Page 1

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Affirmative Action Plan

for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and

Retention of Persons with Disabilities

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

EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and MD-715 require agencies to describe how their affirmative action plan will 

improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with disabilities.

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals

EEOC regulations (29 CFR §1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific numerical goals for increasing the participation 

of persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities in the federal government

1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD by grade level cluster in the 

permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Answer Yes

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Answer Yes

The participation rate for PWD in grade cluster 1-10 is 7.96%., The participation rate for PWD in grade cluster 11-SES, is 9.92%.

*For GS employees, please use two clusters: GS-1 to GS-10 and GS-11 to SES, as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7). For all 

other pay plans, please use the approximate grade clusters that are above or below GS-11 Step 1 in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan region.

2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD by grade level cluster in the 

permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) Answer Yes

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Answer No

The participation rate for PWTD in grade cluster 1-10 is 1.83%.

Grade Level Cluster(GS or Alternate Pay 

Planb)

Total Reportable Disability Targeted Disability

# # % # %

Numarical Goal -- 12% 2%

Grades GS-1 to GS-10 1430 113 7.90 26 1.82

Grades GS-11 to SES 1341 133 9.92 41 3.06

3. Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers and/or recruiters.

AMS conducts internal compliance reviews of specific agency programs as a means of evaluating the agency’s effectiveness in 

fulfilling its civil rights obligations. AMS’ Civil Rights Program provides quarterly statistical tables relating to hires, promotions, 

separations, and workforce representation of PWD and PWTD to the Administrator and to each of its agency programs’ Deputy 

Administrators with the numerical goals listed.

Section II: Model Disability Program
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 2

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

disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, administer the reasonable accommodation program and special emphasis program, 

and oversee any other disability hiring and advancement program the agency has in place.

A. PLAN TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT & COMPETENT STAFFING FOR THE DISABILITY 

PROGRAM

1. Has the agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability program during the reporting period? 

If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to improve the staffing for the upcoming year.

Answer Yes

2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the agency's disability employment program by the office, staff 

employment status, and responsible official.

Disability Program Task

# of FTE Staff By Employment Status Responsible Official 

(Name, Title, Office 

Full Time Part Time Collateral Duty Email)

Section 508 Compliance 0 0 1 Heather Pearl

Section 508 Manager

ask508@usda.gov

Processing applications from PWD and PWTD 1 0 0 Amber Kiel,

HR Specialist, APHIS, 

MRPBS Recruitment & 

Placement

Architectural Barriers Act Compliance 1 0 0 Mr. Fidel Delgado

Engineering Branch 

Facilities Management 

Division, Offices of 

Operations

Fidel.Delgado@dm.usda.gov

Answering questions from the public about 

hiring authorities that take disability into 

account

1 0 0 Amber Kiel

HR Specialist

Amber.m.kiel@aphis.usda.gov

Special Emphasis Program for PWD and 

PWTD

1 0 1 Linda Alston

EEO Specialist

linda.m.alston@usda.gov

Processing reasonable accommodation requests 

from applicants and employees

1 0 0 Carmen Humphrey

EEO Specialist

Carmen.Humphrey@ams.usda.gov

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

reporting period? If “yes”, describe the training that disability program staff have received. If “no”, describe the training 

planned for the upcoming year.

Answer Yes

The Disability Program Manager has received virtual Disability Program Manager training at USDA given by Office of Federal 

Operations of the U.S. EEOC. This training was conducted in September 2022.

B. PLAN TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR THE DISABILITY PROGRAM

Has the agency provided sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement the disability program during 

the reporting period? If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to ensure all aspects of the disability program have sufficient 

funding and other resources.

Answer Yes
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 3

Section III: Program Deficiencies In The Disability Program

Brief Description of Program 

Deficiency

D.1.c. Does the agency conduct exit interviews or surveys that include questions on how the agency could improve the 

recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of individuals with disabilities? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(1)

(iii)(C)]

Objective Work with HR to establish a way to include disability in its exit surveys.

Target Date Sep 30, 2023

Completion Date Sep 30, 2022

Planned Activities

Target Date Completion Date Planned Activity

Sep 30, 2023 September 30, 2022 Meet with Human Resources to determine if Disability information, along 

with race, grade and other demographic information, can be returned to 

the exit surveys.

Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishment

2022 Exit interviews are being done, but data for disability statistics has never been 

collected. In 2021, APHIS, HRD changed the format for the exit interview form 

and no longer collects any demographic data, since many employees skipped the 

questions relating to demographics. Per an email from APHIS, HRD 

(10/21/2021). “There is no plan to collect disability data”. Employees may leave 

comments if they are exiting because of EEO type issues.

Section IV: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1)(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to increase the recruitment and hiring of 

individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to identify outcomes of the agency’s recruitment program plan for 

PWD and PWTD

A. PLAN TO IDENTIFY JOB APPLICATIONS WITH DISABILITIES

1. Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, including individuals with 

targeted disabilities.

AMS uses the Veterans Resource Groups, Schedule A hiring authority, Workforce Recruitment Program and job fairs specifically 

for disabled veterans and PWD. AMS is continuing its effort to renew its MOU with Gallaudet to facilitate recruitment efforts 

among PWTD. AMS is waiting for Gallaudet to review and/or comment on the MOU.

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

(e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in the permanent workforce

Schedule A applicants forward their resumes to the agency’s selective placement program manager and to the APHIS Human 

Resources manager for review. The SPPM maintains a file of the resumes and refers the Schedule A applicants for consideration, 

when an appropriate AMS vacancy becomes available.

3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account (e.g., Schedule A), explain 

how the agency (1) determines if the individual is eligible for appointment under such authority; and, (2) forwards the 

individual's application to the relevant hiring officials with an explanation of how and when the individual may be 

appointed.

If a Schedule A applicant applies to a vacancy announcement, an HR Staffing Specialist/Assistant review the PWD’s application to 

determine qualifications and eligibility. If the applicant is deemed qualified and eligible by means of Schedule A, the servicing HR 
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 4

specialist provides guidance to the selection official on the Schedule A appointment process.

4. Has the agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities that take disability into account 

(e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe the type(s) of training and frequency. If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to provide 

this training.

Answer Yes

In prior years, AMS has hosted Disability awareness training which included information on hiring authorities. The Agency plans to 

host this same type of training in October 2022. This training will also include a presentation on the Workforce Recruitment Plan, 

which is a database for students and veterans with disabilities. Training on disability hiring, such as Schedule A, reasonable 

accommodations and other hiring authorities is presented as requested from the AMS programs.

B. PLAN TO ESTABLISH CONTACTS WITH DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Describe the agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist PWD, including PWTD, in 

securing and maintaining employment.

AMS is in the process of continuing its renewal of the MOU with Gallaudet University. The MOU is currently in the final review 

stages. We are currently waiting. Staff members from Gallaudet attended the senior staff meeting to give an overview of Gallaudet’s 

new school curriculum. During that time, several mangers expressed interest in hiring interns from Gallaudet University. AMS uses 

and attends meetings with Job Accommodation Network (JAN), Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment and Policy, 

Federal Exchange on Employment and Disability (FEED), Employer Assistance Resource Network (EARN) to acquire information 

on inclusion, disability trainings and other resources to assist in employment and retention.

C. PROGRESSION TOWARDS GOALS (RECRUITMENT AND HIRING)

1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among 

the new hires in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below.

a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Answer Yes

b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Answer No

The permanent selection rate for PWD (9.60%) was disproportionately higher than the participation rate for PWD in the total 

workforce (7.77%), but below the 12.00% Federal benchmark.

New Hires Total

Reportable Disability Targeted Disability

Permanent 

Workforce

Temporary 

Workforce

Permanent 

Workforce

Temporary 

Workforce

(#) (%) (%) (%) (%)

2040 5.25 0.00 3.38 0.00

1577 4.76 0.00 3.36 0.00

573 1.57 5.41 1.40 0.35

% of Total 

Applicants

% of Qualified 

Applicants

% of New Hires

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the new hires for any 

of the mission- critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. Select “n/a” if the applicant data 

is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Answer Yes
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 5

b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Answer No

The mission critical occupations with AMS are 0301-Miscellaneous Administration and Program; 1102 - Contracting; 1146-

Agricultural Marketing Specialist; 1147-Agricultural Market Reporting; 1980- Agricultural Commodity Grading; and 1981-

Agricultural Commodity Aid. The following references permanent mission critical positions: There were 95 qualified applicants for 

series 0301, 6 were PWD/PWTD, 5 PWD/PWTD were qualified, 1 was referred. There was one selection, who was not a PWD/

PWTD. There were 699 qualified applicants for series 1146; 34 were PWD/PWTD, 19 were qualified, 4 were referred. Out of 17 

total selections, one (5.88%) PWD/PWTD was selected. There were 88 qualified applicants for series 1147; 8 were PWD/PWTD, 5 

were qualified, none were referred to the selecting official. There were 884 qualified applicants for series 1980; 41 were PWD/

PWTD, 30 were qualified, 36 were referred. Out of 115 selections, 6 (5.22%) were PWD/PWTD. There were 149 qualified 

applicants for series 1981; 6 were PWD/PWTD, 5 were qualified; 5 were referred. Out of 21 selections, 2 9.52% PWD/PWTD were 

selected. Out of the total 75 qualified applicants, for mission critical occupations, who were PWD/PWTD, 46 (61.33%) were 

referred, 9 (12.00%) were selected. There were 6 selections 8.00% of PWTD in mission critical occupations.

New Hires to Mission-Critical Occupations

Total

Reportable Disability Targetable Disability

New Hires New Hires

(#) (%) (%)

Numerical Goal -- 12% 2%

0301 MISCELLANEOUS 

ADMINISTRATION AND PROGRAM

1 0.00 0.00

1102 CONTRACTING 3 0.00 0.00

1146 AGRICULTURAL MARKETING 

SPECIALIST

17 5.88 0.00

1147 AGRICULTURAL MARKET 

REPORTER

6 0.00 0.00

1980 AGRICULTURE COMMODITY 

GRADER

115 5.22 5.22

1981 AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY AID 21 9.52 9.52

3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the qualified internal 

applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. Select “n/a” if 

the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Answer Yes

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Answer Yes

There were 86 total qualified internal applicants for series 0301; 7 (8.14%) PWD/PWTD were qualified. The benchmark was 

16.47% for PWD and 3.53% for PWTD. There were no hires for series 1102. There were 271 total qualified internal applicants for 

series 1146; 19 (7.01%) PWD/PWTD were qualified. The benchmark was 10.71% PWD and 4.85% PWTD. There were 43 total 

qualified internal applicants for series 1147; Out of four applications, 0 PWD/PWTD were qualified. The benchmark was 8.39% 

PWD and 2.80% PWTD. There were 205 total qualified internal applicants for series 1980; 7 (3.41%) PWD/PWTD were qualified. 

Benchmark for PWD, 6.63%; PWTD 1.43%.

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among employees promoted 

to any of the mission- critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. Select “n/a” if the 

applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Answer Yes

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Answer Yes

There were 86 total qualified internal applicants for series 0301; 7 (8.14%) PWD/PWTD were qualified. The benchmark was 
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 6

16.47% for PWD and 3.53% for PWTD. There were no hires for series 1102. There were 271 total qualified internal applicants for 

series 1146; 19 (7.01%) PWD/PWTD were qualified. The benchmark was 10.71% PWD and 4.85% PWTD. There were 43 total 

qualified internal applicants for series 1147; Out of four applications, 0 PWD/PWTD were qualified. The benchmark was 8.39% 

PWD and 2.80% PWTD. There were 205 total qualified internal applicants for series 1980; 7 (3.41%) PWD/PWTD were qualified. 

Benchmark for PWD, 6.63%; PWTD 1.43%.

Section V: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with 

Disabilities

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1)(iii), agencies are required to provide sufficient advancement opportunities for employees 

with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and mentoring programs, career development opportunities, 

awards programs, promotions, and similar programs that address advancement. In this section, agencies should identify, and provide 

data on programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities.

A. ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM PLAN

Describe the agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for advancement.

The AMS mentoring program is an informal and voluntary program. During FY 2022, there were 89 mentor/mentee participants in 

the program. To participate in the AMS Mentoring program, the protégé submits an application, which asks questions to aid in the 

selection of a mentor that will be paired with the protégé for a specific period of time. The protégé and mentor decide together when 

and how often to meet and the issues or subjects they will work on or discuss. The mentor and protégé each sign the AMS 

Mentoring Agreement based on the agreed commitment. The mentoring program helps employees develop leadership skills as well 

as help employees to learn, grow, and improve their skills. Out of the 89 participants in the FY 2022 mentoring program, PWD 

represented 20.22% (18) and PWTD 2.25% (2).

B. CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITES

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its employees.

AMS established the Leadership Essentials & Advancement Program (LEAP). LEAP targets GS-4 thru GS-9 grade levels. LEAP is 

the foundation for every employee to build strong individual leadership skills for meeting the agency missions and goals. The 

program focuses on the competencies at the all-employee level and prepares participants with essential knowledge, skills, and 

abilities to meet the agency’s succession planning needs and to achieve excellence, regardless of position. Employees are required 

to submit Individual Development Plans, which allow for training, details, and leadership opportunities. AMS managers review, 

discuss, and assist employees with their IDPs before approvals. The American University – Key Executive Mid-Level Leadership 

Development Program and the Federal Executive Institute (FEI) –Leadership for a Democratic Society, targets employees at the 

GS-15 level and Senior Executive Service level. AMS employees use the MRPBS-APHIS Center for Training & Organization 

Development site. The purpose of this site is to provide information about the wide variety of non-technical training and leadership 

development opportunities available to APHIS, AMS and FAS personnel. The Agency’s Program Liaison, assist employees with 

finding the training and organizational development resources they need. The site includes classroom training events; webinars and 

virtual training events; mandatory training; developmental programs and activities (agency specific & visible to applicable agency); 

and training and development resources.

2. In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that require competition and/or 

supervisory recommendation/ approval to participate.

Career Development 

Opportunities

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applicants (#) Selectees (#)

 Applicants 

(%) Selectees (%)

 Applicants 

(%) Selectees (%)

Fellowship Programs 7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mentoring Programs 89 89 20.22 20.22 2.25 2.25

Coaching Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 7

Career Development 

Opportunities

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applicants (#) Selectees (#)

 Applicants 

(%) Selectees (%)

 Applicants 

(%) Selectees (%)

Training Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0

Detail Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Career Development 

Programs

Unknow 21 Unknow 19.05 Unknow 0

Internship Programs 57 57 3.51 3.51 0.0 0.0

3. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs? (The 

appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your 

plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWD) Answer Yes

b. Selections (PWD) Answer No

Currently there is no disability information available for applicants for Career Development Programs.

4. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs? (The 

appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your 

plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWTD) Answer Yes

b. Selections (PWTD) Answer No

Currently there is no disability information available for applicants for Career Development Programs..

C. AWARDS

1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or PWTD for any level of 

the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If “yes”, please describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD) Answer No

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Answer Yes

In FY 2022, AMS issued 2,225 cash awards averaging $1,149. The distribution rate for PWD (7.73%) which is proportionate to the 

participation rate for PWD (7.77%) in the total AMS workforce. The distribution rate for PWTD (2.11%) which is proportionate to 

the participation rate for PWTD (1.92%) in the total AMS workforce. The average cash award for PWD was $1,169 and for PWTD 

$1,177. The Agency issued 128 time-off awards in FY 2022. The distribution rate for PWD (12.50%) was disproportionately higher 

compared to the participation rates for PWD (7.77%) in the AMS permanent workforce. The distribution rate for PWTD 1.56% was 

disproportionately lower compared to the participation rates for PWTD (1.92%) in the AMS permanent workforce. The average 

time-off award for PWD was 16 hours and for PWTD 14 hours.

Time-Off Awards Total (#)

Reportable 

Disability %

Without Reportable 

Disability %

Targeted Disability 

%

Without Targeted 

Disability %

Time-Off Awards 1 - 10 hours: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 1 - 10 Hours: 

Total Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 8

Time-Off Awards Total (#)

Reportable 

Disability %

Without Reportable 

Disability %

Targeted Disability 

%

Without Targeted 

Disability %

Time-Off Awards 1 - 10 Hours: 

Average Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 11 - 20 hours: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 11 - 20 Hours: 

Total Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 11 - 20 Hours: 

Average Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 21 - 30 hours: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 21 - 30 Hours: 

Total Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 21 - 30 Hours: 

Average Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 31 - 40 hours: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 31 - 40 Hours: 

Total Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 31 - 40 Hours: 

Average Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 41 or more 

Hours: Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 41 or more 

Hours: Total Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Time-Off Awards 41 or more 

Hours: Average Hours

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards Total (#)

Reportable 

Disability %

Without Reportable 

Disability %

Targeted Disability 

%

Without Targeted 

Disability %

Cash Awards: $501 - $999: Awards 

Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $501 - $999: Total 

Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $501 - $999: 

Average Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $1000 - $1999: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $1000 - $1999: Total 

Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $1000 - $1999: 

Average Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $2000 - $2999: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $2000 - $2999: Total 

Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $2000 - $2999: 

Average Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $3000 - $3999: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $3000 - $3999: Total 

Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $3000 - $3999: 

Average Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $4000 - $4999: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $4000 - $4999: Total 

Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 9

Cash Awards Total (#)

Reportable 

Disability %

Without Reportable 

Disability %

Targeted Disability 

%

Without Targeted 

Disability %

Cash Awards: $4000 - $4999: 

Average Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $5000 or more: 

Awards Given

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $5000 or more: Total 

Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Awards: $5000 or more: 

Average Amount

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or PWTD for quality step 

increases or performance- based pay increases? If “yes”, please describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Answer No

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Answer Yes

There were 14 Quality Step Increases (QSIs) in AMS during FY 2022. PWD received 7.14% of the QSIs, proportionate to their 

participation rate for PWD (7.77%) in the total workforce. The inclusion rate is 0.41%, this is a trigger. There were no QSIs for 

PWTD. This is a trigger. The inclusion rate was 0.0%. PWTD did not received Performance Based Pay increases.

Other Awards Total (#)

Reportable 

Disability %

Without Reportable 

Disability %

Targeted Disability 

%

Without Targeted 

Disability %

Total Performance Based Pay 

Increases Awarded

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. If the agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are PWD and/or PWTD recognized disproportionately 

less than employees without disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is the inclusion rate.) If “yes”, describe the 

employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box.

a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Answer N/A

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Answer N/A

D. PROMOTIONS

1. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to 

the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and 

the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your 

plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer No

b. Grade GS-15

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer Yes

c. Grade GS-14

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer Yes
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 10

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer Yes

d. Grade GS-13

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer Yes

• For GS-15, out of the 124 Qualified Internal Applicants, 8 (6.45%) were PWD; 8 PWD were referred. There were 11 selections. 

None was a PWD (0.00%) PWD selection. The relevant applicant pool rate is 8.06%. • For GS-14, out of the 144 Qualified Internal 

Applicants, 8 (5.56%) were PWD; 8 PWD were referred. There were 20 selections, 1 (5.00%) was PWD selection. The relevant 

applicant pool rate is 12.73%. • For GS-13, out of the 432 Qualified Internal Applicants, 40 (9.26%) were PWD; 40 PWD were 

referred. Out of 40 selections, 3 (7.50%) were PWD. The relevant applicant pool rate is 10.09%.

2. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions 

to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants 

and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If 

“yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and 

describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer No

b. Grade GS-15

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer Yes

c. Grade GS-14

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer Yes

d. Grade GS-13

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer Yes

• For GS-15, out of the 124 Qualified Internal Applicants, 7 (5.65%) were PWTD; 7 PWTD were referred. There were 11 

selections: none were a PWTD, 0.0%. The relevant applicant pool rate is 1.61%. • For GS-14, out of the 144 Qualified Internal 

Applicants, 5 (3.47%) were PWTD; 5 PWTD were referred. There were 20 selections, none were a PWTD selection. The relevant 

applicant pool rate is 4.24%. • For GS-13, out of the 432 Qualified Internal Applicants, 2 (0.46%) were PWTD; 2 PWTD were 

referred. Out of 40 selections, none were a PWTD. The relevant applicant pool rate is 16.42%.

3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the new hires 

to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to 

provide the data in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Answer No

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Answer Yes
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 11

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Answer Yes

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Answer Yes

• For GS-15, there was one senior grade levels applicants, the applicant was not referred. There was one selection. The selection 

was not a PWD. The relevant applicant pool was 8.06%. • For GS-14, there were 2 senior grade levels applicants and 1 was 

referred. There were 5 selections, none were a PWD. The relevant applicant pool was 12.73% • For GS-13, there were 25 senior 

grade levels applicants and 8 were referred. There were 24 selections, none were a PWD. The relevant applicant pool was 10.09%.

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the new 

hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe 

the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to 

provide the data in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Answer Yes

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Answer Yes

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) Answer Yes

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Answer Yes

• For GS-15, there were no senior grade levels applicants. There was one selection. The selection was not a PWTD. The relevant 

applicant pool was 1.61%. • For GS-14, there were no senior grade levels applicants. There were 5 selections, none were a PWTD. 

The relevant applicant pool was 4.24% For GS-13, there were no senior grade levels applicants. There were 24 selections, none 

were a PWTD. The relevant applicant pool was 6.42%.

5. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to 

supervisory

positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified 

applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is not 

available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer Yes

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer No

c. Supervisors

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer Yes

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer Yes

• For Executives, there were 115 Qualified Internal Applicants, 8 (6.96%) were PWD; 8 PWD were referred. There were 9 

selections: none were a PWD, 0.0%. The relevant applicant pool rate was 9.46%. • For Supervisors, there were 247 Qualified 

Internal Applicants, 14 (5.67%) were PWD; 14 PWD were referred. There were 49 selections: 1 (2.04%) was a PWD. The relevant 

applicant pool rate was 6.25%.

6.
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 12

Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions 

to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and 

the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data 

is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer No

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer Yes

c. Supervisors

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer Yes

• For managers, there were 34 Qualified Internal Applicants, 6 (17.65%) were PWTD; 6 PWTD were referred. There were 5 

selections: none was a PWTD, 0.0%. The relevant applicant pool rate was 5.11%. • For supervisors, there were 247 Qualified 

Internal Applicants, 10 (4.05%) were PWTD; 10 PWTD were referred. There were 49 selections: none was a PWTD, 0.0%. The 

relevant applicant pool rate was 2.40%.

7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the selectees 

for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the applicant data is 

not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) Answer Yes

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Answer Yes

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Answer Yes

For Executive, there were 48 Qualified External Applicants, 2 were PWD. 1 PWD was Referred.. There were no selections made 

for Executives. For managers, there were 29 Qualified External Applicants, 2 PWD were Referred. Out of the 18 selections, none 

were PWD. For supervisors, there were 80 Qualified External Applicants, 2 were PWD and 1 was referred. No selections were 

made for supervisors.

8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the 

selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. Select “n/a” if the 

applicant data is not available for your agency, and describe your plan to provide the data in the text box.

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) Answer No

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Answer No

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Answer No

Section VI: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 13

To be model employer for persons with disabilities, agencies must have policies and programs in place to retain employees with 

disabilities. In this section, agencies should: (1) analyze workforce separation data to identify barriers retaining employees with 

disabilities; (2) describe efforts to ensure accessibility of technology and facilities; and (3) provide information on the reasonable 

accommodation program and workplace assistance services.

A. VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATIONS

1. In this reporting period, did the agency convert all eligible Schedule A employees with a disability into the competitive 

service after two years of satisfactory service (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)(6)(i))? If “no”, please explain why the agency did 

not convert all eligible Schedule A employees.

Answer Yes

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among voluntary and involuntary separations 

exceed that of persons without disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger below.

a.Voluntary Separations (PWD) Answer Yes

b.Involuntary Separations (PWD) Answer Yes

The Voluntary Separation rate for PWD (8.46%) was slightly higher than the participation rate of 7.77% for PWD in the workforce. 

The Involuntary Separation (Removals) rate for PWD (15.38%) was higher than the participation rate of 7.77% for PWD in the 

workforce.

Seperations Total # Reportable Disabilities %

Without Reportable 

Disabilities %

Permanent Workforce: Reduction in Force 0 0.00 0.00

Permanent Workforce: Removal 13 0.57 0.27

Permanent Workforce: Resignation 108 1.44 2.49

Permanent Workforce: Retirement 94 2.87 2.03

Permanent Workforce: Other Separations 45 1.44 0.97

Permanent Workforce: Total Separations 260 6.32 5.76

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary and involuntary separations 

exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger below.

a.Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Answer Yes

b.Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Answer No

The Voluntary Separation rate for PWTD (3.08%) was higher than the participation rate of 2.42% for PWTD in the workforce.

Seperations Total # Targeted Disabilities %

Without Targeted Disabilities 

%

Permanent Workforce: Reduction in Force 0 0.00 0.00

Permanent Workforce: Removal 13 0.00 0.30

Permanent Workforce: Resignation 108 1.16 2.44

Permanent Workforce: Retirement 94 4.65 2.05

Permanent Workforce: Other Separations 45 3.49 0.96

Permanent Workforce: Total Separations 260 9.30 5.74

4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, please explain why they left the agency using exit 

interview results and other data sources.
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 14

PWD represented 8.46% of the 260 permanent separations in AMS. Out of the 22 Separations for PWD, 45.45% were due to Voluntary Retirement, 22.73% Resignations, 9.09% Removal, and 22.73% were other types of separations. Human Resources does 

not collect disability information during exit interviews. No data is available as to why 22.73% of PWD resigned from the agency. 

PWTD represented 3.08% of the 260 permanent separations in AMS. Out of the 8 Separations for PWTD, 50.00% were due to 

Voluntary Retirement, 37.50% were “Other” types of separations, 12.50% were Resignations. Human Resources does not collect 

disability information during exit interviews. No data is available as to why 12.50% of PWTD resigned from the agency.

B. ACCESSIBILITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITIES

Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and employees of their rights under Section 

508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b), concerning the accessibility of agency technology, and the Architectural 

Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151-4157), concerning the accessibility of agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to 

inform individuals where to file complaints if other agencies are responsible for a violation.

1. Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining employees’ and applicants’ 

rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a description of how to file a complaint.

https://www.usda.gov/accessibility-statement https://www.ascr.usda.gov/ https://www.usda.gov/non-discrimination-statement There 

is also information on how to contact AMS if the visitor is experiencing issue accessing information or would like to send 

comments. In addition, at the bottom of each of the AMS webpages is a “Nondiscrimination” link that leads the visitor to 

information on how to file a complaint.

2. Please provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining employees’ and applicants’ 

rights under the

Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of how to file a complaint.

Should the public contact the agency the AMS Affirmative Employment Division would forward all visitors and employees to the 

United States Access Board (USAB) website: https://www.access-board.gov/aba-enforcement The USAB is a federal agency that 

promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility 

guidelines and standards for the built environment, transportation, communication, medical diagnostic equipment, and information 

technology.

3. Describe any programs, policies, or practices that the agency has undertaken, or plans on undertaking over the next fiscal 

year, designed to improve accessibility of agency facilities and/or technology.

In FY 2021, AMS committed to making its website and information accessible to everyone. The AMS website contains HTML 

documents, plain text files, PDFs that require a PDF reader (available for free on most computers and digital devices), Microsoft 

Word files and other file types like PowerPoint or Excel spreadsheets. The USDA TARGET Center converts USDA information 

and documents into alternative formats, including Braille, large print, video description, diskette, and audiotape.

C. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and make available to all job applicants 

and employees, reasonable accommodation procedures.

1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodations during the reporting 

period. (Please do not include previously approved requests with repetitive accommodations, such as interpreting services.)

Average period is usually 30 days business days. AMS (and APHIS) employee COVID vaccine exemption requests (medical RA 

requests) were held by APHIS while awaiting Departmental guidance and instructions. These requests will be processed upon 

completion of Departmental/MRP instructions/directive – December 2021/January 2022. Excluding the approximately 25 AMS 

vaccine exemption (medical) requests, all other RA requests this FY were completed within the required timeframes.

2.
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 15

Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the agency’s reasonable accommodation 

program. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests, timely providing approved 

accommodations, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and monitoring accommodation requests for trends.

In responding to reasonable accommodation requests, AMS follows USDA Departmental Regulation 4300-008 Reasonable 

Accommodation and PAS Procedures. This ensures that AMS employees and applicants with disabilities are provided with equal 

employment opportunities. This document is posted on the AMS public webpage at: http://www.ams.usda.gov. MRP continues to 

clear MRP 4300.2 Reasonable Accommodations and HR Desk Guide program procedures through OASCR. These documents are 

intended to compliment, not replace the Departmental DR.

D. PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 

WORKPLACE

Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action, are required to provide personal 

assistance services (PAS) to employees who need them because of a targeted disability, unless doing so would impose an undue 

hardship on the agency.

Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS requirement. Some examples of 

an effective program include timely processing requests for PAS, timely providing approved services, conducting training 

for managers and supervisors, and monitoring PAS requests for trends.

The MRP PAS procedures are found in the USDA Departmental Regulation 4300-008, Reasonable Accommodation and Personal 

Assistance Services (October 2020). There have been no PAS requests from AMS employees in FY 2021.

Section VII: EEO Complaint and Findings Data

A. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING HARASSMENT

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging harassment, as compared 

to the governmentwide average?

Answer No

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status result in a finding of 

discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Answer No

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability status during the last 

fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the agency.

AMS had no findings of discrimination in FY 2020.

B. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging failure to provide a 

reasonable

accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average?

Answer No

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation result in a finding of 

discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Answer No

3.
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 16

If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation 

during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the agency.

AMS had no findings of discrimination in FY 2021.

Section VIII: Identification and Removal of Barriers

Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests that a policy, procedure, or practice 

may be impeding the employment opportunities of a protected EEO group.

1. Has the agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect employment opportunities for 

PWD and/or PWTD?

Answer Yes

2. Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD and/or PWTD?

Answer Yes

3. Identify each trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s), objective(s), responsible 

official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, accomplishments
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 17

STATEMENT OF 

CONDITION THAT WAS 

A TRIGGER FOR A 

POTENTIAL BARRIER:

Provide a brief narrative 

describing the condition at 

issue.

How was the condition 

recognized as a potential 

barrier?

Workforce Data (if so identify the table)

Workforce Data Table - B1

The permanent workforce participation rate for PWD in AMS for FY 2022 is 8.88%, below the 

12% Federal High Goal.

N

N

STATEMENT OF 

BARRIER GROUPS:

STATEMENT OF 

IDENTIFIED BARRIER:

Provide a succinct statement 

of the agency policy, 

procedure

or practice that has been 

determined to be the barrier 

of the 

undesired condition.

Barrier Group

People with Disabilities

Source of the Trigger:

Specific Workforce Data 

Table:

Barrier Analysis Process 

Completed?:

Barrier(s) Identified?:

Barrier Name Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan

Date 

Initiated

Target Date Sufficient 

Funding / 

Staffing?

Date 

Modified

Date 

Completed

Objective Description

10/01/2020 09/30/2022 Yes Increase the participation rate of PWD to reach the 

12% EEOC Federal Goal.

Responsible Official(s)

Title Name Standards Address The Plan?

AMS Civil Rights, AMS Hiring Manager N/A Yes

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective

Target Date Planned Activities Sufficient

Staffing &

Funding?

Modified

Date

Completion

Date

09/30/2023 Meet with the Veteran Resource Group and Veteran 

Program Manager to determine if there is a reason 

Veterans do not or cannot claim disability status.

Yes

12/31/2020 Contact APHIS Civil Rights to ask if AMS employees 

can attend the quarterly brown bag Self-Identification 

presentations.

Yes 09/30/2023
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service FY 2022

Page 18

Report of Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishment

2022 These are new goals. No accomplishments for FY 2022 at this time

4. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing any of the planned activities.

This is a new goal. No accomplishments for FY 2022 at this time.

5. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those activities toward eliminating the 

barrier(s).

This is a new goal. No accomplishments for FY 2022 at this time.

6. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the agency intends to improve 

the plan for the next fiscal year.

The MOU with Gallaudet University will be completed in FY 2023.