year 19974

 with civilian labor force (CLF) data from the 1990

decennial census.5

 According to Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission standards, the percentage rate at which an EEO group is

represented in an agency’s workforce compared to the rate at which the

group is represented in the CLF, as identified in the most recent census,

 

1

See U.S. Postal Service: Information About Selected Promotions of Women and Minorities to EAS

Management–Level Positions (GAO/GGD-98-200R, Sept. 21, 1998).

2

It’s Good Business—A Study of Diversity in the United States Postal Service, Aguirre International,

Oct. 27, 1997.

3

A performance cluster is 1 of 85 Postal Service geographic service areas. Service employees working

at performance clusters accounted for over 732,000, or about 96 percent, of the Service’s almost

765,000 career-level employees at the end of fiscal year 1997. The remainder was headquarters

employees (about 10,700, or about 1 percent) and area office employees (21,900, or about 3 percent).

4

The Postal Service’s fiscal year 1997 ended on Sept. 12, 1997, and conforms to the Service’s 13-period

accounting year. Our use of the term “fiscal year” in this report refers to the Service fiscal year.

5

The CLF represents persons aged 16 years or more, excluding those in the armed forces, who are

employed or seeking employment.
B-281375

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

determines whether underrepresentation exists for the EEO group in that

workforce. We compared the representation of women and minorities at

the cluster level in EAS 17 and above positions in fiscal year 1993 with

their representation in fiscal year 1997 to show any progression in terms of

their representation between the 2 fiscal years. We also compared the

representation of specific EEO groups among employees promoted to EAS

17 and above positions in fiscal year 1997 with their representation in

those EAS positions in fiscal year 1997 before the promotions to show how

the promotions reflected the comparative workforce. In addition, we

compared the fiscal year 1997 representation of these EEO groups in EAS

17 and above positions with their representation in EAS 11 through 16

positions because employees in positions below EAS 16 represent the pool

from which promotions to EAS 17 and above positions would most likely

come.

At the end of fiscal year 1997, black and Asian men and women and

Hispanic men were fully represented while Hispanic women, Native

American men and women, and white women were underrepresented in

the Service at the cluster level when compared with the CLF.

Representation of women and minorities at the cluster level in EAS 17 and

above positions increased between fiscal years 1993 and 1997, with the

exception of black men whose representation decreased. In fiscal year

1997, women and all minority groups, except Asian women, at the cluster

level were promoted to EAS 17 and above positions at higher rates than

women and minority groups were represented in those EAS positions.

Despite this progress, the overall representation of women and minorities

at the cluster level in EAS 17 and above positions was almost 20 percent

lower than their representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions at the end

of fiscal year 1997. Similar comparisons at the headquarters and area office

workforce levels showed some variations regarding the representation of

specific EEO groups.

Based on our own standards for the design of studies and development of

methodologies to evaluate programs, we believe that the methodologies

used by Aguirre International were generally reasonable, appropriate, and

relevant given the parameters established for the study and the

complexities surrounding the sensitive issue of diversity in such a large

organization. However, we believe Aguirre’s finding of a “glass ceiling”

beginning at EAS 17 positions could be misleading. Aguirre based this

finding primarily on a comparison of the different EEO groups’

representation in various EAS levels or positions with each group’s

representation in the overall CLF. Since CLF data are not broken down

into an appropriate pool for comparison (i.e., similar positions or levels or

Results in Brief
B-281375

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

individuals with relevant qualifications), we do not believe such a

comparison is appropriate. Also, Aguirre did not explicitly define the term

glass ceiling. We interpreted the term in the general sense—that is, an

upper limit beyond which few or no women and minorities could

advance—and to us no such ceiling existed based on the overall data we

examined. Women and minorities were generally represented in and had

been promoted to EAS 17 and above cluster-level positions for the period

we reviewed.

The Service reviewed the Aguirre report and developed 23 initiatives that it

believed addressed the report’s major issues and recommendations. The

Service found that several of the recommendations seemed to be

duplicative. The Service noted that some statements in the report were

confusing because it was unclear whether they should be interpreted as

recommendations and that other statements appeared either to call for

actions already under way or not to be justified by supporting rationale.

Nevertheless, the Service believes its 23 initiatives will significantly

strengthen its diversity program and address most of Aguirre’s concerns.

In addition, the Service believes that it is generally on or ahead of its

schedule for implementing these initiatives. By the spring of 1999, the

Service plans to create an ongoing monitoring process to ensure full

implementation of its initiatives, which may result in revised scopes,

completion dates, and implementation status for some of the initiatives.

The Service has recently developed broad goals and objectives for its

diversity program, but it has not yet established specific targets and

measures for determining its progress toward meeting its diversity goals

and objectives. Service officials said that specific targets and measures

would be established no later than March 30, 1999. In addition, the Service

has not fully captured and used data to achieve its diversity objectives.

Although the Service has a computer system in place to capture applicantflow data—that is, data showing how specific EEO groups progress

through its promotion process—the system has not been effectively

implemented and used because not all Service units have consistently

entered the data into the system. We believe that the lack of this type of

systemic data showing how applicants comprising specific EEO groups

progress through the promotion process hinders the identification of any

barriers that might impede the progress of those groups.

The Postal Service, the nation’s largest civilian employer, had about Background 765,000 career employees at the end of fiscal year 1997. Service employees
B-281375

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

include craft employees, the largest group;6 EAS; the Postal Career

Executive Service (PCES); and others, such as inspectors for the Postal

Inspection Service. The Service structure includes headquarters, 11 areas,

and 85 performance clusters, with cluster-level employees making up

about 96 percent of the Service workforce. For the purposes of this review,

we focused on the cluster-level EAS workforce.

The EAS workforce consists primarily of employees in EAS 11 through 26

positions.7

 EAS management-level positions begin at EAS 16 and include

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

of postal operations. At the end of fiscal year 1997, EAS positions totaled

80,238, or about 10 percent of total Service career-level employees. PCES,

established in 1979, includes Service senior-level officers and executives in

positions such as area vice presidents. At the end of fiscal year 1997, the

Service had about 900 employees in PCES positions. We did not include

employees in PCES positions in our analyses for this report.

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, which was to foster an all-inclusive business environment. The

head of the Department reports directly to the Deputy Postmaster General.

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 1999 Annual Performance Plan includes

achieving a diverse workforce as one of its goals.8

To determine the effectiveness of the Service’s diversity development

program, the Postal Service Board of Governors commissioned Aguirre

International, a contractor, to undertake a 6-month study (May 2, 1997, to

Nov. 2, 1997) of workforce diversity at the Postal Service. The study

addressed Service personnel and supplier diversity and was issued in

October 1997. The report stated that the Service was a leader in meeting

affirmative action goals as well as striving for parity between its workforce

 

6

Craft employees make up the bulk of Postal Service career employees, about 89 percent.

7

Before the Service’s restructuring in 1992, the EAS workforce consisted of EAS 11 through 30

positions. After the restructuring, EAS 27 through 30 positions were reclassified and included in EAS 1

through 26 positions. However, about four EAS employees were still classified in EAS 27 through 30

positions.

8

USPS Annual Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 1999.
B-281375

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

and the CLF. It also stated, among other things, that women and minorities

appeared to be experiencing problems advancing to management jobs at

EAS 17 and above positions. The Board of Governors subsequently

directed the Service to develop an action plan for dealing with the diversity

issues raised by Aguirre. The Service developed an action plan and briefed

the Board on the plan in April 1998.

In our previous letter,9 we reviewed promotions to EAS 16 and above

positions at four selected performance clusters. Documentation in the

promotion files and our discussions with Service officials provided

evidence that the Service’s required promotion procedures we reviewed

were followed for the 127 fiscal year 1997 promotions at these 4 sites. In

addition, for 117 of these promotions, we provided statistical data on the

distribution of the specific EEO groups throughout the promotion process

stages—applications received, applicants considered best qualified, and

applicants promoted. The specific EEO groups discussed in this report

include white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American men and

women.

We did our work from July 1998 through January 1999 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested

comments on a draft of this report from the Postmaster General and from

Aguirre International’s Director of Operations. The Postal Service’s oral

comments and Aguirre’s written comments are discussed near the end of

this letter. Further details about the scope and methodology of our review

can be found in appendix I.

The analyses that follow show how the representation of cluster-level

women and minority groups (1) compared with their representation in the

1990 CLF; (2) changed between fiscal years 1993 and 1997 in EAS 17 and

above positions; (3) among those promoted to EAS 17 and above positions

in fiscal year 1997, compared with their representation in EAS 17 and

above positions in fiscal year 1997 (before the promotions); and (4) in EAS

17 and above positions, compared with their representation in EAS 11

through 16 positions in fiscal year 1997. We also made similar comparisons

for women and minorities involving the remainder of the Postal Service

workforce located at the headquarters and area office levels, as detailed in

appendix II.

 

9

GAO/GGD-98-200R.

Postal Service Positions Representation and

Promotion of Women

and Minorities in EAS

17 and Above Positions

at the Cluster Level
B-281375

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Table 1 shows that when we compared fiscal year 1997 data for the

Service’s cluster-level workforce with CLF data from the 1990 decennial

census, black and Asian men and women and Hispanic men were fully

represented, while Hispanic women, Native American men and women,

and white women were underrepresented. Specifically, black men and

women comprised 11.3 and 9.6 percent, respectively, of the cluster

workforce compared with their respective 5.0 and 5.5 percent

representation in the CLF; Asian men and women comprised 3.5 and 1.9

percent, respectively, of the workforce compared with their respective 1.5

and 1.3 percent representation in the CLF. However, white and Hispanic

women were underrepresented, comprising 22.1 percent and 2.0 percent,

respectively, of the workforce compared with their respective 35.3 percent

and 3.4 percent CLF representation. White men were represented in the

workforce similarly to their level of representation in the CLF.

Workforce

White

men

White

women

Black

men

Black

women

Hispanic

men

Hispanic

women

Asian

men

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Cluster 44.34% 22.09% 11.34% 9.58% 4.82% 2.00% 3.46% 1.87% 0.29% 0.22%

CLF 42.64 35.30 4.95 5.45 4.77 3.35 1.51 1.32 0.35 0.30

Ratioa 1.04 0.63 2.29 1.76 1.01 0.60 2.29 1.42 0.83 0.73

Legend: Bold indicates a ratio of 0.99 or lower.

a

Ratios (comparison group percentage divided by base group percentage) as used in this table show

the relative percentage of each EEO group within the Service clusters to the percentage of those EEO

groups represented in the CLF. For example, a ratio of 1.00 indicates that the EEO group’s

representation in the clusters equaled the group’s representation in the CLF. A ratio of 1.01 or higher

indicates that the representation of the EEO group in the clusters was greater than the EEO group’s

representation in the CLF, and a ratio of 0.99 or lower indicates that the EEO group’s representation

was lower in the clusters than it was in the CLF.

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data and 1990 CLF data.

In addition to the cluster-level workforce data presented in table 1, we

analyzed similar data for the Service’s headquarters-level and area officelevel workforces. Table II.1 in appendix II shows that white and Hispanic

women and Native American men were underrepresented among the three

workforce levels. Native American women were underrepresented among

cluster employees and headquarters employees, but not among area office

employees. Hispanic men were underrepresented among headquarters and

area office employees, while white men were underrepresented among

area office employees. Black and Asian men and women were fully

represented in all three workforce levels.

Cluster-Level Women and

Minority Workforce

Representation in Fiscal

Year 1997 Compared With

the 1990 CLF

Table 1: Comparison of Service Cluster Workforce in Fiscal Year 1997 With the 1990 CLF
B-281375

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Figure 1 shows our analysis of the representation of women and minorities

at the cluster level in EAS 17 and above positions in fiscal year 1993

compared with fiscal year 1997. As the figure shows, generally, the

representation of women and minorities increased over this period; black

men’s representation decreased 0.6 percent over this period. Also, white

men’s representation decreased over this period by about 2.0 percent.

Note: See appendix II, table II.2, for more detailed information.

Source: GAO analysis of Service data for fiscal years 1993 and 1997 for the cluster level.

Women and Minorities in

EAS 17 and Above Positions

in Fiscal Year 1993

Compared With Fiscal Year

1997, at the Cluster Level

Figure 1: Comparison of Cluster-Level Representation of Women and Minorities at EAS 17 and Above Positions in Fiscal Year

1993 With Fiscal Year 1997
B-281375

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Table II.2 in appendix II shows this same type of comparison between the

2 fiscal years for women and minorities in EAS 17 and above positions at

the headquarters and area office levels. At the headquarters level, in

addition to the slight decrease in representation of black and white men as

happened at the cluster level, representation of Native American men also

showed a slight decrease. At the area office level, the representation of

black men, Asian men, and Native American men all generally decreased.

Also, at the headquarters and area office levels, the representation of white

men decreased.

As shown in figure 2, we compared the representation of each EEO group

at the cluster level promoted to EAS 17 and above positions in fiscal year

1997 with their representation in EAS 17 and above positions at the cluster

level in fiscal year 1997 before the promotions. Our analysis showed that

the representation of women and all minority groups among those

promoted was higher than the representation of women and minority

groups in EAS 17 and above positions, with the exception of Asian women.

Also, the representation of white males in promotions to these higher EAS

positions was lower than their representation in the cluster-level

workforce.

Table II.3 in appendix II shows the same type of information for the same

period for the headquarters and area office workforce levels. At the

headquarters level, representation of women and all minority groups

among those promoted was higher than their representation in EAS 17 and

above positions, with the exception of Asian women and black and Native

American men. However, at the area office level, representation of white

women; Hispanic men and women; and Native American men and women

was lower than their representation in EAS 17 and above positions. Also,

white men were promoted at a rate lower than their representation at the

headquarters and area office levels.

Women and Minorities

Promoted to EAS 17 and

Above Positions Compared

With Their Representation

in Those Positions for the

Cluster Workforce, Fiscal

Year 1997
B-281375

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Note: See appendix II, table II.3, for more detailed information.

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data for the cluster level.

Figure 2: Comparison of the Cluster-Level Representation of Women and Minorities Promoted to EAS 17 and Above With

Their Representation in Those Positions (before the promotions), Fiscal Year 1997
B-281375

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Table 2 shows our last comparison, the fiscal year 1997 representation of

women and minorities in EAS 17 and above positions with their

representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions. We made this comparison

because employees in EAS 11 through 16 positions represent the

workforce pool from which selections for promotion to EAS 17 and above

positions would likely be made.

EEO group

Cluster-level

EAS

position

White

men

White

women

Black

men

Black

women

Hispanic

men

Hispanic

women

Asian

men

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Percentage

of women/

minorities

EAS 11-16 39.13% 34.29% 8.74% 9.85% 3.20% 1.79% 1.31% 0.93% 0.33% 0.43% 61%

EAS 17-30 57.70 17.69 8.81 7.72 4.40 1.27 1.18 0.48 0.54 0.23 42

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data.

Our analyses in table 2 show that among cluster-level employees, the

overall representation of women and minorities in EAS 17 and above

positions was lower than it was in EAS 11 through 16 positions in fiscal

year 1997—42 percent compared to 61 percent. Table II.4 in appendix II

shows variation in the representation of women and minorities in the

higher EAS positions at the headquarters and area office levels compared

with their representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions.

Based on our own standards for designing studies and developing

methodologies to evaluate programs, we believe that the methodologies

used by Aguirre International were generally reasonable, appropriate, and

relevant given the established study parameters, including the 6-month

time frame in which the study was to be completed and the complexities

associated with addressing the sensitive issue of diversity in an

organization as large as the Postal Service. In addition, limitations

resulting from the study’s parameters, as well as cautions regarding the

study’s findings, were noted throughout the report. However, in our review

of the Aguirre report, we noted one area of concern: The report stated that

it appeared that a glass ceiling impeded the progression of women and

minorities to EAS 17 and above positions, but in our opinion, the report did

Women and Minority

Representation at EAS 17

and Above Positions

Compared With Their

Representation in EAS 11

Through 16 Positions, Fiscal

Year 1997

Table 2: Comparison of Cluster-Level Representation of Women and Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions With Their

Representation in EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, Fiscal Year 1997

Observations on

Methodologies Used in

Aguirre Study
B-281375

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

not explicitly define the term glass ceiling or present convincing

supporting evidence.

At the direction of the Postal Service Board of Governors, the Service

contracted with Aguirre International to study the Service’s diversity

program. The Board was specifically interested in the Service’s progress in

meeting its goal of creating a Service workforce as diverse as the CLF. The

Board asked Aguirre to look at several areas, including hiring, promoting,

training and development, and contracting. Aguirre was to complete the

study within a 6-month period—May 2, 1997, through November 2, 1997.

The Aguirre report stated that the study was designed to assess the

effectiveness of the Service’s diversity program in eight research areas,

which are listed in appendix III of this report.

The approach to the study taken by Aguirre researchers involved the use

of multiple research methods to research the eight questions (see app. III).

Aguirre’s report indicated that it had performed numerous data analyses,

reviewed written policies and practices, validated a Service database,

visited 10 postal sites, and conducted a survey and interviews. Such an

approach allowed the issues presented in the report to be discussed from

several perspectives, which in our opinion and based on our standards for

performing studies and evaluations, was an acceptable methodological

approach. For example, Aguirre made what we believe were appropriate

adjustments to the 1990 Census CLF data to arrive at compatible postal

districts for comparisons. Aguirre staff developed models and adjusted the

models to allow for Service hiring requirements and restrictions, such as

English language proficiency and veteran’s preference. Using these data,

they made numerous comparisons of the Postal workforce to the CLF.

In addition, the report indicated that Aguirre staff gathered data from

various organizational levels in the Service. It indicated that the staff spoke

with Service officials at headquarters and selected sites, a number of

Service employees, potential Service employees, and contractors to obtain

their perspectives on diversity-related issues in the Service. Aguirre staff

also visited selected Service sites and conducted employee surveys and

interviews. They arranged focus group discussions with community

residents who were viewed as potential employees to gather information

about, among other things, their views on barriers to diversity at the

Service. They also held focus groups with and interviewed potential

contractors to explore the extent to which any known barriers might

impede contractors, especially minority-owned contractors, from

obtaining Service business. In addition, the Aguirre report referred to

Study Methodologies Were

Generally Appropriate, With

Limitations and Cautions

Noted

Methodological Approach Had

Many Strengths
B-281375

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

organizations with success in the area of diversity and used internal

benchmarking to report “promising practices” within the Service.

Certain study parameters set by the Board of Governors, such as the time

frame for the study and the preselection of certain sites, resulted in

numerous study limitations. The Aguirre report clearly noted these

limitations in appropriate sections, citing appropriate cautions for readers

regarding the study’s findings.

According to the Aguirre Project Director, the 6-month period for the study

that was set by the Board of Governors affected the manner in which the

study was implemented in a number of ways. She said Aguirre wanted to

further analyze the data but ran out of time. She also said that interviews

and discussions with Service employees, potential employees, and

potential contractors were limited in that Aguirre staff spoke only with

individuals located near the sites they visited. Thus, the views of these

individuals may not represent the views of similar individuals at other

Service sites.

Finally, the Aguirre report recognizes the information obtained from

Aguirre’s visits to postal sites may not be typical of Service sites

throughout the country. The Board selected the first 5 of the 10 sites

visited because these sites had known diversity problems or were of

special interest to particular Board members. This resulted in a highly

urban sample of sites. Aguirre attempted to balance these sites by

selecting five others based on demographics that were more rural and,

according to Aguirre and Service officials, that had achieved some success

in the area of diversity. However, even this larger sample of 10 sites had

African-American representation that was twice that of the other 75

performance clusters that were not selected for review. Indeed, the report

cautioned readers that the views of individuals at these sites could not be

generalized to the Service as a whole. As a result, the findings from the site

visits may be more indicative of specific sites selected rather than the

status of the Service overall.

Aguirre stated in its report that it appeared that a glass ceiling existed at

positions beginning at EAS 17 for women and minorities. Aguirre did not

explicitly define the term glass ceiling. Further, Aguirre officials told us

that Aguirre based its finding of the glass ceiling primarily on its analyses

of fiscal year 1996 data and comparisons of that data with the CLF and

secondarily on discussions it had with Service employees. Specifically,

Aguirre compared the level of women and minority representation at the

various levels or positions within the EAS with their representation in the

Parameters of Study Resulted in

Limitations to Interpretation of

Its Findings

Report’s Glass Ceiling Finding

Could Be Misleading
B-281375

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

CLF. Because the representation of women and minorities in positions

beginning at EAS 17 was less than their representation in the CLF, Aguirre

stated that it appeared that a glass ceiling began at EAS 17 positions.

In addition, the Project Leader for the Aguirre study told us that although

Aguirre’s finding of a glass ceiling was supported primarily by its analyses

and comparisons of data, the finding was also supported by the views of

postal workers, many of whom perceived that barriers existed to the

promotion of women and minorities to higher EAS and PCES positions.

She said that the views of the Service employees Aguirre interviewed were

consistent—that is, barriers, such as a perceived “old boy network,”

prevented women and minorities from progressing to EAS 17 and above

positions. However, she acknowledged, as did the Aguirre report, that the

views expressed by these individuals at these sites could not be

generalized to the entire Service workforce.

We do not believe that it is appropriate to compare the EEO group

representation in specific EAS positions or levels in the Service with the

CLF because CLF data are not, nor were they intended to be, broken down

into an appropriate pool of employees for such a comparison (i.e., similar

positions or levels, as well as individuals with appropriate qualifications

for those positions). Both the Aguirre Project Director and Project Leader

for the study told us that Aguirre used the comparison with the CLF

because the Service asked them to. Nevertheless, the Service also

disagreed with Aguirre’s glass-ceiling finding on the basis of its

comparison of women and minorities in specific EAS positions with the

general CLF.

Further, we believe that the use of the term glass ceiling in the Aguirre

report could be misleading, particularly if the term were to be interpreted

by readers in a general sense—that is, an upper limit beyond which few or

no women and minorities could pass. Under this definition, and according

to our review of workforce and promotion data for EAS 17 and above

cluster-level employees in fiscal year 1997, no glass ceiling existed. For

example, as shown in table 3, we found that for the cluster level, women

and minorities were present in all positions and had been promoted to

most of those positions. In addition, the percentage of women and

minorities being promoted into these higher EAS positions was generally

greater than was their representation in the same positions in fiscal year

1997 (before the promotions). For example, for EAS 17 positions, women

and minorities comprised about 54 percent of the positions and received

about 58 percent of the promotions. However, both our analyses and

Aguirre’s suggest that opportunity may exist for the Service to increase the
B-281375

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

diversity of its workforce in the higher EAS positions, even though a glass

ceiling does not appear to exist. For example, women and minorities were

often less represented in the EAS 17 and above positions than they were in

the EAS 11 to 16 positions.

EAS

position

Number of

employees in

EAS position

Percentage of

women/minorities

represented in

EAS position

Number of

employees

promoted to EAS

position

Percentage of

women/minorities

promotions to

EAS position

17 3,820 53.51% 160 57.50%

18 6,090 40.49 250 54.40

19 2,036 47.25 135 50.37

20 3,510 35.93 120 48.33

21 2,435 36.83 93 53.76

22 1,636 38.02 38 50.00

23 437 32.95 11 54.55

24 739 49.66 22 36.36

25 283 40.99 10 30.00

26a 64 40.62 N/A N/A

Legend: N/A = Not applicable; no promotions were made in fiscal year 1997.

a

Table does not include data for the four employees still classified in EAS 27 through 30 positions

after the Service’s restructuring in 1992 (see footnote 7).

Source: GAO analysis of Service end of fiscal year 1997 data.

Service officials stated that the Aguirre report was intended to provide an

impression of the overall state of diversity in the Postal Service. In that

context, Service officials said that they have accepted the report’s basic

message that the Service needs to strengthen its diversity program and

have developed and begun implementing a plan to do so. They said that

although it was difficult to determine the exact number of

recommendations contained in the Aguirre report, they believe the actions

they have under way or planned will address the major issues, concerns,

and recommendations Aguirre reported. Service officials also said that

their initiatives would result in ongoing changes in the way that the Service

incorporates diversity into its operations.

The Service developed 23 initiatives designed to improve its diversity

program and address what it believed to be the Aguirre report’s major

issues, concerns, and recommendations. As of December 1998, the Service

reported that it had completed implementation of nine of the initiatives

and was on schedule for completing the remaining initiatives, with the

exception of two initiatives for which completion would be delayed. We

did not verify the accuracy of the Service’s estimate of the completion

status of initiatives in process nor did we evaluate whether any of the

initiatives would resolve the concerns raised by Aguirre. When Service

Table 3: Women and Minority

Workforce and Promotion

Representation at EAS 17 and Above

Positions for Cluster-Level Employees,

Fiscal Year 1997

Aguirre’s Perspective on the

“Glass Ceiling” Service Progress in

Implementing Aguirre’s

Diversity Program

Recommendations

Service Developed 23

Initiatives to Address

Aguirre Report’s Major

Issues and

Recommendations
B-281375

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

officials reported that a new policy or process had been established to

partially or fully address 1 of its 23 initiatives, we obtained available

documentation confirming the new policy or process.

The Service organized its 23 diversity initiatives into 6 functional groups.

Table 4 shows these six groups, the specific initiatives established within

each group, Service estimates of the status of its efforts to implement the

initiatives, and target completion dates for implementing the initiatives.

The projected completion dates shown in the table are those initially

established by the Service. As of December 1998, the Service reported that

it was progressing in its implementation of the 23 initiatives. The Service

reported that nine initiatives had been completed, and seven were 90 to 99

percent complete. Of the remaining inititiatives, three were estimated to be

80 percent complete, and four ranged from 30 percent to 50 percent

complete. Service officials said that initiative 22—using supplier diversity

data to measure the success of the Supplier Diversity Program—will be

partially delayed because of the need to focus resources on resolving the

Year 2000 computer system issue. Also, initiative 23—establishing

accountability for complying with the Supplier Diversity Program for all

Service employees making purchases—will require more time than initially

established so that discussions with buyers on issues associated with

accountability for supplier diversity can occur.

According to Service Diversity Development officials, their statement that

initiatives were 100-percent complete indicated that, in some cases, a

policy, process, procedure, or plan had been developed and approved but

that the relevant actions covered by the policy, process, procedure, or plan

were still ongoing. However, for other completed initiatives, no further

actions were to be taken. For example, for initiative 1, after a new

Diversity Development policy statement was issued, no further actions to

implement this initiative were considered necessary. This was also the

case for initiatives 2 and 3—revising the Diversity Business Plan and

establishing a Diversity Oversight Group. However, for initiatives 4

(evaluating the current Diversity Development Organization and staff and

establishing appropriate headquarters and field staffing), 6 (establishing an

economic incentive for attaining diversity targets), 16 (expanding Supplier

Diversity Program communications), 18 (linking local buying to the

commitment for the Supplier Diversity Program), and 20 (making it easier

for suppliers to participate more effectively in the postal purchasing

process), actions associated with these initiatives were still under way.

Likewise, some other initiatives may involve additional action after the

Service designates them 100-percent complete.
B-281375

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Service Diversity Development officials said that they plan to monitor the

implementation of new policies, processes, procedures, or plans covered

by the 23 initiatives, at least on a quarterly basis, until they become

standard operating procedures. Service officials also told us that they

expected the monitoring process to be operational by the spring of 1999

and that, consequently, the scopes, completion dates, and implementation

status for some of the initiatives could change.

Initiative

number Description of group/initiative

Status of

implementation

Projected

completion

date

Group 1 – Policy, Structure, and Staffing

1 Issue a new Diversity Development corporate policy statement clearly defining diversity and

referencing supplier diversity and explaining how diversity can support achievement of

CustomerPerfect! goals

100% 7/31/98

2 Revise the Diversity Business Plan (May 1997) to incorporate the new diversity policy

statement and integrate it with CustomerPerfect! goals

100 7/31/98

3 Establish a Diversity Oversight Group to review recommendations and check that goals are

progressing

100 6/30/98

4 Evaluate the current Diversity Development Organization and staff and establish appropriate

headquarters and field staffing to meet goals based on the new policy

statement

100 11/1/98

Group 2 - Goal Setting and Accountability

5 Mainstream the management of diversity under CustomerPerfect! umbrella 80 4/1/99

6 Establish an economic incentive for attaining diversity targets 100 4/1/99

Group 3 – Recruitment and Outreach

7 Promote the Service as an equal opportunity employer and a good company for employment 98 6/30/99

8 Develop a job applicant database to access and track data pertaining to underrepresented

groups

98 2/1/99

9 Develop a comprehensive recruitment process for local implementation that is focused on

underrepresented groups

90 12/1/98

10 Improve support for new employees during probationary periods to increase retention

success (Pub. 42 revision)

100 12/31/98

Group 4 – Promotion and Outreach

11 Expand the Executive and Corporate Succession Planning process to promote entrance and

continued advancement in PCES for underrepresented groups

80 12/31/98

12 Establish a Career Management Program to promote advancement from initial- to mid-level

EAS positions

95 12/31/98

13 Create a greater diversity focus in selection processes, including promotions, task force

participation, temporary assignments, and review boards

90 10/1/98

Group 5 – Education and Communications

14 Evaluate current Postal Service training and develop diversity modules to be integrated in

selected training curricula

30 6/1/99

15 Develop a strong and effective communication plan to promote and disseminate a clear

diversity message to all levels of the Postal Service using available internal media

95 12/31/98

Group 6 – Purchasing and Supplier Diversity

16 Expand Supplier Diversity Program communications 100 12/31/98

17 Expand Purchasing and Materials Supplier Diversity Operating Plan (fiscal years 1998-

2002) and continue implementation

98 12/31/98

Table 4: Implementation Status of Postal Service Initiatives as of December 31, 1998
B-281375

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Initiative

number Description of group/initiative

Status of

implementation

Projected

completion

date

18 Link local buying (e.g., credit cards and local service contracts) to the commitment for the

Supplier Diversity Program

100 12/31/98

19 Improve subcontracting participation to include more women and minorities 35 5/1/99

20 Make it easier for suppliers to participate more effectively in the postal purchasing process 100 9/30/98

21 Provide supplier diversity training to Purchasing and Materials personnel and other

employees participating in local buying

47 5/1/99

22 Use supplier diversity data to measure the success of the Supplier Diversity Program 50 5/1/99

23 Establish accountability for complying with the Supplier Diversity Program for all employees

making purchases for the Postal Service

80 3/31/99

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Service’s Manager of Diversity Development and Vice

President of Diversity Development.

Service officials said that the Board of Governors did not request that they

address all of Aguirre’s recommendations. Rather, they were asked to

develop initiatives that they believed would help improve diversity at the

Service and result in improvements in the way that the Service

incorporated diversity in its operations, thereby improving Service

diversity overall. They said that they believed their initiatives have

addressed Aguirre’s major issues, concerns, and recommendations.

Service officials noted that determining the exact number of Aguirre’s

recommendations was difficult because recommendations were noted in

several locations in the report and many of them appeared to be

duplicative. Service officials also noted that it was sometimes unclear as to

whether Aguirre’s statements were intended as recommendations or just

observations.

We also found it difficult to determine with precision the number of

specific Aguirre recommendations for the same reasons the Service cited.

For example, in chapter 5 of its report, Aguirre stated that the Service may

want to do further study of the employees it classifies as American

Indian/Alaskan Native since many of the employees in this category

consider themselves to be something else. It is not clear whether Aguirre

intended this statement to be a recommendation or an action the Service

could consider. Also, the Service’s initiative 1 as shown in table 4 was

designed to address five different Aguirre recommendations, all of which

seemed to be directed at the same concern—developing and issuing a clear

corporate policy on diversity. Service officials said that other

recommendations by Aguirre called for actions that the Service was

already taking or planned to take. For example, Aguirre recommended that

the Service define the attrition rate that can be predicted using age and

past performance for trainers and EEO experts. The Service said that this

information would be available from its New Workforce Planning Model,

which was already in the design phase of development.

Aguirre Recommendations

Sometimes Difficult to

Discern
B-281375

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Service officials said that several of Aguirre’s recommendations seemed to

be based on inaccuracies or misstatements about current Service policies

and procedures. For example, Aguirre reported that the Service usually

selects bidders with the lowest price. Aguirre recommended that bidder

selection should consider other criteria, such as quality of the processes

and products, as well as price. Service officials told us that they did not

accept this recommendation because it is already their general policy to

make awards based on “best value” not lowest price. Further, Service

officials said that for some of Aguirre’s recommendations, they found no

basis or rationale and did not plan to implement them at this time. For

example, Aguirre recommended that a minimum of 7 percent of the

Service’s total contract dollars be awarded to minority suppliers. Service

officials said that they did not find any supporting rationale for this

recommendation, and they believed that the Service’s current goal of 6

percent of total contract dollars to be awarded to minority businesses by

2002 was appropriate.

The Service collects a variety of diversity-related data and has a number of

initiatives under way in response to the Aguirre report that are designed to

improve its data collection methods and use as well as to enhance its

ability to meet its diversity goals and objectives. The Service is also in the

process of establishing targets and measures to use in assessing its

progress toward meeting its diversity goals and objectives. However, the

Service does not have reliable data on the flow of applicants through its

promotion processes that would help it to identify and remove any barriers

to the promotion of women and minorities.

The Service collects a wide variety of diversity data that are primarily

related to its program areas, such as Purchasing and Materials. Managers

of these program areas, in coordination with the Service’s Diversity

Development Department, are to use these data to help achieve program

goals and Service diversity goals. For example, the Purchasing and

Materials Department is to collect data on the dollar size and number of

contracts awarded to women and minority-owned businesses. The Aguirre

report, while acknowledging that the Service collects a substantial amount

of diversity-related data, made a number of comments, observations, and

recommendations to the Service related to gathering, using, and

monitoring such data. At least 5 of the Service’s 23 initiatives (initiatives 5,

6, 8, 18, and 22) involve some of the issues raised by Aguirre about

gathering and using diversity-related data. For example, Aguirre observed

that the Service did not systematically track credit card purchases by

gender or EEO group and thus data on the differential impact of the credit

card program on women and minority contractors are not available. The

Capture and Better

Use of Data to Achieve

Diversity Goals

Service Initiatives to

Improve Data Collection

and Usage in Response to

Aguirre Report

Recommendations
B-281375

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Service plans to address this issue through initiative 18, which is aimed at

improving supplier diversity.

In November 1998, the Service released its 1999 Annual Performance Plan

related to its performance goals, objectives, and associated measures as

part of its implementation of the Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993 (Results Act). Within the plan, the Service identified a goal of

improving employee and organizational effectiveness. The plan also stated

that one of the subcomponents of that goal was the strategy to “manage

and develop human capital.” Under that strategy, the plan identified the

need to “achieve a diverse workforce.” Further, the Annual Performance

Plan stated that based on the Aguirre study’s findings and

recommendations, the Service had prepared a diversity development

action plan10 to promote the hiring of women and minorities, improve

recruitment hiring and promotion activities, and develop indicators to

measure progress linked to this strategy.

In addition, the Service’s Diversity Business Plan, dated December 3, 1998,

supports the Service’s strategic plan.11 The business plan contains four

principal diversity objectives, which, according to Diversity Development

officials, are to be used in partnership with other organizational functions

to develop programs and initiatives that will help achieve Service diversity

goals. The four objectives are (1) articulate a clear diversity message; (2)

ensure the representation of all employee groups in all levels of Postal

Service employment; (3) create a work environment that is free from

discrimination and sexual harassment; and (4) establish and maintain a

strong, competitive, and diverse supplier base.

According to the Manager of Diversity Policy and Planning, now that the

business plan has been approved, the Service is in the beginning stages of

developing specific targets and measures that would help the Service track

its progress in meeting its diversity goals and objectives. According to the

Service, methods to evaluate and measure success will be completed no

later than March 30, 1999. Along with the establishment of diversity goals

and objectives, the establishment of specific targets and measures will

help the Service to focus the efforts of its numerous organizational units,

achieve accountability, gauge progress, and meet goals.

 

10Postal Service’s Diversity Improvement Opportunity, Suggested Courses of Action, Mar. 12, 1998.

11Diversity Development, The Diversity Business Plan, Dec. 3, 1998.

Establishing Diversity

Targets and Measures
B-281375

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Although the Service has had a requirement for many years that its

managers are to collect applicant data for EAS promotions and enter that

data into a central electronic database, according to the Service, most

locations have fallen behind in entering these data into the system. Thus,

the Service has not been in the best position to analyze data on women and

minorities as they move, or do not move, through the Service’s promotion

process or to determine if and for what reason impediments or barriers

exist to the promotion of women and minorities to higher levels of

responsibility in the Service, generally, and within the EAS, specifically.

The Vice President of Human Resources, in February 1997, sent a

memorandum to area and district human resource managers reminding

them that the requirement to collect applicant-flow data was still effective.

She noted that such information was critical to Service efforts to examine

the promotion process for continuous improvement. Although recognizing

that managers were facing various priorities, she asked that managers

develop a plan for collecting and entering past applicant data into the

Promotion Report System. She also noted that this automated system was

the source of data for the Applicant Flow Tracking System (AFTS), a

system vital to the Diversity Development Department’s responsibility for

reporting promotion demographics.

According to a manager in the Service’s Human Resources Department,

the Service has had a centralized, computer-based tracking system in place

for the last 10 years—the AFTS—which is to track diversity data related to

promotions within the Service. He acknowledged, however, that

participation in this system varies across Service units. Some units have

consistently entered the data into the AFTS as required, while others have

never entered the data. Another manager in Human Resources said that

this inconsistent use of the AFTS and subsequent incomplete data in the

system have occurred because unit managers have few incentives to see

that the data are entered into the system because the system is not tied to

any essential information system, such as accounting and payroll or the

employee master file. In addition, he said that there have been few or no

consequences to these managers for not doing so.

Because of the unreliability of the AFTS database, the Service has to use

the Employee Master File and a separate personnel action database to

obtain race, ethnicity, and gender data for those applicants who are

promoted; the Service cannot readily compile and use this information on

applicants seeking promotion. A reliable and complete database on all

applicants would (1) provide an essential baseline against which to assess

the promotion progress of specific EEO groups and (2) help the Service

Requirement to Capture and

Use Promotion ApplicantFlow Data Was Not

Enforced
B-281375

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

identify and remove or reduce the impact of barriers to the promotion of

women and minorities. For example, during our initial review in response

to your request, we noted that there were no Hispanic women applicants

for promotion to EAS levels 17 and above in the Service’s Atlanta

performance cluster in fiscal year 1997.12 The Service could use this type of

information to (1) determine whether any problems or barriers existed in

the cluster that had caused this situation, and if so, (2) take appropriate

corrective action.

In fiscal year 1997, overall women and minority representation in the

Service’s cluster-level workforce did not parallel that of the 1990 CLF.

Relative to their representation in the CLF, several specific EEO groups

were fully represented, while others were underrepresented. Also, in fiscal

year 1997, women and minorities were generally promoted to EAS 17 and

above positions in percentages higher than or close to their workforce

representation in the three workforce levels—cluster, headquarters, and

area offices. As of September 1997, women and minorities were present in

all EAS 17 and above positions and generally had been promoted to EAS 17

and above positions during 1997 in the three workforce levels.

Nonetheless, as of September 1997, women and minority representation

was generally lower in EAS 17 and above positions than it was in EAS 11

through 16 positions.

Overall, given the short time frame and preselection of sites that resulted

in certain study limitations, we believe that the multiple methodologies

Aguirre used for its study were reasonable, relevant, and appropriate.

However, Aguirre’s finding that a glass ceiling appeared to exist at

positions beginning at EAS 17 could be misleading. Evidence that Aguirre

cited to support this finding was not convincing, and according to our

analysis, women and minorities were generally represented in and were

being promoted to EAS 17 and above positions, albeit at varying

percentages, for the period we reviewed.

Neither the Service nor we could determine the exact number of

recommendations made by Aguirre. Nevertheless, the Service is making

progress in implementing the 23 initiatives it developed in response to the

Aguirre report, which are aimed at strengthening its diversity program. We

believe that the Service’s ongoing plan to continue monitoring the

implementation of policies, processes, procedures, and plans covered by

its 23 initiatives is especially important given the Service’s designation of

some initiatives as being completed when such policies, processes,

 

12GAO/GGD-98-200R.

Conclusions
B-281375

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

procedures, and plans have been developed and approved although

specific actions required by some of these initiatives may still be ongoing.

Service initiatives to better capture and use data in response to the Aguirre

study appear reasonable. However, the Service has not yet (1) established

and implemented targets and measures for tracking the Service’s progress

in meeting its diversity goals and objectives or (2) fully captured or used

EEO data on applicants as they progress, or do not progress, through the

Service’s promotion process. The Service has developed diversity goals

and objectives, and now that its Diversity Business Plan has been

approved, is in the process of developing specific targets and measures for

assessing its progress in meeting its goals and objectives. However, the

Service is not capturing reliable EEO data on promotion applicants’

progress through the promotion process. Although we recognize that

collecting and using EEO data on promotion applicants will require

additional effort, such data are important for identifying problems and

barriers affecting women and minorities in the promotion process.

We recommend that the Postmaster General ensure that appropriate

Service officials capture EEO group data in the AFTS and use these data to

help improve the Service’s diversity program, including the identification

of any barriers that might impede promotions to high-level EAS positions.

On February 4, 1999, we were informed by the Postal Service that the Vice

President of Diversity Development and the Vice President of Human

Resources concurred with the information provided in the draft report. In

addition, the Vice President of Human Resources stated that, in response

to our recommendation, she would reemphasize to the field the need to

enter data into the Promotion Report System, which is the source of the

data for the AFTS. Also she stated that once the data are complete and

reliable, they can be used as a tool to identify the point that impedes the

promotions of applicants to high-level EAS positions.

On January 28, 1999, Aguirre provided written comments stating that it

found our report to be instructive and informative. Aguirre noted the

conditions under which its study was done, such as a charged atmosphere

at the Service and the short time frame for the study. Aguirre also noted

differences between the scope of its study and ours, such as its (1) use of

fiscal year 1996 data compared to our use of fiscal year 1997 data and (2)

inclusion of PCES data while our review did not. Aguirre also pointed out

that it found clear distinctions in perceptions about the types of positions

within the EAS levels, and that to do a thorough analysis, one should look

at these differences. For example, Aguirre said it found that women were

Recommendation

Comments and Our

Evaluation
B-281375

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

overrepresented in the attorney area and in rural postmaster jobs and

underrepresented in more “power and influence” positions. We believe

that Aguirre was suggesting that these differences in scope could account

for differences between the results of its study and ours.

We used fiscal year 1997 data in our analysis because it was the latest

period for which complete data were available. We did not include PCES

positions in our analysis because we were asked to analyze the Service’s

EAS workforce. An analysis of any perceived or actual differences in

representation of women and minorities among types of EAS positions

was beyond the scope of our review. Nevertheless, even with these

differences in scope, we do not believe that there were significant

differences between the results of our work and Aguirre’s study results in

those areas that we both addressed. Both reports point out that women

and minorities were less represented in higher EAS positions than they

were in lower EAS positions. In addition, our report does not take issue

with Aguirre’s view that barriers may exist to the promotion of women and

minorities to high-level EAS positions.

Aguirre further stated that it stood behind its conclusion that there seemed

to be a drop in the numbers of women and minorities somewhere around

the EAS 17 through 22 level based on data presented in its report. Aguirre

said that these data were coupled with the views of Service employees it

interviewed who believed that a barrier, or “in their terms, a glass ceiling”

existed near or around this EAS level. However, our concern is that

Aguirre’s use of the term glass ceiling in its report could be misleading

because (1) Aguirre did not define the term glass ceiling in its report; (2)

the data in its report did not, in our view, support the existence of a glass

ceiling as defined in the general sense, that is, an upper limit beyond which

few or no women and minorities could advance; and (3) data in both

Aguirre’s report and in our report showed that women and minorities were

represented in and were promoted to levels above EAS 17, showing the

advancement of women and minorities. The Postal Service raised a similar

concern about Aguirre’s use of the term glass ceiling. Nevertheless, we

agree with Aguirre that opportunity may exist for the Service to increase

diversity at higher EAS levels, and our report recommends that the Service

ensure that appropriate EEO group data are captured and used so that any

barriers impeding the promotion of women and minorities to high-level

EAS positions can be identified.

Aguirre said that our report lacked a discussion of the “feeder flow” from

which Postal employees move into higher level EAS positions. We believe,

however, that our report addressed this issue, at least in part, through our
B-281375

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

analysis of the diversity of the Service’s EAS 11 through 16 workforce,

which forms the pool from which promotions to EAS 17 and above

positions would likely come.

Finally, Aguirre provided several technical comments, which we

considered and included in our report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority

Member of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, House Committee on

Government Reform; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the

Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal

Services, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Postmaster

General; and Aguirre International. We will also make copies available to

others on request.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me on (202)

512-8387. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

Operations Issues
Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions
Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 28

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

32

Women and Minority Representation at the Service’s

Three Workforce Levels

32 Appendix II

Women and Minority

Representation in the

Cluster, Headquarters,

and Area Office

Workforces

Appendix III 36

Aguirre Study's

Methodological

Approach

Appendix IV 38

Major Contributors to

This Report

Table 1: Comparison of Service Cluster Workforce in

Fiscal Year 1997 With the 1990 CLF

6

Table 2: Comparison of Cluster-Level Representation of

Women and Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions

With Their Representation in EAS 11 Through 16

Positions, Fiscal Year 1997

10

Table 3: Women and Minority Workforce and Promotion

Representation at EAS 17 and Above Positions for

Cluster-Level Employees, Fiscal Year 1997

14

Tables

Table 4: Implementation Status of Postal Service

Initiatives as of December 31, 1998

16
Contents

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Table II.1: Comparison of Service Cluster, Headquarters,

and Area Office Workforces With the 1990 CLF, by

EEO Group, as of the End of Fiscal Year 1997

32

Table II.2: Comparison of Change in Representation of

Women and Minorities at EAS 17+ Positions at the

Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office Levels, by EEO

Group, Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year 1997

33

Table II.3: Comparison of the Representation of Women

and Minorities Promoted to EAS 17+ Positions (During

Fiscal Year 1997) With Their Representation in the

Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office Workforces, as

of the end of Fiscal Year 1997

34

Table II.4: Comparison of Representation of Women and

Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions With Their

Representation in EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, as of

the end of Fiscal Year 1997

35

Table III.1: Aguirre Study’s Eight Research Areas and the

Methodological Approach Taken

36

Figure 1: Comparison of Cluster-Level Representation of

Women and Minorities at EAS 17 and Above Positions

in Fiscal Year 1993 With Fiscal Year 1997

7

Figure 2: Comparison of the Cluster-Level

Representation of Women and Minorities Promoted to

EAS 17 and Above With Their Representation in Those

Positions (before the promotions), Fiscal Year 1997

9

Figures

Abbreviations

AFTS Application Flow Tracking System

CLF Civilian Labor Force

EAS Executive and Administrative Schedule

EEO equal employment opportunity

PCES Postal Career Executive Service
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

This report, which follows our previous letter on selected promotions of

women and minorities to Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS)

management-level positions,1

 provides (1) information about the overall

extent to which women and minorities have been promoted to or are

represented in EAS management-level positions in the Postal Service; (2)

our observations on the methodology used by a private contractor, Aguirre

International, to study workforce diversity at the U.S. Postal Service; (3)

the status of the Service’s efforts to address the recommendations in the

Aguirre report; and (4) our analysis of whether the Service could better

capture and use data to achieve its diversity objectives.

To determine the overall extent to which women and minorities have been

promoted to or are represented in EAS management-level jobs, we

obtained Service workforce statistics from the its Diversity Development

Department and annual promotion statistics for career-level employees,

with the exception of the Postal Career Executive Service (PCES), from

the Human Resources Information Systems Office. The Diversity

Development Department, in conjunction with the Service’s Minneapolis

Data Center, provided us with data tapes containing information related to

the equal employment opportunity (EEO) composition of the Service

career-level workforce for Service fiscal years 1993 through 1997. We

chose to focus our analysis on these years since major downsizing and

other changes occurred in the Service in 1992 because of an extensive

reorganization. Data from fiscal year 1998 were not available at the time of

our analysis. The data we used included EAS level; race, national origin,

and gender; location of employee; number of employees by EEO group;

and civilian labor force (CLF) statistics for each EEO group. We did not

verify these data by comparing them to original source documents.

We obtained information on promotions from the Service’s Human

Resource Information Office; this information was compiled from the

Employee Master and Payroll Accounting files. Using the “nature of action”

code from Forms 50, Notice of Personnel Action, we identified career-level

employees who had been promoted, by EAS level, throughout the Service.

We used this information to assess the extent of promotions to specific

EAS positions by EEO groups in the Service. Our limited verification of

this promotion data against the promotions reviewed at the three areas2

reported on in our previous letter showed it to be accurate.

 

1

GAO/GGD-98-200R.

2

See GAO/GGD-98-200R, in which we reported on the promotion process and EEO status of a selected

number of employees applying for promotions to EAS management-level positions in Atlanta, GA; Fort

Worth, TX; and Van Nuys, CA.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

We used this information to construct a workforce profile by EEO group at

three workforce levels—headquarters, area offices, and performance

clusters. In our analysis, we included all career-level employees from each

performance cluster; employees reporting to area offices, whether they

were located in an area office or a cluster facility; and headquarters’

employees, including employees physically housed at L’Enfant Plaza in

Washington, D.C., as well as those reporting to headquarters but located

elsewhere. We analyzed data provided by the Service for the three groups

of employees: (1) cluster-level employees, who represented 732,112 (or

95.7 percent) of the about 765,000 career-level employees at the Service at

the end of fiscal year 1997; (2) area office employees, who represented

21,864 (2.9 percent) of the career-level employees; and (3) headquarters’

employees, who represented 10,707 (1.4 percent) of the career-level

employees. We looked at employees in the three workforce levels because

responsibility and authority for diversity is separated into these three

levels.

To provide some context for the results of our analysis, we first compared

the 1997 Service data with CLF data from the 1990 decennial census

separately for the three workforce levels of employees. We used figures

from the 1990 census because this was the comparative baseline used by

the Service and by Aguirre International in its study. We recognize there

are more recent estimates that would have accounted for the changes in

the population, especially in the Hispanic and Asian subpopulations in

certain areas. However, these estimates are not broken down into a

geographic level that is comparable to Service performance clusters.

Regarding promotions to women and minorities as well as the Aguirre

report’s finding of a glass ceiling at EAS 17 and above positions, we did

several analyses: First, we considered how the representation of each of

the 10 EEO groups in EAS 17 and above positions had changed between

fiscal years 1993 and 1997. Second, we considered whether the percentage

of employees in each of the 10 EEO groups (i.e., white, black, Hispanic,

Asian, and Native American men and women) that were promoted to EAS

17 and above positions during fiscal year 1997 were greater or less than the

percentages of employees in each of the 10 EEO groups that were

employed in those positions at the beginning of fiscal year 1997 (before the

promotions). We computed a ratio statistic to express the percentage of

employees in each of the 10 EEO groups that were promoted to EAS 17

and above positions during fiscal year 1997 compared with the percentage

of employees in each group already employed in EAS 17 and above

positions before the promotions. The positive ratio of 1.23 for black men,

for example, was the percentage of all promotions going to black men
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

(10.85 percent) divided by the percentage of the cluster-level workforce,

which was black men at EAS 17 and above (8.81 percent) at the beginning

of fiscal year 1997. These same comparisons and ratios were done

separately for cluster, headquarters, and area office employees. Finally, we

considered how the representation of the various groups of women and

minorities in higher level EAS positions (17 through 30) compared with

their representation in the lower level EAS positions (11 through 16).

To provide observations on the methodology used by Aguirre International

in its study of workforce diversity at the Service, we reviewed the Aguirre

report and the methodologies used in relation to the study’s objectives,

limitations, and findings. In addition, we reviewed both the comments

from the Advisory Diversity Team on Aguirre’s draft report and Aguirre’s

response to Service questions. We also interviewed the Project Director for

the Aguirre study. We reviewed a copy of the contract and statement of

work between the Service and Aguirre International, and discussed the

report with the two secretaries to the Board of Governors. We also looked

at the Aguirre study’s methodology in relation to the U.S. Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance and our previous work

on diversity-related issues.

To provide information on the status of the Service’s efforts to address the

Aguirre report’s recommendations, we reviewed the Service’s response to

the study as well as several status reports prepared by the Diversity

Oversight Committee, which is a Servicewide committee established to

oversee the implementation of the Service’s response to the Aguirre report.

We also interviewed the Vice President of Diversity Development as well

as the manager in charge of the Supplier Development and Diversity

program in the Purchasing and Materials Department concerning the

Aguirre report’s recommendations, among other things. We reviewed the

Service’s action plan, which laid out 23 initiatives and was prepared in

response to the Aguirre report. We limited our verification of the

implementation status of the 23 initiatives to obtaining and reviewing

available relevant documents, such as plans and directives, prepared by

the Service.

To determine whether the Service could improve its capture and use of

diversity-related data, we reviewed (1) diversity-related data historically

collected and used by the Service; (2) Aguirre’s recommendations related

to data collection and the Service’s response to them; (3) Service

documents prepared in response to the Results Act; and (4) Service

documents related to the AFTS. In addition, we interviewed

knowledgeable Service officials and Aguirre’s Project Director.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

We did our work from July 1998 through January 1999 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested

comments on a draft of this report from the Postmaster General and

Aguirre International’s Director of Operations. The Postal Service’s oral

comments and Aguirre’s written comments are discussed near the end of

the letter.
Appendix II

Women and Minority Representation in the

Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office

Workforces

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

The following tables present information on women and minority

representation at the three Service workforce levels—the cluster,

headquarters, and area office levels—and includes the following

comparisons for women and minorities:

• representation at the three workforce levels as of the end of fiscal year

1997 compared with their representation in the 1990 CLF (table II.1);

• changes in women and minority representation at EAS 17 and above

positions at the three workforce levels for fiscal years 1993 and 1997

(table II.2);

• promotions to EAS 17 and above positions as of the end of fiscal year 1997

compared with women and minority representation in those positions at

all three workforce levels during fiscal year 1997 before the promotions

(table II.3); and

• women and minority representation in EAS 17 and above positions

compared with their representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions (table

II.4).

Table II.1 shows that when comparing Service data as of the end of fiscal

year 1997 with CLF data from the 1990 decennial census, black and Asian

men and women were fully represented, while white and Hispanic women

and Native American men were underrepresented at headquarters, in the

area offices, and among cluster-level employees. Native American women

were also underrepresented among the large group of cluster employees as

well as among headquarters personnel. In addition, white men were

underrepresented among area office employees, while Hispanic men were

underrepresented at the headquarters and area office levels.

Workforce

level

White

men

White

women

Black

men

Black

women

Hispanic

men

Hispanic

women

Asian

men

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Cluster 44.34% 22.09% 11.34% 9.58% 4.82% 2.00% 3.46% 1.87% 0.29% 0.22%

HQ 47.64 20.81 11.06 10.90 2.90 1.49 2.83 1.83 0.32 0.21

Area office 30.72 22.26 18.01 16.37 4.03 2.49 3.29 2.17 0.27 0.38

CLF 42.64 35.30 4.95 5.45 4.77 3.35 1.51 1.32 0.35 0.30

Ratio

Cluster 1.04 0.63 2.29 1.76 1.01 0.60 2.29 1.42 0.83 0.73

HQ 1.12 0.59 2.23 2.00 0.61 0.44 1.87 1.39 0.91 0.70

Area office 0.72 0.63 3.64 3.00 0.84 0.74 2.18 1.64 0.77 1.27

Note: Ratio, in this instance, is a method used to compare the relationships between the

representation of each EEO group within the Service’s cluster, headquarters, and area office levels

relative to the CLF.

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data and 1990 CLF data.

Women and Minority

Representation at the

Service’s Three

Workforce Levels

Women and Minority

Workforce Representation

in Fiscal Year 1997

Compared With Their

Representation in the

1990 CLF

Table II.1: Comparison of Service Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office Workforces With the 1990 CLF, by EEO Group, as of

the End of Fiscal Year 1997
Appendix II

Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office

Workforces

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

As shown in table II.2, we determined how the representation of the 10

EEO groups in the higher EAS positions had changed between fiscal years

1993 and 1997. White and black men were the only EEO groups that

decreased in their representation among all three workforce levels at EAS

17 and above positions during this period. Native American men also

decreased in their representation among employees at high-level EAS

positions at headquarters and area offices, and Asian men decreased

slightly in their representation among employees at high-level EAS

positions at the area offices.

Workforce

level/

Fiscal year

White

men

White

women

Black

men

Black

women

Hispanic

men

Hispanic

women

Asian

men

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Cluster

1993 59.59% 16.10% 9.39% 7.36% 4.21% 1.11% 1.12% 0.45% 0.47% 0.20%

1997 57.70 17.69 8.81 7.72 4.40 1.27 1.18 0.48 0.54 0.23

Ratio

1997:1993 0.97 1.10 0.94 1.05 1.05 1.14 1.05 1.07 1.15 1.15

Headquarters

1993 62.40 16.36 7.31 5.59 2.24 0.96 2.95 1.65 0.42 0.11

1997 59.21 18.18 7.12 6.16 2.76 1.09 3.12 1.82 0.41 0.15

Ratio

1997:1993 0.95 1.11 0.97 1.10 1.23 1.14 1.06 1.10 0.98 1.36

Area office

1993 53.87 16.02 12.00 9.44 3.25 1.24 2.17 1.16 0.62 0.23

1997 50.35 18.05 11.48 11.01 3.46 1.44 2.08 1.33 0.46 0.35

Ratio

1997:1993 0.93 1.13 0.96 1.17 1.06 1.16 0.96 1.15 0.74 1.52

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal years1993 and 1997 data.

Women and Minority

Workforce Representation

at EAS 17 and Above

Positions in Fiscal Years

1993 and 1997

Table II.2: Comparison of Change in Representation of Women and Minorities at EAS 17+ Positions at the Cluster,

Headquarters, and Area Office Levels, by EEO Group, Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year 1997
Appendix II

Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office

Workforces

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

As shown in table II.3, we determined whether the percentages of

employees in each of the 10 EEO groups that were promoted to EAS 17

and above positions during fiscal year 1997 were greater or less than the

percentages of employees in each of the 10 EEO groups employed at those

levels at the beginning of fiscal year 1997 (before the promotions).

Asian women were the only group other than white men, among clusterlevel employees, who were not promoted during fiscal year 1997 to EAS 17

and above positions in numbers that would have been sufficient to

increase their representation in those higher EAS positions. This was also

true for black men, Asian women, and Native American men among

headquarters’ employees. Among area office employees, the percentages

of white women and Hispanic and Native American men and women

promoted to EAS 17 and above positions were not as large as the

percentages employed at those higher levels. White men were the only

group for which percentages of promotions to 17 and above positions were

lower than the percentages of white men already employed in those

positions across all three workforce levels.

Workforce

level

White

men

White

women

Black

men

Black

women

Hispanic

men

Hispanic

women

Asian

men

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Cluster

Workforce 57.70% 17.69% 8.81% 7.72% 4.40% 1.27% 1.18% 0.48% 0.54% 0.23%

Promotions 47.56 19.55 10.85 11.32 5.13 2.26 2.15 0.36 0.60 0.24

Ratio 0.82 1.11 1.23 1.47 1.17 1.78 1.82 0.75 1.11 1.04

Headquarters

Workforce 59.21% 18.18% 7.12% 6.16% 2.76% 1.09% 3.12% 1.82% 0.41% 0.15%

Promotions 46.59 22.95 6.14 7.73 7.27 2.95 4.32 1.59 0.23 0.23

Ratio 0.79 1.26 0.86 1.25 2.63 2.71 1.38 0.87 0.56 1.53

Area office

Workforce 50.35% 18.05% 11.48% 11.01% 3.46% 1.44% 2.08% 1.33% 0.46% 0.35%

Promotions 48.89 17.78 13.33 13.33 2.22 0.00 2.22 2.22 0.00 0.00

Ratio 0.97 0.99 1.16 1.21 0.64 0.00 1.07 1.67 0.00 0.00

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data.

Women and Minority

Promotions to EAS 17 and

Above Positions Compared

With Their Workforce

Representation, During

Fiscal Year 1997

Table II.3: Comparison of the Representation of Women and Minorities Promoted to EAS 17+ Positions (During Fiscal Year

1997) With Their Representation in the Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office Workforces, as of the end of Fiscal Year 1997
Appendix II

Women and Minority Representation in the Cluster, Headquarters, and Area Office

Workforces

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

As shown in table II.4, we determined whether, as of the end of fiscal year

1997, the representation of various EEO groups of minority men and

women employed in EAS 17 and above positions resembled their

representation in EAS 11 through 16 positions. Among cluster-level

employees and headquarters employees, all EEO groups of women—but

none of the groups of men, except black men at headquarters and Asian

men at the cluster level—were less well represented in EAS 17 through 30

positions than they were in EAS 11 through 16 positions. Among area

office employees, Hispanic men and Asian and Native American men and

women fared better while black men, similar to black and Hispanic

women, were less well represented in EAS 17 and above positions

compared with the EAS 11 through 16 positions.

EEO group

Workforce/

EAS level

White

men

White

women

Black

men

Black

women

Hispanic

men

Hispanic

women

Asian

men

Asian

women

Native

American

men

Native

American

women

Percentage

of women/

minorities

Cluster

11 to 16 39.13% 34.29% 8.74% 9.85% 3.20% 1.79% 1.31% 0.93% 0.33% 0.43% 61%

17 to 30 57.70 17.69 8.81 7.72 4.40 1.27 1.18 0.48 0.54 0.23 42

Ratio

17+:11-16 1.47 0.52 1.01 0.78 1.38 0.71 0.90 0.52 1.64 0.53

Headquarters

11 to 16 17.15% 39.00% 7.28% 25.75% 1.37% 3.44% 2.28% 3.19% 0.05% 0.51% 83%

17 to 30 59.21 18.18 7.12 6.16 2.76 1.09 3.12 1.82 0.41 0.15 41

Ratio

17+:11-16 3.45 0.47 0.98 0.24 2.01 0.32 1.37 0.57 8.20 0.29

Area office

11 to 16 35.20% 19.52% 18.77% 18.43% 2.59% 2.50% 1.33% 1.17% 0.33% 0.17% 65%

17 to 30 50.35 18.05 11.48 11.01 3.46 1.44 2.08 1.33 0.46 0.35 50

Ratio

17+:11-16 1.43 0.92 0.61 0.60 1.34 0.58 1.56 1.14 1.39 2.06

Source: GAO analysis of Service fiscal year 1997 data.

Women and Minority

Representation at EAS 17

and Above Positions

Compared With That at EAS

11 Through 16 Positions,

Fiscal Year 1997

Table II.4: Comparison of Representation of Women and Minorities in EAS 17 and Above Positions With Their Representation in

EAS 11 Through 16 Positions, as of the end of Fiscal Year 1997
Appendix III

Aguirre Study's Methodological Approach

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Table III.1 provides the details of the primary methodologies used by

Aguirre researchers to develop answers to the eight research questions on

which the study was based. As shown in the table, Aguirre researchers

used multiple methods to research the questions, including extensive data

analysis.

Eight research areas Methodologies used by Aguirre researchers

(1) How does the composition of the postal workforce

by race/national origin and gender compare to the

population nationally and locally?

• Developed statistical analysis of (1) Census CLF dataa and (2) Service workforce

data at national and local levels

• Created models for mapping Census data into race and national origin

categories

• Did Service workforce trend analysis

(2) Does the hiring process address local

population profiles?

• Reviewed Service written policies and practices for hiring

• Interviewed Service national and local staff

• Analyzed Service workforce data

• Compared local Service workforce data with CLF data

• Interviewed potential employees

(3) Does the Diversity Reporting System provide

accurate information on the race and national

origin of Service employees?

• Reviewed written Service policies and practices in assigning employees to

race/national origin categories; also interviewed relevant Service staff at national

and local levels

• Analyzed two data files: Active Employee Reference file and Personnel Actions

file, extracted from Notice of Personnel Action, Form 50

• Surveyed sample of employees selected from Diversity Reporting System to

verify race and national origin

(4) Do promotion policies and practices result in

promotions that are proportionate to the number

of minority groups represented in the workforce,

nationally and locally?

• Reviewed Service’s written policies and practices for promotions

• Interviewed Service staff at national and local levels

• Analyzed Service workforce data for distribution of annual promotions by level,

EEO group, and compared the data with CLF data

(5) How well do Training and Development Programs

address diversity needs?

• Interviewed training and diversity staff in each of the 10 sites as well as in

headquarters

• Interviewed Service employees

(6) How effectively does Postal Service contracting

and subcontracting with minority-owned business

support diversity goals, nationally and locally?

• Reviewed Service’s written policies and practices for contracting

• Interviewed Service staff at national and local levels

• Analyzed Service Supplier Diversity data

• Held focus groups with potential vendors at six sites

• Conducted six in-depth interviews with potential vendors in Dallas

Table III.1: Aguirre Study’s Eight Research Areas and the Methodological Approach Taken
Appendix III

Aguirre Study's Methodological Approach

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

Eight research areas Methodologies used by Aguirre researchers

(7) How does the Postal Service Diversity Program

compare with those of other large organizations?

• Compared Service’s diversity program in the area of contracting with that of

other mail carriers

• Compared Service’s diversity program with those of other companies that have

achieved success with diversity (e.g., Motorola, Allstate, and Harvard Pilgrim

Health Care)

(8) What strategic direction should the Diversity

Program take?

• Identified best practices used by other organizations in the private sector

reported to have successful diversity programs

• Identified promising practices used in Service’s Diversity program

• Identified certain organizations’ diversity programs/objectives as models against

which the Service can compare its strategies, etc.

Note: Aguirre researchers visited Service facilities at the following 10 selected sites: Los Angeles;

Chicago; Washington, D.C.; Dallas; Miami; Jackson, MS; Hartford, CT; Seattle; and Albuquerque;

New Orleans was a pilot site. Due to union and other logistical issues, Aguirre researchers were

unable to survey a random sample of employees at each target site; but they did, with support from

informal networks and Service professional organizations, survey a judgmental sample of employees.

a

Aguirre used 1970, 1980, and 1990 CLF Census data for comparisons with the 1996 and 1997

Service workforce.

Source: GAO analysis of It’s Good Business—A Study of Diversity in the United States Postal

Service, Aguirre International, Oct. 27, 1997.
Appendix IV

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions

William R. Chatlos, Senior Social Science Analyst

Douglas Sloane, Senior Social Science Analyst

Hazel Bailey, Evaluator (Communications Analyst)

Victor B. Goddard, Staff Attorney

Sherrill H. Johnson, Assistant Director

Billy W. Scott, Evaluator-in-Charge

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Office of the General

Counsel

Dallas Field Office Dallas Field Office
Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions
Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-26 Diversity in High-Level EAS Positions
Ordering Information

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 touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

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
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

(240326)