UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

2018 ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

(Management Directive 715) 

Dr. Terri Dickerson, Director 

Civil Rights Directorate 

2703 Martin Luther King Jr., Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20593 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

UnitedStates Coast Guard

FederalAgency Annual EEO Program

Status Report

 ______For Period Covering October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018 _____

Report Sections:_________________________________________________

Part A -D Agency Identifying Information;Total Employment; Responsible

Agency Officials; and list of Subordinate Components Covered

in the Report

Part E Executive Summary

Part F Certification of Establishment of ContinuingEqualEmployment

Opportunity Programs

Part G Agency Self-Assessment Checklist for ModelEEO Program

Part H Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency

Part I EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barriers

Part J Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring and

Advancement of IndividualswithTargeted Disabilities

Tab 1 EqualEmployment Opportunity PolicyStatement

Tab 2 Anti-DiscriminationandAnti-Harassment PolicyStatement

Tab 3 DiversityPolicyStatement

Tab 4 Coast GuardOrganization Chart

Tab 5 Workforce Table Title Listing
Tab: Part A - D
EEOC FORM

715-01

PART A - D 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

For period covering October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018.

PART A

Department

or Agency

Identifying

Information

1. Agency 1. Department of Homeland Security

1.a. 2nd level reporting component United States Coast Guard

1.b. 3rd level reporting component

1.c. 4th level reporting component

2. Address 2. 2703 Martin Luther King Jr.

3. City, State, Zip Code 3. Washington, DC 20593

4. CPDF Code 5. FIPS code(s) 4. HSAC 5. 7008

PART B

Total

Employment

1. Enter total number of permanent full-time and part-time employees 1. 8,704

2. Enter total number of temporary employees 2. 148

3. Enter total number employees paid from non-appropriated funds 3. 1,371

4. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT [add lines B 1 through 3] 4. 10,223

PART C

Agency

Official(s)

Responsible

For Oversight

of EEO

Program(s)

1. Head of Agency

Official Title

ADMIRAL KARL L. SCHULTZ, Commandant

2. Agency Head Designee ADMIRAL CHARLES W. RAY, Vice Commandant

3. Principal EEO Director/Official

Title/series/grade

TERRI DICKERSON, Director, Civil Rights Directorate/SES

4. Title VII Affirmative EEO

Program Official

FRANCINE BLYTHER, Chief, Civil Rights Operations, GS-15

CAPT KIRBY SNIFFEN, Chief, Policy, Planning & Resources

DAYRA E. HARBISON, Chief, Compliance & Procedures, GS-15

FAYNETTA JENNINGS, MD 715 Program Manager, GS-14

5. Section 501 Affirmative Action

Program Official

MICHAEL BRENYO, People with Disabilities Program Manager, 

GS-14

6. Complaint Processing Program

Manager

EDUARDO ZAYAS, Chief, Complaints & Solutions, GS-14

7. Other Responsible EEO Staff MICHAEL BRENYO, People with Disabilities Program Manager, 

GS-14

ELEANOR THOMPSON, Section 508 Coordinator, GS-14
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART A - D 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

PART D

List of Subordinate Components Covered in 

This Report

Subordinate Component and Location 

(City/State)

CPDF and FIPS codes

EEOC FORMS and Documents Included With This Report

*Executive Summary [FORM 715-01 PART 

E], that includes: x

*Optional Annual Self-Assessment Checklist Against Essential 

Elements [FORM 715-01PART G] x

Brief paragraph describing the agency's 

mission and mission-related functions

X

x

*EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO 

Program [FORM 715-01PART H] for each programmatic 

essential element requiring improvement

x

Summary of results of agency's annual selfassessment against MD-715 "Essential 

Elements"

X

x

*EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier 

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

Summary of Analysis of Work Force Profiles 

including net change analysis and 

comparison to RCLF

X

x

*Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and 

Advancement of Individuals With Targeted Disabilities for 

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

x

Summary of EEO Plan objectives planned to 

eliminate identified barriers or correct 

program deficiencies

X

x

*Copy of Workforce Data Tables as necessary to support 

Executive Summary and/or EEO Plans x

Summary of EEO Plan action items 

implemented or accomplished

X

x

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

items related to Complaint Processing Program deficiencies, 

ADR effectiveness, or other compliance issues

NA

*Statement of Establishment of Continuing 

Equal Employment Opportunity Programs

[FORM 715-01 PART F]

X

x

*Copy of Facility Accessibility Survey results as necessary to 

support EEO Action Plan for building renovation projects

available upon request

x

*Copies of relevant EEO Policy Statement(s) 

and/or excerpts from revisions made to EEO 

Policy Statements

X

x

*Organizational Chart

x
Tab: Part E
Executive Summary

Introduction

This summary with attendant information comprises the U.S. Coast Guard’s (CGs) Annual Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) Status Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 pursuant to the U.S. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) Management Directive 715 (MD-715). 

The report contains general information about the Agency (Parts A-D); this Executive Summary

(Part E); an Agency Self-Assessment (Part G); a Plan to Remove Program Deficiencies (Part H);

a Plan to Identify and Remove Barriers (Part I); a Plan for Employment of Persons with 

Disabilities (Part J); the Agency’s EEO policy statements; and workforce tables.

The United States Coast Guard’s Mission

The CG is the principal Federal agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and 

environmental stewardship in U.S. ports and waterways. In this capacity, the CG protects and 

defends more than 100,000 miles of U.S. coastline and inland waterways, and safeguards an 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) encompassing 4.5 million square miles stretching from North of 

the Arctic Circle to South of the equator, from Puerto Rico to Guam, encompassing nine time 

zones – the largest EEZ in the world. As one of the five Armed Services of the United States, the 

CG is the only military branch within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The 56,000+

members of the CG operate a multi-mission, interoperable fleet of 243 cutters, 201 fixed and 

rotary-wing aircraft, and more than 1,400 boats. 

The Agency’s Annual Self-Assessment

The CG remains fully engaged in EEOC’s six essential elements for a model EEO program. As 

a result, our annual self-assessment compliance rate has reached 99 percent. The CG 

attributes much of its success to activities aligned to each element, such as:

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Officials

• The CG Commandant issues Equal Opportunity and Anti-Discrimination/Anti-Harassment 

policy statements annually reaffirming his stance against unlawful discrimination; these 

statements were released on June 1, 2018.

• The Civil Rights Directorate (CRD) receives direct resource support and funding from the 

CG. A portion of the funding is directed to ensuring that all Civil Rights Service Providers 

(CRSPs) receive 32-hour initial, and thereafter annual refresher training for the 

specialized duties they perform. The training modules utilized are current and aligned to

MD 110 requirements. Additionally, CRSPs are resourced to: (1) provide in-person 

training at all field units, (2) conduct customized unit technical assistance visits, (3) 

support Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) Organizational 

Climate Survey (DEOCS) climate assessments, (4) facilitate on-site mediation, and (5) 

conduct on-site equal opportunity assessments.

• The CG hosts mandatory EEO training for its Senior Executive Service (SES) and 

highest level military members with the Senior Executive Leadership Equal Opportunity 

Seminar (SELEOS). First implemented in 2009 and tailored to assist newly selected 

Admirals, SES members and the Command Master Chiefs, the seminar is designed to 

ensure attention to and awareness of the CGs Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity (EO for 
 2 

military), EEO, and Diversity issues. Thirteen SELEOSs have been held since the 

seminar was first implemented, the last being March 20-21, 2018, with 12 attendees (four 

Admirals, three Captains selected for Admiral, three SESs and two Command Master 

Chief selectees). The seminar offered eight speakers covering 10 topics. To date, 80 

percent of CG’s Executive leaders have completed the seminar.

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Agency’s Strategic Mission

• The CG adopted DHS’s hiring goals of 12 percent for persons with disabilities (PWD)

and 2 percent for persons with targeted disabilities. Supporting goals and activities

have been incorporated into its Human Capital plan. As a result, on a monthly basis,

the Human Resources Directorate (HR) tracks, analyzes, and reassesses progress

towards this goal.

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability

• The CG recently established a Civilian Career Management Team assigned to develop

a strategic communications plan that will promote career planning and developmental

opportunities available to the civilian workforce.

• The CG CRD uses a Command Checklist to ensure that EEO supports are in place at

locations having more than 50 personnel assigned. The checklist allows each location

to affirm compliance with federal civil rights regulations, and to identify deficiencies.

The CRD identified 240 commands with more than 50 personnel; compliance at these

locations ranged from 91.3 to 100 percent, the overall average being 99.4 percent, a

0.8 percent improvement over 2017.

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention

• The CG’s Partnership in Education (PIE) program enhances educational opportunities

and provides awareness of CG careers among the Nation's youth through direct

volunteer service by workforce members at schools and in communities. This program

engages educators and other community members in innovative outreach initiatives

for elementary, middle and secondary students, especially in areas with large

underserved populations. Programming geared toward providing students with insight

into the many employment opportunities available within the Federal Government

generally and the CG specifically support agency efforts to ensure a diverse

workforce into the future. During the 2017-18 school year, more than 4,400 volunteers

from 194 CG units volunteered more than 74,000 hours engaging with approximately

90,000 students at 335 schools nationwide.

• The CG’s Special Emphasis Program (SEP) supports the agency’s affirmative

employment efforts. SEP Coordinators and Leadership and Diversity Advisory Council

(LDAC) Chairpersons worked collaboratively to plan special observances, professional

development events, and other activities. Their programs educate the workforce on

valuing diversity, exploring differences and seeking opportunities to overcome barriers to

full participation.
 3

• The CG’s CRD staff conducted 24 Command visits, reaching 4,090 military and civilian 

employees during FY18. The CRD staff also conducted 20 Equal Opportunity Reviews

(EORs), activities designed to assess the climate and make improvements where 

indicated. Each EOR consists of quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus group, 

interviews) data collection and analysis, followed by an on-site visit. In FY18, the CRD 

staff conducted focus groups involving more than2,100 workforce members.

• The CRD’s Solutions and Complaints Division conducted a series of training sessions to 

educate managers and employees on the reasonable accommodation (RA) process. The

CG’s Disability Program Manager (DPM) developed the sessions after soliciting and 

assessing feedback from the workforce, staff, members from Labor and Employee 

Relations, and legal. The DPM conducted seven training sessions for employees and 

managers that included updates on the requirements outlined in Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, the requirements for Personal Assistance Services (PAS) and an 

overview of the RA program. The DPM designed specific sessions for managers and 

supervisors to ensure they understood their roles and responsibilities. In FY18, the DPM

conducted the training for 67 employees and 31 managers and supervisors.

• The CG continues its proactive approach to accommodating individuals with short-term 

impairments through its Mobility Program. The program is an assistive service that 

provides individuals who have temporary impairments with accommodations such as 

motorized scooters and wheelchairs. It is ideal for individuals recovering from surgery, 

illnesses, or injuries. These mobility accommodations allow individuals to return to work 

earlier than would otherwise be possible, and to move around Coast Guard facilities. 

Since its inception, the Mobility Program has provided temporary devices to CG 

employees, applicants and visitors. In FY18, the CG issued 48 motorized and nonmotorized devices to individuals with temporary conditions. 

Essential Element E: Efficiency

• In 2018, the CG’s complaints processing unit exceeded expectations compared with the 

previous year’s performance. Examples include:

o During FY 2018, CG counseled 109 pre-complaints, compared with 85 counseled in 

FY17. This represented a 21 percent increase for individuals receiving informal 

counseling.

o In FY 2018, the Solutions and Complaints Division began using an electronic system, 

Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center Secure Access 

File Exchange (AMRDEC-SAFE) to transfer investigative files and data requests to 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and complainants. This new 

exchange system resulted in an increase of timely submission of EEO documents to 

complainants and their representatives. The system also contributed to i the CG’s 

increase in timely investigations to 98 percent from 90 percent the previous year. The

CG also significantly reduced the number of days required to complete an 

investigation from 200 in FY 2017 to 143 this cycle.

o The CG investigated 99 percent of the formal complaints within the regulatory 

timeframe compared with 96 percent in FY17, exceeding the government-wide 

average of 73 percent.
 4

o The CG offered Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to 100 percent of individuals

who initiated complaints for FY18. Fifty percent of individuals participated in ADR; 45 

percent of complaints were resolved before going formal. 

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

• In FY17, the CG conducted a Section 504 Compliance Review to identify and plan 

corrective activities for potential disparities and systemic barriers for employees who 

have disabilities. In FY18, the findings of the review were used to improve accessibility 

to the agency’s facilities and electronic systems. The CG’s HR Directorate is drafting 

guidance documents to address areas indicated for improvement, and anticipates 

completing a plan and resource request by fourth Quarter, FY19.

• The CG has an established Anti-Harassment Unit with the purpose of providing 

expertise and support for the prevention of harassment in the workplace. The CG’s

Anti-Harassment and Hate Incident (AHHI) policy and procedures outline the process 

for reporting and combating sexual harassment and all prohibited harassment. This 

process includes a prompt management inquiry, corrective action, and swift elimination 

of any harassing behavior.

• During FY18, under AHHI policy and procedures, the CG conducted 187 investigations

including 57 reports of sexual harassment. The CG substantiated harassment and hate 

in 34 cases and sexual harassment in 25 cases and undertook follow-on actions that 

included removal from positions, relief of duties, written reprimands, verbal counseling, 

training, and reiteration of expectations.

Workforce Profile

The workforce summary discussed below is based on data from the National Finance Center. In 

FY18, the CG’s total civilian workforce increased from 9,909 in FY17 to 10,075 in FY18, an 

increase of 1.68 percent (166 employees). The total civilian workforce is comprised of 8,556 

permanent, 148 temporary and 1,371 non-appropriated fund (NAF) employees.

While the CG’s total workforce is made up of 10,075 civilian employees, barrier analysis 

activities focused on the 8,556 civilian employees in the permanent workforce. Temporary and 

NAF employees are typically hired for short-term intervals (depending on time of year/season 

and funding), may have predetermined separation dates, and their composition can change 

considerably from year to year.

The CG uses the Federal benchmark, the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) from the 2010 Census to 

analyze its workforce. The CG highlights six of the 18 CLF groups below because of noteworthy 

changes to the permanent workforce. These are:

(1) People with Targeted Disabilities participate at 3.78 percent, exceeding the EEOC goal of 

2 percent.

(2) Females participate in the permanent workforce at 29.80 percent, significantly below the 

48.14 percent in the CLF. This group increased by 71 employees in FY18, a gain of 2.86 

percent.
 5

(3) White females participate in the permanent workforce at 17.41 percent, significantly 

below the 34.03 percent in the CLF. This group increased by 29 employees in FY18, a 

gain of 1.98 percent. Additionally, for the second consecutive year, the number of 

females hired has exceeded the number of females who separated.

(4) Hispanic/Latino males in the permanent workforce total 301 or 3.52 percent compared

with 5.17 percent in the CLF. This group decreased by 56 employees in FY18, a decline 

of 15.69 percent.

(5) Hispanic/Latino females in the permanent workforce total 108 or 1.26 percent compared 

with 4.79 percent in the CLF. This group decreased by 29 employees in FY18, a decline 

of 21.17 percent. 

(6) Individuals of Two or More Races in the permanent workforce total 174 or 2.01 percent 

compared with 0.54 percent in the CLF. This group increased by 101 employees in 

FY18, a gain of 1.15 percent. 

Participation by the above six groups will be further examined in FY19.

Summary of FY18 Actions Initiated or Completed

In FY18, the CG developed several action plans that led to the completion of initiatives to 

enhance organizational equity, diversity and inclusion as listed below:

• The CG developed the New Inclusion Quotient (IQ) Change Agent Workshop to 

enhance participants’ common understanding of inclusion and diversity. The New IQ 

refers to inclusive intelligence and is built on the concept that individual behaviors, 

repeated over time, form habits that create inclusive work environments. Behaviors 

are categorized into five sub-factors: Fair, Open, Cooperative, Supportive, and 

Empowering.

• To support the CG’s efforts in developing and sustaining an inclusive workforce that 

recruits and retains the best and brightest for the 21st Century, the Office of Diversity 

and Inclusion established a working group dedicated to assisting the agency with the 

overarching goal of increasing the diversity. The team will collaborate with the CG’s

Barrier Analysis Working Group to uncover, examine, and remove barriers that may 

hinder the agency’s success of achieving an inclusive workforce.

Summary of Activities to Remove Remaining Deficiencies or Barriers

The following are among plans that the CG has adopted for eliminating its program

deficiencies and workforce barriers:

(1) The CG continues to develop its telework program by exploring possible 

improvements to its technology access for teleworkers. A representative from the 

Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Information Technology 

Directorate (C4&IT) will join the MD-715 Barrier Analysis Working Group to identify 

ways in which technological issues can be prioritized and resolved in FY19.
 6 

(2) DHS conducts exit interviews for the CG and its other components. The CG is

collaborating with DHS to obtain pertinent data from exit interviews that will assist in

its efforts to improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of

employees to include people with disabilities. The CG has identified this area as a

deficiency in its FY18 Annual EEO Program Status Report and is exploring processes

that permit internal analyses and tracking of employee exit interviews/surveys and

feedback.

Summary of Action Items Implemented or Accomplished

The CG accomplished the following action items during FY18: 

• The CG exceeded its goals for employment of Persons with Disabilities and Targeted

Disabilities in several clusters. The percentage of PWD in the GS-1 to GS-10 cluster

reached 21.66 percent, exceeding the goal of 12 percent. The percentage of PWD in

the GS-11 to SES cluster reached 19.41 percent, exceeding the goal of 12 percent.

The percentage of Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTD) in the GS-1 to GS-10

cluster reached 4.39 percent, exceeding the goal of 2 percent. The percentage of

PWTD in the GS-11 to SES cluster was 3.95 percent, exceeding the goal of 2 percent.

• The CG conducted a 504 Compliance Review in FY17 and used those findings in

FY18 to improve accessibility to Agency facilities and/or technology. In FY18, the CG

explored the possibility of adopting a new Reasonable Accommodations (RA)

database with expected implementation in FY19. The CG is drafting guidance

documents to address areas identified as needing improvement.

Conclusion

The Coast Guard continues to strive toward achieving a model EEO program and is 

committed to focusing on initiatives which foster equity, diversity and inclusion. The agency 

places a high priority on identifying and addressing workforce deficiencies, barriers and 

triggers by taking a proactive approach largely through its Barrier Analysis Working Group. If 

deficiencies occur, the CG takes immediate action to rectify the deficiency early to eliminate 

and limit the impact on recruitment, employee development and retention as it strives to be 

an agency of choice for employees and applicants for employment. 
Tab: Part F

Tab: Part G
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

1

Essential Element A: Demonstration Commitment from Agency 

Leadership

Requires the agency head to communicate a commitment to equal 

employment opportunity and a discrimination-free workplace.

A.1 - The agency issues an effective, up-to-date EEO policy statement. Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

A.1.a. Does the agency annually issue a signed and dated EEO policy 

statement on agency letterhead that clearly communicates the agency's 

commitment to EEO for all employees and applicants? If "yes", please 

provide the annual issuance date in the comments column. [see MD-715, 

II(A)]

YES The agency head was installed June 

1, 2018. The EEO policy statement 

was issued June 1, 2018.

A.1.b. Does the EEO policy statement address all protected bases (age, 

color, disability, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender 

identity), genetic information, national origin, race, religion, and reprisal) 

contained in the laws EEOC enforces? [see 29 CFR § 1614.101(a)]

YES

A.2 - The agency has communicated EEO policies and procedures to 

all employees.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

A.2.a. Does the agency disseminate the following policies and procedures to 

all employees:

A.2.a.1. Anti-harassment policy? [see MD 715, II(A)] YES

A.2.a.2. Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 C.F.R § 

1614.203(d)(3)]

YES

A.2.b. Does the agency prominently post the following information 

throughout the workplace and on its public website:

A.2.b.1. The business contact information for its EEO Counselors, EEO 

Officers, Special Emphasis Program Managers, and EEO Director? [see 29 

C.F.R § 1614.102(b)(7)]

YES

A.2.b.2. Written materials concerning the EEO program, laws, policy 

statements, and the operation of the EEO complaint process? [see 29 C.F.R 

§ 1614.102(b)(5)]

YES

A.2.b.3. Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. § 

1614.203(d)(3)(i)] If so, please provide the internet address in the comments 

column.

YES https://www.uscg.mil/Family/CivilRights/faq/

A.2.c. Does the agency inform its employees about the following topics:

A.2.c.1. EEO complaint process? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(a)(12) and 

1614.102(b)(5)] If "yes", please provide how often.

YES  Orientation

 Biennially – NoFEAR

Act
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

2

 Triennially – Civil 

Rights Awareness 

Training

A.2.c.2. ADR process? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(C)] If "yes", please provide 

how often.

YES  Orientation

 Triennially – Civil 

Rights Awareness 

Training

A.2.c.3. Reasonable accommodation program? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If "yes", please provide how often.

YES  Orientation

 Triennially – Civil 

Rights Awareness 

Training

A.2.c.4. Anti-harassment program? [see EEOC Enforcement Guidance on 

Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), 

§ V.C.1] If "yes", please provide how often.

YES  Orientation

 Biennially – NoFEAR 

Act

 Triennially – Civil 

Rights Awareness 

Training

A.2.c.5. Behaviors that are inappropriate in the workplace and could result in 

disciplinary action? [5 CFR § 2635.101(b)] If "yes", please provide how 

often.

YES Annually

A.3 - The agency assesses and ensures EEO principles are part of its 

culture.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Compliance 

Indicator

A.3.a. Does the agency provide recognition to employees, supervisors, 

managers, and units demonstrating superior accomplishment in equal 

employment opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a) (9)] If "yes", provide 

one or two examples in the comments section.

YES  USCG Senior Leader

Award

 CG Affinity Groups 

Awards

 Partnership in 

Education (PIE)

A.3.b. Does the agency utilize the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

(FEVS) or other climate assessment tools to monitor the perception of EEO 

principles within the workforce? [see 5 CFR Part 250]

YES

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Agency’s Strategic 

Mission

Requires that the agency’s EEO programs are structured to maintain a 

workplace that is free from discrimination and support the agency’s strategic 

mission.

B.1 - The reporting structure for the EEO program provides the 

principal EEO official with appropriate authority and resources to 

effectively carry out a successful EEO program.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

B.1.a. Is the agency head the immediate supervisor of the person ("EEO 

Director") who has day-to-day control over the EEO office? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(b)(4)]

YES

B.1.a.1. If the EEO Director does not report to the agency head, does the 

EEO Director report to the same agency head designee as the missionrelated programmatic offices? If "yes," please provide the title of the agency 

head designee in the comments.

YES USCG Vice Commandant

B.1.a.2. Does the agency's organizational chart clearly define the reporting 

structure for the EEO office? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

3

B.1.b. Does the EEO Director have a regular and effective means of 

advising the agency head and other senior management officials of the 

effectiveness, efficiency and legal compliance of the agency's EEO 

program? [See 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(1); MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

B.1.c. During this reporting period, did the EEO Director present to the head 

of the agency, and other senior management officials, the "State of the 

agency" briefing covering the six essential elements of the model EEO 

program and the status of the barrier analysis process? [See MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I)] If "yes", please provide the date of the briefing in the 

comments column.

YES Senior Leadership Conference

 May 30-31, 2018

B.1.d. Does the EEO Director regularly participate in senior-level staff 

meetings concerning personnel, budget, technology, and other workforce 

issues? [see MD-715, II(B)]

YES

B.2 - The EEO Director controls all aspects of the EEO program. Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Compliance 

Indicator

B.2.a. Is the EEO Director responsible for the implementation of a continuing 

affirmative employment program to promote EEO and to identify and 

eliminate discriminatory policies, procedures, and practices? [see MD-110, 

Ch. 1(III)(A); 29 CFR §1614.102(c)]

YES

B.2.b. Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the completion of EEO 

counseling [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(4)]

YES

B.2.c. Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the fair and thorough 

investigation of EEO complaints? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This 

question may not be applicable for certain subordinate level components.]

YES

B.2.d. Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the timely issuing final 

agency decisions? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may not be 

applicable for certain subordinate level components.]

NA DHS CRCL Issues Final Agency 

Decisions

B.2.e. Is the EEO Director responsible for ensuring compliance with EEOC 

orders? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(e); 1614.502]

YES

B.2.f. Is the EEO Director responsible for periodically evaluating the entire 

EEO program and providing recommendations for improvement to the 

agency head? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

YES

B.2.g. If the agency has subordinate level components, does the EEO 

Director provide effective guidance and coordination for the components? 

[see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(c)(2) and (c)(3)]

NA

B.3 - The EEO Director and other EEO professional staff are involved 

in, and consulted on, management/personnel actions.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

B.3.a. Do EEO program officials participate in agency meetings regarding 

workforce changes that might impact EEO issues, including strategic 

planning, recruitment strategies, vacancy projections, succession planning, 

and selections for training/career development opportunities? [see MD-715, 

II(B)]

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

4

B.3.b. Does the agency's current strategic plan reference EEO / diversity

and inclusion principles? [see MD-715, II(B)] If "yes", please identify the

EEO principles in the strategic plan in the comments column.

YES Plan of Action (POA)

 Lead

 Adopt Strategies

 Hold All Accountable

 Prevent

 Efficient, Effective,

Fair, Impartial, 

Enforcement of Nondiscrimination Laws

B.4 - The agency has sufficient budget and staffing to support the

success of its EEO program.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

B.4.a. Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(1), has the agency allocated

sufficient funding and qualified staffing to successfully implement the EEO

program, for the following areas:

B.4.a.1. To conduct a self-assessment of the agency for possible program

deficiencies? [see MD-715, II(D)]

YES

B.4.a.2. To enable the agency to conduct a thorough barrier analysis of its

workforce? [see MD-715, II(B)]

YES

Developed a manual procedure 

for SES applicant flow in the 

Monster Hiring System. 

See Part H. 

B.4.a.3. To timely, thoroughly, and fairly process EEO complaints, including

EEO counseling, investigations, final agency decisions, and legal sufficiency

reviews? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(c)(5) & 1614.105(b) - (f); MD-110, Ch.

1(IV)(D) & 5(IV); MD-715, II(E)]

YES

B.4.a.4. To provide all supervisors and employees with training on the EEO

program, including but not limited to retaliation, harassment, religious

accommodations, disability accommodations, the EEO complaint process,

and ADR? [see MD-715, II(B) and III(C)] If not, please identify the type(s) of

training with insufficient funding in the comments column.

YES

B.4.a.5. To conduct thorough, accurate, and effective field audits of the EEO

programs in components and the field offices, if applicable? [see 29 CFR

§1614.102(c)(2)]

YES

B.4.a.6. To publish and distribute EEO materials (e.g. harassment policies,

EEO posters, reasonable accommodations procedures)? [see MD-715, II(B)]

YES

B.4.a.7. To maintain accurate data collection and tracking systems for the

following types of data: complaint tracking, workforce demographics, and

applicant flow data? [See MD-715, II(E)]. If not, please identify the systems

with insufficient funding in the comments section.

YES

B.4.a.8. To effectively administer its special emphasis programs (such as,

Federal Women's Program, Hispanic Employment Program, and People with

Disabilities Program Manager)? [5 USC § 7201; 38 USC § 4214; 5 CFR §

720.204; 5 CFR § 213.3102(t) and (u); 5 CFR § 315.709]

YES

B.4.a.9. To effectively manage its anti-harassment program? [See MD-715

Instructions, Sec. I); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer

Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1]

YES

B.4.a.10. To effectively manage its reasonable accommodation program?

[see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)(ii)]

YES

Established a barrier 

analysis team.

(See Part H)
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

5

B.4.a.11. To ensure timely and complete compliance with EEOC orders? 

[see MD-715, II(E)]

YES

B.4.b. Does the EEO office have a budget that is separate from other offices 

within the agency? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(1)]

YES

B.4.c. Are the duties and responsibilities of EEO officials clearly defined? 

[see MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A), 2(III), & 6(III)]

YES

B.4.d. Does the agency ensure that all new counselors and investigators, 

including contractors and collateral duty employees, receive the required 32

hours of training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(A) of MD-110?

YES

B.4.e. Does the agency ensure that all experienced counselors and 

investigators, including contractors and collateral duty employees, receive 

the required 8 hours of annual refresher training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(C) of 

MD-110?

YES

B.5 - The agency recruits, hires, develops, and retains supervisors and 

managers who have effective managerial, communications, and 

interpersonal skills.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Indicator

B5.a. Pursuant to 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5), have all managers and 

supervisors received training on their responsibilities under the following 

areas under the agency EEO program:

B.5.a.1. EEO Complaint Process? [see MD-715(II)(B)] YES

B.5.a.2. Reasonable Accommodation Procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. § 

1614.102(d)(3)]

YES

B.5.a.3. Anti-Harassment Policy? [see MD-715(II)(B)] YES

B.5.a.4. Supervisory, managerial, communication, and interpersonal skills in 

order to supervise most effectively in a workplace with diverse employees 

and avoid disputes arising from ineffective communications? [see MD-715, 

II(B)]

YES

B.5.a.5. ADR, with emphasis on the federal government's interest in 

encouraging mutual resolution of disputes and the benefits associated with 

utilizing ADR? [see MD-715(II)(E)]

YES

B.6 - The agency involves managers in the implementation of its EEO 

program.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Indicator

B.6.a. Are senior managers involved in the implementation of Special 

Emphasis Programs? [See MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

B.6.b. Do senior managers participate in the barrier analysis process? [See 

MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

6

B.6.c. When barriers are identified, do senior managers assist in developing 

agency EEO action plans (Part I, Part J, or the Executive Summary)? [See 

MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

B.6.d. Do senior managers successfully implement EEO Action Plans and 

incorporate the EEO Action Plan Objectives into agency strategic plans? [29 

CFR § 1614.102(a)(5)]

YES

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability

Requires the agency head to hold all managers, supervisors, and EEO 

officials responsible for the effective implementation of the agency’s EEO 

Program and Plan.

C.1 - The agency conducts regular internal audits of its component and 

field offices.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.1.a. Does the agency regularly assess its component and field offices for 

possible EEO program deficiencies? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If "yes", 

please provide the schedule for conducting audits in the comments section.

YES Annual

 Command Checklist

C.1.b. Does the agency regularly assess its component and field offices on 

their efforts to remove barriers from the workplace? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)] If "yes", please provide the schedule for conducting audits 

in the comments section.

YES Annual

 Command Checklist

C.1.c. Do the component and field offices make reasonable efforts to comply 

with the recommendations of the field audit? [see MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.2 - The agency has established procedures to prevent all forms of 

EEO discrimination.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Indicator

C.2.a. Has the agency established comprehensive anti-harassment policy 

and procedures that comply with EEOC's enforcement guidance? [see MD715, II(C); Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for 

Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No. 

915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)]

YES

C.2.a.1. Does the anti-harassment policy require corrective action to prevent 

or eliminate conduct before it rises to the level of unlawful harassment? [see 

EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful 

Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1]

YES

C.2.a.2. Has the agency established a firewall between the Anti-Harassment 

Coordinator and the EEO Director? [see EEOC Report, Model EEO Program 

Must Have an Effective Anti-Harassment Program (2006]

YES

C.2.a.3. Does the agency have a separate procedure (outside the EEO 

complaint process) to address harassment allegations? [see Enforcement 

Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by 

Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 

1999)]

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

7

C.2.a.4. Does the agency ensure that the EEO office informs the antiharassment program of all EEO counseling activity alleging harassment? 

[See Enforcement Guidance, V.C.]

YES

C.2.a.5. Does the agency conduct a prompt inquiry (beginning within 10 

days of notification) of all harassment allegations, including those initially 

raised in the EEO complaint process? [see Complainant v. Dep't of Veterans 

Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123232 (May 21, 2015); Complainant v. 

Dep't of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 

0120130331 (May 29, 2015)] If "no", please provide the percentage of 

timely-processed inquiries in the comments column.

YES

C.2.a.6. Do the agency's training materials on its anti-harassment policy 

include examples of disability-based harassment? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(2)]

YES

C.2.b. Has the agency established disability reasonable accommodation 

procedures that comply with EEOC's regulations and guidance? [see 29 

CFR 1614.203(d)(3)]

YES

C.2.b.1. Is there a designated agency official or other mechanism in place to 

coordinate or assist with processing requests for disability accommodations 

throughout the agency? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)(D)]

YES

C.2.b.2. Has the agency established a firewall between the Reasonable 

Accommodation Program Manager and the EEO Director? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(A)]

YES

C.2.b.3. Does the agency ensure that job applicants can request and receive

reasonable accommodations during the application and placement 

processes? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(B)]

YES

C.2.b.4. Do the reasonable accommodation procedures clearly state that the 

agency should process the request within a maximum amount of time (e.g., 

20 business days), as established by the agency in its affirmative action 

plan? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)(i)(M)]

YES

C.2.b.5. Does the agency process all accommodation requests within the 

time frame set forth in its reasonable accommodation procedures? [see MD715, II(C)] If "no", please provide the percentage of timely-processed 

requests in the comments column.

YES

C.2.c. Has the agency established procedures for processing requests for 

personal assistance services that comply with EEOC's regulations, 

enforcement guidance, and other applicable executive orders, guidance, and 

standards? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(6)]

YES

C.2.c.1. Does the agency post its procedures for processing requests for 

Personal Assistance Services on its public website? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.203(d)(5)(v)] If "yes", please provide the internet address in the 

comments column.

YES https://www.uscg.mil/Family/CivilRights/fag/

C.3 - The agency evaluates managers and supervisors on their efforts 

to ensure equal employment opportunity.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Indicator

C.3.a. Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(5), do all managers and 

supervisors have an element in their performance appraisal that evaluates 

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

8

their commitment to agency EEO policies and principles and their 

participation in the EEO program?

C.3.b. Does the agency require rating officials to evaluate the performance 

of managers and supervisors based on the following activities:

C.3.b.1. Resolve EEO problems/disagreements/conflicts, including the 

participation in ADR proceedings? [see MD-110, Ch. 3.I]

YES

C.3.b.2. Ensure full cooperation of employees under his/her supervision with 

EEO officials, such as counselors and investigators? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(b)(6)]

YES

C.3.b.3. Ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, 

including harassment and retaliation? [see MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.3.b.4. Ensure that subordinate supervisors have effective managerial, 

communication, and interpersonal skills to supervise in a workplace with 

diverse employees? [See MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

C.3.b.5. Provide religious accommodations when such accommodations do 

not cause an undue hardship? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(7)]

YES

C.3.b.6. Provide disability accommodations when such accommodations do 

not cause an undue hardship? [ see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(8)]

YES

C.3.b.7. Support the EEO program in identifying and removing barriers to 

equal opportunity. [see MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.3.b.8. Support the anti-harassment program in investigating and correcting 

harassing conduct. [see Enforcement Guidance, V.C.2]

YES

C.3.b.9. Comply with settlement agreements and orders issued by the 

agency, EEOC, and EEO-related cases from the Merit Systems Protection 

Board, labor arbitrators, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority? [see 

MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.3.c. Does the EEO Director recommend to the agency head improvements 

or corrections, including remedial or disciplinary actions, for managers and 

supervisors who have failed in their EEO responsibilities? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)]

YES

C.3.d. When the EEO Director recommends remedial or disciplinary actions, 

are the recommendations regularly implemented by the agency? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

YES

C.4 - The agency ensures effective coordination between its EEO 

programs and Human Resources (HR) program.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.4.a. Do the HR Director and the EEO Director meet regularly to assess 

whether personnel programs, policies, and procedures conform to EEOC 

laws, instructions, and management directives? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(2)]

YES

C.4.b. Has the agency established timetables/schedules to review at regular 

intervals its merit promotion program, employee recognition awards 

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

9

program, employee development/training programs, and 

management/personnel policies, procedures, and practices for systemic 

barriers that may be impeding full participation in the program by all EEO 

groups? [See MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

C.4.c. Does the EEO office have timely access to accurate and complete 

data (e.g., demographic data for workforce, applicants, training programs, 

etc.) required to prepare the MD-715 workforce data tables? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.601(a)]

YES

C.4.d. Does the HR office timely provide the EEO office have timely access 

to other data (e.g., exit interview data, climate assessment surveys, and 

grievance data), upon request? [see MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.4.e. Pursuant to Section II(C) of MD-715, does the EEO office collaborate 

with the HR office to:

C.4.e.1. Implement the Affirmative Action Plan for Individuals with 

Disabilities? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d); MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.4.e.2. Develop and/or conduct outreach and recruiting initiatives? [see 

MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.4.e.3. Develop and/or provide training for managers and employees? [see 

MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.4.c.4. Identify and remove barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace? 

[see MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.4.c.5. Assist in preparing the MD-715 report? [see MD-715, II(C)] YES

C.5 - Following a finding of discrimination, the agency explores 

whether it should take a disciplinary action.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.5.a. Does the agency have a disciplinary policy and/or table of penalties 

that covers discriminatory conduct? 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(6); see also 

Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981)

YES

C.5.b. When appropriate, does the agency discipline or sanction managers 

and employees for discriminatory conduct? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(6)] If 

"yes", please state the number of disciplined/sanctioned individuals during 

this reporting period in the comments.

YES There were no findings of 

discrimination during the reporting 

period.

C.5.c. If the agency has a finding of discrimination (or settles cases in which 

a finding was likely), does the agency inform managers and supervisors 

about the discriminatory conduct? [see MD-715, II(C)]

YES

C.6 - The EEO office advises managers/supervisors on EEO matters. Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

C.6.a. Does the EEO office provide management/supervisory officials with 

regular EEO updates on at least an annual basis, including EEO complaints, 

workforce demographics and data summaries, legal updates, barrier 

analysis plans, and special emphasis updates? [See MD-715 Instructions, 

YES Annually
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

10

Sec. I] If "yes", please identify the frequency of the EEO updates in the 

comments column.

C.6.b. Are EEO officials readily available to answer managers' and 

supervisors' questions or concerns? [See MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention

Requires that the agency head make early efforts to prevent discrimination 

and to identify and eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity.

D.1 - The agency conducts a reasonable assessment to monitor 

progress towards achieving equal employment opportunity throughout 

the year.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

D.1.a. Does the agency have a process for identifying triggers in the 

workplace? [See MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

D.1.b. Does the agency regularly use the following sources of information for 

trigger identification: workforce data; complaint/grievance data; exit surveys; 

employee climate surveys; focus groups; affinity groups; union; program 

evaluations; special emphasis programs; reasonable accommodation 

program; anti-harassment program; and/or external special interest groups? 

[See MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

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)]

NO DHS conducts the exit interview 

for all its components, including 

CG.

D.2 - The agency identifies areas where barriers may exclude EEO 

groups (reasonable basis to act.)

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Indicator

D.2.a. Does the agency have a process for analyzing the identified triggers 

to find possible barriers? [see MD-715, (II)(B)]

YES

D.2.b. Does the agency regularly examine the impact of 

management/personnel policies, procedures, and practices by race, national 

origin, sex, and disability? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]

YES

D.2.c. Does the agency consider whether any group of employees or 

applicants might be negatively impacted prior to making human resource 

decisions, such as re-organizations and realignments? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(3)]

YES

D.2.d. Does the agency regularly review the following sources of information 

to find barriers: complaint/grievance data, exit surveys, employee climate 

surveys, focus groups, affinity groups, union, program evaluations, antiharassment program, special emphasis programs, reasonable 

accommodation program; anti-harassment program; and/or external special 

interest groups? [See MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If "yes", please identify 

the data sources in the comments column.

YES Complaints/grievance

 DHS Exit Surveys

 Employee Climate Surveys

 (DEOCS)

 Focus Groups

 Affinity Group Council (AGC)

 AFGE Local 1495

 Program Evaluation (Command

 Checklist)

 CG Anti-harassment program

 Special Emphasis Programs

 CG Reasonable Accommodation

 Program
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

11

 External Special Interest Groups

 

D.3 - The agency establishes appropriate action plans to remove 

identified barriers.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Indicator

D.3.a. Does the agency effectively tailor action plans to address the 

identified barriers, in particular policies, procedures, or practices? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]

YES

D.3.b. If the agency identified one or more barriers during the reporting 

period, did the agency implement a plan in Part I, including meeting the 

target dates for the planned activities? [see MD-715, II(D)]

YES

D.3.c. Does the agency periodically review the effectiveness of the plans? 

[see MD-715, II(D)]

YES

D.4 - The agency has an affirmative action plan for people with 

disabilities, including those with targeted disabilities

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

New Indicator

D.4.a.Does the agency post its affirmative action plan on its public website? 

[see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(4)] Please provide the internet address in the 

comments.

YES

D.4.b. Does the agency take specific steps to ensure qualified people with 

disabilities are aware of and encouraged to apply for job vacancies? [see 29 

CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(i)]

YES

D.4.c. Does the agency ensure that disability-related questions from 

members of the public are answered promptly and correctly? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(A)]

YES

D.4.d. Has the agency taken specific steps that are reasonably designed to 

increase the number of persons with disabilities or targeted disabilities 

employed at the agency until it meets the goals? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(7)(ii)]

YES

Essential Element E: Efficiency

Requires the agency head to ensure that there are effective systems for 

evaluating the impact and effectiveness of the agency’s EEO programs and 

an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.

E.1 - The agency maintains an efficient, fair, and impartial complaint 

resolution process.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

E.1.a. Does the agency timely provide EEO counseling, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.105?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

12

E.1.b. Does the agency provide written notification of rights and 

responsibilities in the EEO process during the initial counseling session,

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105(b)(1)?

YES

E.1.c. Does the agency issue acknowledgment letters immediately upon 

receipt of a formal complaint, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)?

YES

E.1.d. Does the agency issue acceptance letters/dismissal decisions within a 

reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) after receipt of the written EEO Counselor 

report, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)? If so, please provide the average 

processing time in the comments.

YES

E.1.e. Does the agency ensure all employees fully cooperate with EEO 

counselors and EEO personnel in the EEO process, including granting 

routine access to personnel records related to an investigation, pursuant to 

29 CFR §1614.102(b)(6)?

YES

E.1.f. Does the agency timely complete investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.108?

YES

E.1.g. If the agency does not timely complete investigations, does the 

agency notify complainants of the date by which the investigation will be 

completed and of their right to request a hearing or file a lawsuit, pursuant to 

29 CFR §1614.108(g)?

YES

E.1.h. When the complainant does not request a hearing, does the agency 

timely issue the final agency decision, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(b)?

NA DHS CRCL issues Final Agency

Decision

E.1.i. Does the agency timely issue final actions following receipt of the 

hearing file and the administrative judge's decision, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.110(a)?

NA DHS CRCL Issues Final Actions

E.1.j. If the agency uses contractors to implement any stage of the EEO 

complaint process, does the agency hold them accountable for poor work 

product and/or delays? [See MD-110, Ch. 5(V)(A)] If "yes", please describe 

how in the comments column.

YES The Performance Work Statement

provides specific delivery

accountability.

E.1.k. If the agency uses employees to implement any stage of the EEO 

complaint process, does the agency hold them accountable for poor work 

product and/or delays during performance review? [See MD-110, Ch. 

5(V)(A)]

YES

E.1.l. Does the agency submit complaint files and other documents in the 

proper format to EEOC through the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP)? 

[See 29 CFR § 1614.403(g)]

YES

E.2 - The agency has a neutral EEO process. Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

Revised Indicator

E.2.a. Has the agency established a clear separation between its EEO 

complaint program and its defensive function? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

YES

E.2.b. When seeking legal sufficiency reviews, does the EEO office have 

access to sufficient legal resources separate from the agency 

representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)] If "yes", please identify the 

YES USCG Legal Command
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

13

source/location of the attorney who conducts the legal sufficiency review in 

the comments column.

E.2.c. If the EEO office relies on the agency's defensive function to conduct 

the legal sufficiency review, is there a firewall between the reviewing 

attorney and the agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

YES

E.2.d. Does the agency ensure that its agency representative does not 

intrude upon EEO counseling, investigations, and final agency decisions? 

[see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

YES

E.2.e. If applicable, are processing time frames incorporated for the legal 

counsel's sufficiency review for timely processing of complaints? EEOC 

Report, Attaining a Model Agency Program: Efficiency (Dec. 1, 2004)

YES

E.3 - The agency has established and encouraged the widespread use 

of a fair alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

E.3.a. Has the agency established an ADR program for use during both the 

pre-complaint and formal complaint stages of the EEO process? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(2)]

YES

E.3.b. Does the agency require managers and supervisors to participate in 

ADR once it has been offered? [see MD-715, II(A)(1)]

YES

E.3.c. Does the agency encourage all employees to use ADR, where ADR is 

appropriate? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(IV)(C)]

YES

E.3.d. Does the agency ensure a management official with settlement 

authority is accessible during the dispute resolution process? [see MD-110, 

Ch. 3(III)(A)(9)]

YES

E.3.e. Does the agency prohibit the responsible management official named 

in the dispute from having settlement authority? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(I)]

YES

E.3.f. Does the agency annually evaluate the effectiveness of its ADR 

program? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(D)]

YES

E.4 - The agency has effective and accurate data collection systems in 

place to evaluate its EEO program.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

E.4.a. Does the agency have systems in place to accurately collect, monitor, 

and analyze the following data:

E.4.a.1. Complaint activity, including the issues and bases of the complaints, 

the aggrieved individuals/complainants, and the involved management 

official? [see MD-715, II(E)]

YES

E.4.a.2. The race, national origin, sex, and disability status of agency 

employees? [see 29 CFR §1614.601(a)]

YES

E.4.a.3. Recruitment activities? [see MD-715, II(E)] YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

14

E.4.a.4. External and internal applicant flow data concerning the applicants' 

race, national origin, sex, and disability status? [see MD-715, II(E)]

YES

E.4.a.5. The processing of requests for reasonable accommodation? [29 

CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)]

YES

E.4.a.6. The processing of complaints for the anti-harassment program? 

[see EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for 

Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.2]

YES

E.4.b. Does the agency have a system in place to re-survey the workforce 

on a regular basis? [MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

YES

E.5 - The agency identifies and disseminates significant trends and 

best practices in its EEO program.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

E.5.a. Does the agency monitor trends in its EEO program to determine 

whether the agency is meeting its obligations under the statutes EEOC 

enforces? [see MD-715, II(E)] If "yes", provide an example in the comments.

YES  462 Report

 MD-715

 Plan of Action 2022

E.5.b. Does the agency review other agencies' best practices and adopt 

them, where appropriate, to improve the effectiveness of its EEO program? 

[see MD-715, II(E)] If "yes", provide an example in the comments.

YES Special Emphasis Programs with 

DHS and other components.

E.5.c. Does the agency compare its performance in the EEO process to 

other federal agencies of similar size? [see MD-715, II(E)]

YES Other DHS Components such as:

U.S. Customs and Border

 Protection

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

 Services

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

Requires federal agencies to comply with EEO statutes and EEOC 

regulations, policy guidance, and other written instructions.

F.1 - The agency has processes in place to ensure timely and full 

compliance with EEOC Orders and settlement agreements.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

F.1.a. Does the agency have a system of management controls to ensure 

that its officials timely comply with EEOC orders/directives and final agency 

actions? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(e); MD-715, II(F)]

YES

F.1.b. Does the agency have a system of management controls to ensure 

the timely, accurate, and complete compliance with resolutions/settlement 

agreements? [see MD-715, II(F)]

YES

F.1.c. Are there procedures in place to ensure the timely and predictable 

processing of ordered monetary relief? [see MD-715, II(F)]

YES

F.1.d. Are procedures in place to process other forms of ordered relief 

promptly? [see MD-715, II(F)]

YES

F.1.e. When EEOC issues an order requiring compliance by the agency, 

does the agency hold its compliance officer(s) accountable for poor work 

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2018 – Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

15

product and/or delays during performance review? [see MD-110, Ch. 

9(IX)(H)]

F.2 - The agency complies with the law, including EEOC regulations, 

management directives, orders, and other written instructions.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

Indicator moved from 

E-III Revised

F.2.a. Does the agency timely respond and fully comply with EEOC orders? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.502; MD-715, II(E)]

YES

F.2.a.1. When a complainant requests a hearing, does the agency timely 

forward the investigative file to the appropriate EEOC hearing office? [see 29 

CFR §1614.108(g)]

YES

F.2.a.2. When there is a finding of discrimination that is not the subject of an 

appeal by the agency, does the agency ensure timely compliance with the 

orders of relief? [see 29 CFR §1614.501]

YES

F.2.a.3. When a complainant files an appeal, does the agency timely forward 

the investigative file to EEOC's Office of Federal Operations? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.403(e)]

YES

F.2.a.4. Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.502, does the agency promptly provide 

EEOC with the required documentation for completing compliance?

YES

F.3 - The agency reports to EEOC its program efforts and 

accomplishments.

Measure 

Met?

(Yes/No/NA)

Comments

F.3.a. Does the agency timely submit to EEOC an accurate and complete 

No FEAR Act report? [Public Law 107-174 (May 15, 2002), §203(a)]

YES

F.3.b. Does the agency timely post on its public webpage its quarterly No 

FEAR Act data? [see 29 CFR §1614.703(d)]

YES
Tab: Part H
EEOC FORM

715-01

PART H

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY 18

STATEMENT of 

MODEL PROGRAM 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT 

DEFICIENCY:

The Agency has not allocated sufficient resources to conduct a self-assessment 

of the agency for possible program deficiencies.* 

OBJECTIVE: To designate roles, responsibilities and procedures that support the 

Coast Guard's fulfillment of barrier analysis responsibilities required by 

EEOC Management Directive 715.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Civil Rights Director

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 30, 2015

TARGET DATE FOR 

COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

September 30, 2019

PLANNED ACTIVITIES 

TOWARD COMPLETION OF 

OBJECTIVE:

Target Date

(Must be Specific)

September 30, 2019

December 30, 2015

Establish an internal Barrier Analysis Team representing staff with the skill sets 

and authorities that enable them to contribute to obtaining and analyzing 

workforce barriers. 

December 30, 2015 Begin delivering annual (at least 3 cycles) Barrier Analysis Training to the Barrier 

Analysis Team to increase proficiency.

December 30 2015 - 

December 30 2018

Hold regular meetings of the Barrier Analysis Team to further discuss, analyze, and 

eliminate barriers. 

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

November 24, 2015 - The Vice Commandant signed Commandant Instruction 5354.9 

setting forth MD 715 process governance which, among other things, established 

and delineated responsibilities for a Barrier Analysis Team. The Instruction 

included training requirements, meeting cycles, and membership by position.

2015-2018 - The working group underwent annual Barrier Analysis training and 

met regularly.

Complete. As of December 30, 2018 the Barrier Analysis Team has established a 

successful track record of consecutive years of undergoing training, as well as 

conducting, and performing analyses and establishing action plans that have led 

to the elimination of barriers. 
*This plan was inadvertently not included in the FY15 report when the 

deficiency was first reported, nor in succeeding ones. The preceding actions 

were taken to remedy the deficiency but were not reported upon.
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART H

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY 15

STATEMENT of 

MODEL PROGRAM 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT 

DEFICIENCY:

The agency is currently unable to collect or track applicant flow data for its SES 

positions. 

OBJECTIVE: Implement an adequate data collection and analysis systems that permits 

tracking of the information required by EEOC MD 715 and its guidance for 

completing workforce data tables. 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 30, 2015

TARGET DATE FOR 

COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

Revised October 17, 2016 (May 10, 2016)

PLANNED ACTIVITIES 

TOWARD COMPLETION OF 

OBJECTIVE:

TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

Revised October 17, 2016 (May 10, 2016) 

Completed April 2016 Research options to develop new status codes for the automated system to 

reflect the various stages of SES recruitment.

Completed April 2016 Test and debug new status codes in a test automated environment.

Completed May 2016 Implement additional applicant flow fields to comply with MD-715 reporting.

Revised 30 June 2018 

Completed 15 June 2018

Produce SES applicant flow tables.

May 30, 2017

Completed 8 August 2017

Prepare workforce tables A10 and B10 in accordance with EEOC MD-715 

Instruction.

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

 Research options to develop new status codes to reflect stages of 

SES Recruitment - Completed April 2016

 Test and debug new status codes in a test automated environment –

Completed April 2016

 Implement additional applicant flow fields to comply with MD-715 

reporting - Completed May 2016

 Produce SES applicant flow fields – Although completed August 15-16 

2017, the Coast Guard will review an alternative process to examine 

external applicant flow information. EEOC Barrier Analysis training 
held on August 15-16, 2017 affirmed the A11/B11 tables reflect data 

where the area of consideration for posted vacancy announcements is 

open to Agency/Component employees only. Since the Coast Guard’s 

practice is to open SES vacancy announcement to U.S. Citizens; the 

SES data for these tables will always reflect zeros. Coast Guard 

will review an alternative process to examine external applicant 

flow information.

The revised completion date is 30 June 2018.

An alternative process (an adhoc report developed in the Monster 

hiring system) to develop and examine SES applicant flow data was 

completed 15 June 2018. However, a SES vacancy announcement was 

not posted until July and closed in August 2018. Once the vacancy 

announcement closed, the Coast Guard was able to run the ad hoc 

report on the most recent SES vacancy announcement. The report 

provides the SES data requested in the A11/B11 tables (see A11/B11 

tables for SES data). This activity is closed. 

 A10/B10 Workforce Tables. Completed August 8, 2017

During the 8 August 2017 MD-715 report discussion - Mr. Greg 

Beatty, Statistician, DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties confirmed the information submitted by Coast Guard in the 

A10/B10 tables accurately portrays the information based on the 

EEOC MD-715, therefore this activity is closed.
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART H

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY 18

STATEMENT of 

MODEL PROGRAM 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT 

DEFICIENCY:

The current DHS exit survey does not include questions on improving the 

recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of individuals with 

disabilities. 

OBJECTIVE: Implement an adequate process that permits tracking of employee exit 

interviews/surveys feedback which is required by EEOC MD-715, Part G, SelfAssessment that requires that an Agency conduct exit interviews or surveys that 

includes 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)].

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: December 13, 2018

TARGET DATE FOR 

COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

DHS plans to issue a new exit survey for use by 30 April 2019

PLANNED ACTIVITIES 

TOWARD COMPLETION OF 

OBJECTIVE:

30 April 2019 Collaborate with DHS to develop new questions the DHS exit survey to improve 

the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of individuals with 

disabilities? (see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(iii) (C)].

31 August 2019 Review quarterly reports to identify continued challenges or improvements

30 May 2020 One year from DHS’ projected launch of the new exit survey (30 April 2019) 

analyze a full year of survey results to determine effectiveness and necessary 

improvements.

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE
Tab: Part I
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY __15_

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?

Low participation of females in senior grades, GS 13 – GS15. Female participation rates are most prevalent (67.5%) at 

the GS-5 grade level in the Administrative Support Workers 

occupational category. Females are also concentrated at 

WG-5, in the wage grade series, with an absence of females 

after WG-12. 

Of the agency’s seven (7) major occupations, female 

employees are largely concentrated in Contracting and Legal 

Instruments Examining. Trends in hiring in major 

occupations replicate the concentration of female hires into 

the same major occupations, leaving a widening gap of 

women in major occupations that link to the agency mission 

and offer greater promotion potential to the senior grades. 

BARRIER ANALYSIS:

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

Reviewed workforce tables to include grades, major 

occupations, career ladder positions, internal selections for 

promotion to senior grades (GS-13 to GS-15), CG exit 

interview data, and OPM and DEOCS survey results. When 

examining impact of reorganizations, restructuring, and 

decisions to abolish positions, Administrative Support 

Occupations experienced the greatest vulnerability. 

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.

The high participation rate of women in administrative 

support occupations creates a promotion ceiling for most CG 

female employees at GS 5 and impacts the feeder pool of 

eligible women candidates for promotion to senior grades. A 

glass wall may exist wherein women employees are hired 

into occupations which to not normally lead to higher level 

positions. Nor can they gain the experiences needed to move 

laterally into positions that lead to upward mobility.

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired 

condition.

Create opportunities and promote utilization of rotational 

assignments, details, developmental assignments and career 

ladder positions where women employees may obtain skills 

and training that support upward mobility. 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 25, 2015

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: September 30, 2016

August 5, 2018
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

Identify future allocations/changes for mentoring resources. Revised January 30, 2016 

(May 31, 2016)

Educate supervisors about developing career ladder positions and their use as a strategy to 

increase opportunities for employees at higher grades in the agency. 

June 30, 2016

Completed November 22, 2016

Meet one-on-one with at least six hiring officials in major occupations with low participation 

of women who have or anticipate vacancies during FY2016. Discuss and promote the career 

ladder alternative. Assist those that elect to pursue career ladder opportunities in structuring 

position descriptions and vacancy announcements commensurately.

September 30, 2016

Completed July 26, 2017

Review supervisory guidance (e.g., Civilian Hiring Guide for Supervisors) for possible 

insertion of additional information about career ladder positions. August 30, 2016

Completed November 22, 2016

Develop four workforce communications (ex: HR web site updates, Advisory Notices from 

Civilian Human Resources (ANCHRs), all hands meetings, etc.) to promote awareness and 

enhance an understanding of the available Human Resources information. 

September 30, 2016

Completed June 24, 2016

Train employees and managers on unconscious gender bias. 

September 30, 2016

This action was completed in 

2016, but the training is

ongoing.

The Barrier Analysis Working Group will meet to assess progress and ascertain whether the 

triggers for this barrier still exist. The results will be presented to the Oversight Committee 

and the Guidance Team for final determination.

August 5, 2018

Completed November 28, 2018
REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

The CG reported two barriers in 2013, concerning women employees’ low participation in senior grades (GS 13 – GS 15), and 

the concentration of women employees in administration support occupations (67.5%) with no upward mobility. Although some 

of the planned activities were implemented, the conditions leading to identification of the barrier remained in FY 2014 and were 

still present in FY 2015. For this reason, CG decided in FY 2015 to consolidate the two barriers due to relational factors in the 

conditions and the assessment that without progress to increase participation of female employees in other than administrative support 

major occupations, female participation rates in GS-13 and GS-15 is less likely to increase.

Completed November 22, 2016. An Advisory Notice from Civilian Human Resources (ANCHR) for supervisors discussing 

career ladders and student opportunities 17-07-S was issued November 22, 2016.

Completed. The CG completed prioritization of recommendations from the comprehensive Civilian Leader Strategic Needs 

Assessment (SNA) in Mar 2018. As part of efforts to implement these recommendations, the CG updated available mentoring 

resources to include an online mentoring course and mentoring toolkit initially posted on the Office of Leadership web-site in 

June 2018. The Office of Leadership also partnered with a local initiative to provide a structured mentoring program in the

National Capital Region. The use of mentoring as a leadership development tool is already included in CG policy. 

Completed. By July 26, 2017, representatives from the Office of Civilian Resources held discussions with more than six 

organizations to discuss use of career ladders to include positions at the: Intelligence Coordination Center (1 Intelligence 

Research Assistant student position), the Aviation Logistics Center (1 Computer Assistant student position), CG-6 (Cyber 

Security Intern), the Deputy Commandant for Operations (2 Marine Inspection Trainees), Air Station Kodiak (1 Supply 

Technician student position) and Finance Center ( Accountant position).

This activity is ongoing. CG-wide diversity and inclusion training began in October 2014 and continued through September of 

2015. Eighty-five percent of CG employees received diversity and inclusion training with unconscious gender bias as one of the 

discussion topics. 

Completed. By June 24, 2016, more than 20 Advisory Notices from Civilian Human Resources (ANCHRs) were issued to the 

workforce to enhance an understanding of human resources information. Examples of ANCHR topics addressed include the 

following: ANCHR 16-02 Telework During Emergency Situations (11/5/15), ANCHR 16-03 Employee Input into Performance 

Appraisals (11/5/15), ANCHR 16-05 Electronic Official Personnel Folder (eOPF) Push Notifications (12/21/15), and ANCHR 16-

20 Scheduling Time Off Awards (6/24/16).

Unconscious Bias training was presented by CG-12B staff at the following forums during FY17: 

• CG-00H Staff meeting

• CG-11 SARC training

• Mid-grade Officer Career and Civilian Transition Course (MOCTC) Course

• LANTAREA LDAC meeting

Three CG members attended New Inclusion Quotient training which included modules on Unconscious Bias. 

Additionally, efforts are underway to incorporate Unconscious Bias training into the leadership training curricula throughout the 

Coast Guard. CG-12B will update the 2014 CO's Diversity Management Guide by 1 Jan 2018 to include information about 

unconscious biases, micro-aggressions, and micro-inequities. Three CG members attended New Inclusion Quotient training 

which included modules on Unconscious Bias.

In 2018, the CG updated the Commanding Officer’s Inclusion & Diversity Guide to equip field commands with tools and 

resources to create inclusive and equitable command climates. An additional job-aid “Inclusion & Diversity: Food for Thought” 

was produced to start the conversation of topics relating to bias, unconscious bias, meaningful interactions, and inclusive 

leadership. Both documents are posted on the CG-127 portal site for download and dissemination to units across the CG. The 

Guide will be included in the toolkit of resources provided to Commands and the LDAC network.

Completed November 28, 2018. The Barrier Analysis Working Group determined that the barrier appears to be eliminated for 

females in the senior grades GS-13 – SES. FY 2017 was the first year since 2008 that the number of new female hires 

exceeded the rate of female separations. The Working Group will continue to track this activity to ensure that progression 

continues in the senior grades GS-13 – SES levels.
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY __13_

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER:

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

In 2013, 171 women employees left CG permanent 

workforce. Exit interview data revealed telework as one of 

the issues listed for leaving the CG workforce. Those who 

listed workplace flexibility/scheduling ranked it as their 

number one reason for leaving (Advancement was also 

ranked highly but it is addressed in a separate Part I).

BARRIER ANALYSIS:

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

We reviewed data from the MD-715 Table A7, which shows 

that 38% of voluntary separations in the workforce were 

women. We reviewed results of both the 2011 and 2012 

Coast Guard FEVS, which showed that 59% of the 

respondents had not been notified whether they were eligible 

to telework. 

Since the Coast Guard had not conducted a study, we 

reviewed barriers identified in the Office of Personnel 

Management 2012 Status of Telework in the Federal 

Government Report to the Congress which include: 

management resistance; technology; security concerns; 

nature of some jobs; data collection; budget constraints, etc. 

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.

Lack of financial resources for remote access technology, 

management resistance, information security issues such as 

handling of PII and IT bandwidth allocations may be 

contributing factors to the low participation in telework by 

the total workforce.

The Telework Commandant Instruction (policy) in place in 

2013 did not reflect the latest update to the OPM Telework 

Enhancement Act.

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired 

condition.

Update Telework Commandant Instruction to align with 

OPM’s Telework Enhancement Act 2010. Develop a plan to 

update employees on the provisions of the Telework Program 

annually.

Increase secured remote access capability to accommodate 

employees who are eligible to telework. 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

and Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers and Chief Information Officer 

(CIO)

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 25, 2013

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: June 30, 2014

(30 September 2019)
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

Update Telework Commandant Instruction to align with OPM’s Telework Enforcement Act of 

2010.

June 30, 2014

Completed January 29, 2014

Coordinate with union officials on changes to current initiatives. August 15, 2014

Completed January 29, 2014

Offer on-line training for all managers and supervisors on the Telework Enforcement Act and 

other flexibilities to reduce commute time and enhance employees’ work-life balance.

September 30, 2014

Completed Jan-February 2014

Establish procedures to notify employees who arrived after August 2, 2011 of their eligibility 

to participate in Telework.

December 30, 2014

Modified to November 17, 2015

Completed November 4, 2015

Establish benchmark metrics and initiate the collection of Telework data to determine 

employee participation rates prior to Telework training implementation.

March 30, 2015

Completed February 2014

Annually review employee participation metrics and compare with benchmark metrics. March 15, 2016

Completed 15 September 2017

Obtain reliable access to technology that permits eligible employees to telework. September 30, 2019

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

Although the civilian human resources activities were completed, the issue of reliable access to technology while teleworking 

during the work day continues to be a challenge. Because these are technology related concerns, ownership for this Part I is

reassigned to a representative in the Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and 

Information Technology (C4&IT).

Completed human resource tasks include the following:

1. Completed. Revised Commandant Instruction was issued on January 29, 2014. ALCOAST 046/14 (dated February 5, 

2014) and Flag Voice 409 (dated January 31, 2014) announced issuance of the revised Instruction to senior leadership and the 

workforce. Both messages highlighted the key changes in the revised Instruction.

2. Completed. As part of the clearance process, unions were notified on the revised Instruction and concurrent clearance was 

completed prior to issuance on January 29, 2014.

3. Completed. Included in the revised Instruction (Jan 2014) is the requirement to complete mandatory training by teleworkers 

and their supervisors prior to entering into a telework agreement. Completion of the online training is documented on the 

Telework Agreement, signed by both the employee and supervisor. The training requirement was also addressed in the above 

referenced Flag Voice (Jan 2014) and ALCOAST (Feb 2014). (Note: The on-line training addresses only the telework topic.)

February 5, 2014. 

4. Completed. Instead of establishing procedures to notify employees who arrived after August 2, 2011 of their eligibility to 

participate in Telework (by December 30, 2014), a process using Advisory Notices from Civilian Human Resources (ANCHRs) 

was used to remind the workforce of telework eligibility, including supervisory responsibilities. ANCHR 16-02 Telework 

Expectations Emergency Situations provided these reminders and was issued on November 4, 2015. 

5. Completed. Benchmark telework participation rates were established in pay period 02/2014 based on the date the revised 

telework Instruction was issued. A 35.1 percent increase has occurred since the benchmark was created where the 

participation rate was 1039 teleworkers and increased over the years to a rate of 1404 teleworkers (August 2017).

6. Partner with a representative from the Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, 

Computers and Information Technology/Chief Information Officer’s (CG-6) organization to address technology concerns. 

Requested CG-6D provide a program representative to address technology concerns for the MD-715 barrier analysis group on 

31 October 2018. Barrier analysis working group will discuss with CG-6 representative the technology improvements possible 

for telework employees.
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY _15__

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?

Analysis of CG data suggests a glass ceiling and blocked 

pipeline for Hispanic Males and African American Females to 

SES. A glass ceiling exists when groups cannot reach the 

highest levels of leadership despite their presence in 

positions that comprise the feeder pool for executive 

positions. A blocked pipeline occurs when people who are in 

upwardly mobile occupations fail to reach the senior grade 

levels within those occupations. In addition to glass ceiling 

and blocked pipeline, Hispanic Males and African American 

Females also experienced a glass wall. A glass wall exists 

when individuals within an EEO group are unable to obtain 

employment within major occupations with upward mobility. 

The EEOC used an alternative method to conduct analysis 

since CG was unable to collect applicant flow data. 

BARRIER ANALYSIS:

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

The EEOC directed the CG to further examine possible 

connections between the triggers in the workforce statistics 

and any policy, procedure, practice, or conditions that may 

cause these discrepancies. CG will review participation rates 

in upwardly mobile occupations, applicants and hires in major 

occupations, selections for internal competitive promotions 

for major occupations, and career development. 

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.

1. CG does not have a career development program for 

advancement to SES. However, CG employees who have at 

least one year of supervisory experience at the GS-14 level 

(and above) or equivalent may apply to the DHS SES career 

development program to obtain qualifications necessary to 

perform in SES positions. 

2. Despite Hispanic Males and Black Female presence in 

positions that comprise the feeder pool for executive 

positions, their selection rate is lower than their participation 

rate in the workforce. 

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired 

condition.

Obtain applicant flow data to SES positions in order to:

1. Investigate root causes of apparent glass ceiling and 

blocked pipeline for all low participation of employee groups 

to the SES, especially Hispanic Males and Black Females.

2. Determine whether glass wall barriers exist for Hispanic 

Males in 1102 and 2210, and Black Females in 0080, 0132, 

1801, and 2150 series.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 30, 2015

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

June 30, 2016

Revised June 30, 2018

Completed 15 June 2018
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

Develop and implement additional applicant flow fields to comply with MD-715 

reporting.

December 14, 2015

Completed May 4, 2016

Determine if DHS Career Development Plan can separate CG applicants from the total pool 

of applicants in order for CG to examine if any internal barriers exist for Hispanic Males and 

Black Females. 

December 15, 2015

Completed August 11, 2016 

Produce SES applicant flow workforce tables. May 10, 2016

Completed August 16, 2017

Identify and examine the SES screening process and the process for identifying the best 

qualified applicants for possible barriers for Hispanic Males and Black Females as part of the 

barrier analysis review.

June 30, 2016

Revised 30 June 2018

Completed 15 June 2018

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

Completed. Applicant flow fields for SES vacancies were developed and implemented by May 4, 2016 to 

comply with MD-715 reporting. There were no SES vacancies advertised in CG for FY17.

Completed. DHS provided the names of DHS Candidate Development Program (CDP) applicants on 

August 11, 2016. The DHS CDP information can be used as part of the upcoming barrier analysis 

process.

Completed. The SES applicant flow workforce table process was completed. Although the Coast Guard 

advertised two SES vacancies (one was cancelled), information in the tables will not populate based on 

the following reason. During the EEOC Barrier Analysis training held on August 15-16, 2017, the EEOC 

trainer stated the A11/B11 tables reflects data where the area of consideration for posted vacancy 

announcements is open to Agency/Component employees only. It is the Coast Guard’s practice to post 

SES vacancy announcement to U.S. Citizens to gather a wider pool of applicants. Therefore, since the 

announcements are open to a larger pool, the SES data for these tables will always reflect zeros. The 

EEOC trainer stated since this is our practice; Coast Guard could annotate this statement in the MD-715 

report and close out the action item. 

Completed 15 June 2018. Revised 30 June 2018. The action item for SES screening process and 

identifying best qualified applicants for possible barriers continues to be reviewed. The Coast Guard 

attended the EEOC Barrier Analysis training held on August 15-16, 2017. It was stated, by the EEOC 

trainer, during these sessions the A11/B11 tables reflect data where the area of consideration for posted 

vacancy announcements is open to Agency/Component employees only. It is the Coast Guard’s practice 

to post SES vacancy announcement to U.S. Citizens. Therefore, the SES data for these tables will always 

reflect zeros. Instead of using automated data, Coast Guard will explore use of an alternative process to 

consider external applicant flow fields. An alternative process to develop and examine SES applicant flow 

data was completed 15 June 2018. However, a SES vacancy announcement was posted in July and 

closed in August. Once the vacancy announcement closed, we were able to test and validate the tracking 

process we developed. This activity is closed. 
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY _13_

STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR 

A POTENTIAL BARRIER:

Provide a brief narrative describing the condition at issue.

How was the condition recognized as a potential barrier?

In exit interviews, 83% of those who listed advancement as 

a reason for leaving the CG ranked it as either the most 

significant (50%) or second most significant (33%) reason 

for leaving. Review of workforce data indicates that within 

the CG, 78% of males and 70% of females hired in noncompetitive promotions (career ladder) are advanced after 

25+ months in excess of the minimum months, impacting 

retention of employee groups. African American (73%) and 

Hispanic women (76%) served 25+ months in excess of the 

minimum months before advancement. Employees are 

eligible to apply for advancement to the next grade level at 

other federal agency at 12 months. Low participation rates 

in career development programs; Agency policy makes it 

mandatory for IDP for military employees.

BARRIER ANALYSIS:

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

Reviewed workforce data tables, EEO complaints statistics, 

demographics of career ladder hires by ethnicity, gender, 

and advancement rates, 5 CFR Part 410 – Career 

Development, DHS Human Capital Plan and Diversity 

Strategic Plan, CG Diversity Strategic Plan and Merit System 

Principles, exit interview data and OPM and DEOCS survey 

results.

Reviewed the range of options the agency uses to meet 

mission-related organizational and employee development 

needs, such as classroom training, on-the-job training, 

technology-based training, satellite training, employees' 

self-development activities, coaching, mentoring, career 

development counseling, details, rotational assignments, 

cross training, and developmental activities. Application for 

and availability of most of these opportunities are not widely 

known to employees.

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.

1. Application for and availability of opportunities for employee 

development such as training, developmental assignments, 

details, rotational assignments, cross training, and career 

development counseling is not well known among employees. 

2. Lack of an IDP requirement for employees in career ladder

positions leaves agency vulnerable to high turnover of certain 

groups due to an unclear path to advancement. 

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired 

condition.

1a. Modify procedures to notify employees of opportunities for 

career development. 

1b. Establish Rotational Assignment Program manager.

2. Require managers and supervisors to work with career ladder 

employees to develop an IDP. 

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 25, 2013

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: 1 January 2019
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

Career Development

1a. Develop a job aid for managers and supervisors to assist in understanding advancement 

requirements and timelines for employees hired under non-competitive career promotions 

(career ladder).

1b. Develop procedures for participation in Rotational Assignments.

1c. Update marketing and develop a communication plan for civilian leadership development 

opportunities.

1d. Establish a centralized repository for posting detail opportunities within NCR.

March 15, 2016

Completed November 22, 

2016

June 30, 2016

Completed June 2018

September 30, 2017

Completed

June 30, 2018

Completed

Individual Development Plan

2. Update and market IDP Policy Resources. October 1, 2018

Completed

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

1a. Completed. A job aid for managers and supervisors to assist in understanding advancement requirements and timelines 

for employees hired under non-competitive career promotions (career ladder) was developed and sent out to supervisors and 

managers via email in FY2017.

1b. Completed. The CG continues to leverage external resources to provide rotational opportunities including formal courses 

that offer shadowing and rotational assignment opportunities. Rotational assignments opportunities also exist, and are locally 

advertised within specific career-fields (e.g. acquisitions). In addition, a listing of DHS-wide rotational assignment and detail 

opportunities currently available to Coast Guard members via the DHS Rotational Assignment program has been posted on 

the Leadership Office website and social media sites. Three additional FTE were provided and has been assigned on a detail 

basis to address civilian career development needs within the Coast Guard, including codification of existing CG rotational 

assignment opportunities. 

1c. Completed. CG-12C completed a substantial re-design of its portal, web, and social media presence to advertise 

leadership development opportunities to civilian employees and their supervisors. This includes program sites on the CGWeb, 

LDC Facebook page, and LinkedIn showcase page. We are also leveraging website announcements, civilian supervisor email distribution lists, LDAC and LEAD Council distribution lists, and local communication tools (ie: special notices). As a result 

of this extensive engagement, the number of applications to key civilian leadership programs increased from approximately 45 

in 2016 to over 270 in 2017.

1d. Completed. The CG is leveraging the DHS Rotational assignment database to post all detail opportunities within the NCR. 

A link to this database was posted on the Office of Leadership web-page in June of 2018. 

2a. Due to labor relations constraints, implementation of mandated IDPs for non-supervisory civilians is contingent upon 

successful re-negotiation of the CG’s master labor agreements in 2021. In 2017, the Coast Guard’s Leadership Development 

center completed an analysis of legacy IDP tools and made recommendations to improve the products. A working group has 

been formed to incorporate the recommendations into the existing IDP tools. A draft policy update is currently under 

development that will identify updated forms and processes for completion of IDPs if desired. 
Completed. Due to labor relations constraints, implementation of mandated IDPs for non-supervisory civilians is contingent 

upon successful re-negotiation of the CG’s master labor agreement in 2021. In order to directly address the identified barrier 

related to career ladder advancements and ensure employees understand the requirements for advancement, CG issued

guidance (Civilian Career Enhancement Guide – A Guide to Career Development and Counseling) to supervisors and 

managers that a discussion about career advancement should be part of the annual performance cycle discussions.
EOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

United States Coast Guard FY __18_

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?

During the EEOC review of the USCG’s FY 2017 MD-715 

Report, Table B6P, when the EEOC combined all of the 

USCG’s occupations, EEOC found that PWD (19.30%) and 

PWTD (3.54%) exceeded their goals in each occupation, 

except for PWD (11.36%) in the 0963 series.

The applicant flow data (B7P) for the 0963 (Legal Instrument 

Examining) series shows that USCG of the 26 new hires for 

this series in FY 2017, USCG did not select any PWD. 

BARRIER ANALYSIS:

Provide a description of the steps taken and data analyzed to 

determine cause of the condition.

Reviewed workforce tables (B7P) to determine if there is a 

nexus between the recruitment processes within the Legal 

Instrument Examining series that limits the selection of 

PWDs. 

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.

EEOC expects the USCG to determine whether barriers exist 

for PWD in the recruitment and/or selection processes for the 

0963 series. Though, there was data that indicated a 

deficiency in this series, the BAWG determined that 

additional analysis should be conducted to confirm if in fact a 

barrier exists in the recruitment and selection process for the 

Legal Instrument Examining (0963) series. 

OBJECTIVE:

State the alternative or revised agency policy, procedure or 

practice to be implemented to correct the undesired 

condition.

There will be a barrier analysis to determine if a barrier exist 

for PWD in the recruitment and/or selection processes for the 

0963 series.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Assistant Commandant for Human Resources

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: July 20, 2018

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

November 30, 2019
EEOC FORM

715-01 

PART I

EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE

(Must be specific)

Research the recruitment and selection process for the 0963 series (i.e. targeted 

recruitment efforts, vacancy announcements, and guidance to managers). May 31, 2019

Analyze the vacancy rate for 0963 series to determine if a barrier exists or if the number 

of vacancies in the series is low. April 1, 2019

Review 0963 JOA to see if reasonable accommodations statement is included in the 

vacancy announcement. 

March 31, 2019

The BAWG will continue to conduct further analysis to determine if a barrier exists after 

completing the activities identified above. August 31, 2019
REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE
Tab: Part J
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

1

MD-715 – Part J

Special Program 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 plan will improve the recruitment, 

hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with disabilities. All 

agencies, regardless of size, must complete this Part of the MD-715 report.

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals

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

numerical goals for increasing the participation of persons with reportable and targeted 

disabilities in the federal government. 

Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) 

in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes 0 No X

The percentage of PWD in the GS-1 to GS-10 cluster was 21.66% in FY 2018, which

exceeds the goal of 12%. The percentage of PWD in the GS-11 to SES cluster was 

19.41% in FY 2018, which exceeds the goal of 12%.

Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

The percentage of PWTD in the GS-1 to GS-10 cluster was 4.39% in FY 2018, which 

exceeds the goal of 2%. The percentage of PWTD in the GS-11 to SES cluster was 

3.95% in FY 2018, which exceeds the goal of 2%.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

2

2. Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring 

managers and/or recruiters.

The goals are communicated from the Department of Homeland Security Strategic 

Recruitment, Diversity and Inclusion Division to the Coast Guard. The goals are then 

provided to Coast Guard recruiters, HR Operations Division, HR Specialists, etc. 

Monthly updates on the hiring goals are also provided to those that are involved with 

the hiring process.

Section II: Model Disability Program

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

and resources to recruit and hire persons with disabilities and persons with targeted 

disabilities, administer the reasonable accommodation program and special emphasis 

program, and oversee any other disability hiring and advancement program the agency 

has in place. 

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

PROGRAM

Has the agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability 

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

staffing for the upcoming year.

Yes X No 0

The USCG has designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its current 

disability program during the reporting period. However, in future years, USCG may 

need additional personnel to properly implement compliance relating to section 501 

as well as expand the reasonable accommodation program.

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

Full (Name, Title, Office, Email)

Time

Part 

Time

Collateral 

Duty

Processing applications from 

PWD and PWTD 

0 0 3 Joint collateral responsibilities

depending on the method the 

applications are received

Answering questions from 

the public about hiring 

0 0 3 Colette Pinkney, HR Specialist, 

Office of Civilian Workforce 
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

3

authorities that take disability 

into account

Management, 

Colette.A.Pinkney@uscg.mil

Previously Kenneth Davis,

HR Specialist, Office of Civilian 

Workforce Management

Processing reasonable 

accommodation requests 

from applicants and 

employees

5 0 0 Michael Brenyo, People with 

Disabilities Program Manager, 

Civil Rights Directorate, 

CivilRightsRA@uscg.mil

Section 508 Compliance 1 1 0 Dr. Eleanor Thompson, Branch 

Chief, Section 508 Program 

Management, 

Section.508@uscg.mil

Architectural Barriers Act 

Compliance

28 0 0 Hassan Zaidi, Office of Civil 

Engineering, 

Hassan.J.Zaidi@uscg.mil

Special Emphasis Program 

for PWD and PWTD

5 0 0 Michael Brenyo, Reasonable 

Accommodation Coordinator, 

Civil Rights Directorate, 

CivilRightsRA@uscg.mil
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

4

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

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

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

year.

Yes X No 0

All USCG employees are required to undergo Civil Rights Awareness training on a triennial

basis. In addition, USCG provides mandatory training to managers on hiring PWDs and 

PWTDS through the Cornerstone Leadership Training. USCG also provides training 

opportunities for managers and supervisors on providing reasonable accommodations. 

Lastly, USCG promotes “Schedule A” training available for supervisors through the Coast 

Guard’s automated learning management system. USCG employees participated in the 

New Inclusion Quotient (IQ) Change Agent Workshop which provides an understanding of 

inclusion and diversity and USCG employees also participated in an Inclusion Café series 

to lead collaborative dialogue, share knowledge and create possibilities for action. 

Additionally, program staff participated in NASA’s Diversity Dialogues Project which 

challenges perceptions, biases and assumptions to promote greater respect and inclusion 

in the workplace.

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.

Yes X No 0

USCG provides sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement its 

disability program during the reporting period. USCG currently has partnerships with 

DOT, CAP, and DRC in order to provide funding, reasonable accommodations, and 

personal assistance services.

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities

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

increase the recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below 

are designed to identify outcomes of the agency’s recruitment program plan for PWD 

and PWTD.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

5

A. PLAN TO IDENTIFY JOB APPLICANTS WITH DISABILITIES

Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants with 

disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities. 

The USCG establishes partnerships with IWD/IWTD diverse organizations such as 

Operation Warfigher (OWF). We participate in the Workforce Recruitment Program 

(WRP) by hiring college students with disabilities on a temporary basis for the 

summer. We also sponsor OWF internships for veterans with targeted disabilities. 

USCG uses the OPM Résumé Mining Tool to mine for resumes of candidates eligible 

to be hired under non-competitive hiring authorities such as Schedule A for disabilities 

and 30% or more compensable disabled veterans. USCG will continue to use the 

Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP) and Operation Warfighter (OWF) as potential 

sources to hire PWD/PWTDs. 

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. 

Individuals requesting consideration as Schedule A persons with disabilities 

applicants are encouraged to apply for all USCG job openings that are posted. The 

vacancy announcements clearly communicate to all applicants how to apply using the 

Schedule A authority or any other non-competitive authority such as 30% or more 

disabled veteran.

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. 

Applicants who self-disclose their disability, provide the appropriate documentation, 

and are determined qualified for the position are referred to the selecting official with 

other non-competitive eligibles.

Has the agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities 

that take disability into account (e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe the type(s) of 

training and frequency. If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to provide this training.

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

USCG provides mandatory training to managers on hiring PWDs and PWTDs through 

the Cornerstone Leadership Training. USCG also promotes “Schedule A” training 
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

6

available for supervisors through the Coast Guard’s automated learning management 

system.

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. 

USCG plans to continue to maintain partnerships with IWD/IWTD organizations (i.e. 

WRP, OWF, etc.). In addition, we will continue to educate managers on Schedule A 

hiring options. USCG will promote the CAP program to retain employees with 

disabilities. USCG will continue strengthening its relationship Gallaudet University by 

conducting information sessions and attending career fairs. Additionally, USCG will 

continue to use the WRP and OWF as sources to hire PWD/PWTDs. 

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) Yes 0 No X

b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

Among the new hires in the permanent workforce, a trigger does not exist for PWD 

(19%), which is above the benchmark of 12%, and a trigger does not exist for PWTD 

(2.3%), which is above the benchmark of 2%.

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD 

and/or PWTD among the new hires for any of the mission-critical occupations

(MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below.

a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

N/A USCG does not identify MCO for civilians. MCOs are military positions only. 

USCG only identifies major occupations.

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 missioncritical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

7

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

N/A USCG does not identify MCO for civilians. MCOs are military positions only. 

USCG only identifies major occupations

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD

and/or PWTD among employees promoted to any of the mission-critical

occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below.

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

N/A USCG does not identify MCO for civilians. MCOs are military positions only. 

USCG only identifies major occupations

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for

Employees with Disabilities 

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

advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities. Such activities might include 

specialized training and mentoring programs, career development opportunities, awards 

programs, promotions, and similar programs that address advancement. In this section, 

agencies should identify, and provide data on programs designed to ensure 

advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities.

A. ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM PLAN

Describe the agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient 

opportunities for advancement.

The CG has also recently stood up a Civilian Career Management Team tasked with 

further developing and advertising specific career based development opportunities and 

programs that are already in place or under development in various professional 

communities. 

B. CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its 

employees. 
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

8

The Office of Leadership offers DHS Leader development opportunities such as the 

DHS Mentoring Program, DHS SES CDP, OPM Federal Internal Coach Training 

Program, DHS Rotational Assignments and Joint Duty program. In addition, individual 

professional communities such as acquisitions and contracting, marine inspection etc.

manage their own career development activities. These are areas where career 

ladders/career development tools and programs are in place.

In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that 

require competition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate.

[Collection begins with the FY 2018 MD-715 report, which is due on February 28, 2019.]

Career Development 

Opportunities

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applicants 

(#)

Selectees 

(#)

Applicants 

(%)

Selectees 

(%)

Applicants 

(%)

Selectees

(%)

Internship Programs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Fellowship Programs

Mentoring Programs

Coaching Programs

Training Programs

Detail Programs

Other Career 

Development 

Programs

Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career 

development programs? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool 

for the applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) 

in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

9

Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career 

development programs identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant 

applicant pool for applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

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) Yes 0 No X

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes X No 0

The inclusion rate for PWD is 50.69% and PWTD is 55.35%. The percentage of time 

off awards given to PWTD is 50.76%, which is below the benchmark. However, when 

comparing the total number of PWTD workforce (329) to the total number of time off 

awards distributed to the PWTD (181), the potential of a trigger does not exist.

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger

involving PWD and/or PWTD for quality step increases or performance-based

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

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Yes 0 No X

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

No triggers exists for PWD/PWTD.

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

PWTD recognized disproportionately less than employees without disabilities?

(The appropriate benchmark is the inclusion rate.) If “yes”, describe the

employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box.

a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

10

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. 

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Grade GS-15

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

c. Grade GS-14

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

d. Grade GS-13

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not display this information. USCG normally advertises 

vacancy announcement to applicants outside of the workforce. Therefore, the data 

captured on the MD-715 tables for internal selections normally is zero.

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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

11

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Grade GS-15

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

c. Grade GS-14

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

d. Grade GS-13

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not display this information. USCG normally advertises 

vacancy announcement to applicants outside of the workforce. Therefore, the data 

captured on the MD-715 tables for internal selections normally is zero.

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.

3.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

12

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. New Hires to GS-15(PWD) Yes 0 No 0

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

d. New Hires to GS-13(PWD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not display this information. USCG normally advertises 

vacancy announcement to applicants outside of the workforce. Therefore, the data 

captured on the MD-715 tables for internal selections normally is zero.

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 nonGS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe

the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

c. New Hires to GS-14(PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not display this information. USCG normally advertises 

vacancy announcement to applicants outside of the workforce. Therefore, the data 

captured on the MD-715 tables for internal selections normally is zero.

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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

13

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

c. Supervisors

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not collect this information. Recommend changing the data 

requirements to ensure automated systems can capture the requested data.

6. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal

applicants and/or selectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The

appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal

applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

b. Managers

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

c. Supervisors

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not collect this information. Recommend changing the data 

requirements to ensure automated systems can capture the requested data.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

14

7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a

trigger involving PWD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory

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

a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not collect this information. Recommend changing the data 

requirements to ensure automated systems can capture the requested data.

8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a

trigger involving PWTD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory

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

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

The MD-715 tables do not collect this information. Recommend changing the data 

requirements to ensure automated systems can capture the requested data.

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To be a model employer for persons with disabilities, agencies must have policies and 

programs in place to retain employees with disabilities. In this section, agencies should:

(1) analyze workforce separation data to identify barriers retaining employees with

disabilities; (2) describe efforts to ensure accessibility of technology and facilities; and

(3) provide information on the reasonable accommodation program and workplace

personal assistance services.

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.

Yes X No 0 N/A 0
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

15

The Coast Guard converted two Schedule A employees with a disability during FY

2018. Coordinating with Civilian Human Resources Operations to disseminate a list 

of Schedule A employees eligible for conversion to management. This will be 

monitored at the end of each quarter effective 2nd Quarter, June 30, 2019.

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among

voluntary and involuntary separations exceed that of persons without disabilities?

If “yes”, describe the trigger below.

a. Voluntary Separations (PWD) Yes X No 0

b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes X No 0

The voluntary separation inclusion rate for PWD is 8.85% compared to 7.49% for 

persons without disabilities. The involuntary separation inclusion rate for PWD is 

0.75% compared to 0.26% for persons without disabilities.

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.

Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0

Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0

The voluntary separation inclusion rate for PWTD is 7.65% compared to 7.49% for 

persons without disabilities. The involuntary separation inclusion rate for PWTD is 

1.22% compared to o.26% for persons without disabilities.

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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

16

CG continues to collaborate with DHS to develop new questions to improve the 

recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of individuals with 

disabilities. The collaboration will also address DHS being able to provide exit 

interviews to each component which will allow the tracking of voluntary and 

involuntary separations for both PWD and PWTD. Once this is resulted, it will 

eliminate CG’s inability to track exit interviews data and provide the data need to 

respond to V.A.2 and V.A.3. (See Part H, FY18 MD-715 Report)

B. ACCESSIBILITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITIES

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform 

applicants and employees of their rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

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

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151-4157), concerning the accessibility 

of agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to inform individuals where to file 

complaints if other agencies are responsible for a violation. 

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

explaining employees’ and applicants’ rights under Section 508 of the

Rehabilitation Act, including a description of how to file a complaint.

The internet address is as follows: https://www.uscg.mil/access/.

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.

The internet address is as follows: https://www.uscg.mil/Resources/Civil-Rights/EqualEmployment-Opportunity-Laws-Statutes-and-Regulations/. 

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.

USCG conducted a 504 Compliance Review in FY 2017 and is used those findings in FY 

2018 to improve accessibility to Agency facilities and/or technology. In the past fiscal year, 

USCG explored the possibility of adopting a new RA database and anticipates having one in 

FY 2019. USCG is currently drafting guidance documents to address areas of improvement. 
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

17

For larger tasks, USCG anticipates having a plan and budget submission in place by Fourth 

Quarter, FY 2019. Due to the scope of this project and its projected timeline, USCG will have 

regular reviews and updates on progress beyond the next fiscal year.

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.)

USCG processed accommodation requests in an average of 15.79 days in FY 2018, 

as compared to the time frame of 15 days in its reasonable accommodation procedures.

2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement

the agency’s reasonable accommodation program. Some examples of an

effective program include timely processing requests, timely providing approved

accommodations, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and

monitoring accommodation requests for trends.

In FY 2017, USCG began to request and fund the establishment of a Reasonable 

Accommodation Board with the goal of centralizing approvals, increasing timeliness, 

and improving efficiencies. In FY 2018, USCG further explored improving 

effectiveness by adopting a new RA database. USCG plans to have its request and 

funding approved by Fourth Quarter, FY 2019.

D. PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN

THE WORKPLACE

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative 

action, are required to provide personal assistance services (PAS) to employees who 

need them because of a targeted disability, unless doing so would impose an undue 

hardship on the agency.

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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

18

On February 20, 2018, USCG submitted its PAS procedures and revised reasonable 

accommodation procedures to the EEOC for approval. The EEOC provided feedback 

on April 20, 2018. On August 17, 2018, USCG resubmitted its procedures. The EEOC 

approved USCG’s resubmitted procedures on October 12, 2018. USCG has its RA 

and PAS procedures available on its website. USCG is currently training the 

workforce on its updated RA and PAS procedures. RA and PAS are currently being 

tracked by USCG. USCG currently has a partnership with DRC which allows for PAS 

and RA at no cost to the Agency.

Section VI: 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 government-wide average?

Yes X No 0 N/A 0 

USCG FY 18: 15.09% (8 complaints, 53 total complaints filed) Federal 

FY 15: 14.81% (2294 complaints, 15490 total complaints filed) 

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on

disability status result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

4 settlements during the informal stage and 3 settlements during the 

formal stage. 

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.

There were no findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability 

status. 

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?

Yes X No 0 N/A 0 

USCG FY 18: 18.87% (10 complaints, 53 total complaints filed) 

Federal FY 15: 11.34% (1757 complaints, 15490 total complaints filed) 
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

19

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide

reasonable accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement

agreement?

Yes 0 No X N/A 0

5 settlements during the formal stage.

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to

provide a reasonable accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe

the corrective measures taken by the agency.

There were no findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonable 

accommodation.

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers

Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger 

suggests that a policy, procedure, or practice may be impeding the employment 

opportunities of a protected EEO group.

1. Has the agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices)

that affect employment opportunities for PWD and/or PWTD?

Yes X No 0

2. Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD

and/or PWTD?

Yes X No 0 N/A 0

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

barrier(s), objective(s), responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where

applicable, accomplishments.

Trigger 1

During FY17, a higher percentage of PWD filed a formal EEO complaint

alleging harassment (17.24%) as compared to the government-wide 

average in FY 15 (14.81%). During FY18, the percentage of PWD filing a 

formal EEO complaint alleging harassment decreased to 15.09%

Barrier(s)

Lack of sufficient training and education among employees and 

management has resulted in a misunderstanding of how to properly 

handle PWD. This creates conflict which may result in the filing of formal 

complaints. 

Objective(s) Educate all employees and management on how to properly address 

issues that may arise with PWD.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

20

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address 

the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Michael Brenyo, Reasonable Accommodation 

Coordinator Yes

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completio

n Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

02/28/2018 Create and receive approval for a 

training module that can be 

integrated into the Civil Rights 

Awareness training that address 

harassment in the workplace 

related to disability and how to 

appropriately address issues.

Yes 02/21/201

8

03/31/2018 Integrate training module and 

provide training to all employees

Yes 02/21/201

8

07/31/2018 Review complaint activity to see if 

the number of PWD alleging 

harassment have decreased, 

review and revise training as 

required.

Yes 09/30/201

8

09/30/201

8

02/28/2019 Reaffirm commitment to training 

and information sharing. Schedule 

regular training for Agency 

employees.

Yes

07/31/2019 Review complaint activity to see if 

the number of PWD alleging 

harassment have decreased, 

review and revise training as 

required.

Yes

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY18 Completed training slides for new CRA module.

FY18 Began training workforce on new RA and PAS procedures as of 

09/18/2018.

FY18 Reviewed complaint activity.

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing

any of the planned activities.

Review of complaint activity took place later than anticipated due to training of workforce not beginning 

until September 2018. This will not be a problem in the upcoming fiscal year.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

21

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual

impact of those activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

By more fully educating employees and managers on their obligations and responsibilities related to 

the RA and PAS process, it helps to eliminate possible areas of conflict which may develop. It ensures 

a more collaborative and solution based approach to requests. Complaints have decreased 2.15% as a 

result of more information being made available.

3. 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.

Although complaints have decreased, there is still a trigger because it exceeds the government-wide 

average. USCG will continue to provide training and information to employees and managers to further 

educate them on the RA and PAS process.

Trigger 2

During FY17, a higher percentage of PWD filed a formal EEO complaint

alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation (12.10%) as 

compared to the government-wide average in FY 15 (11.34%). During 

the last fiscal year, the percentage of PWD filing a formal EEO complaint

alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation increased to 

18.87%

Barrier(s)

Lack of sufficient training and education among employees and 

management has resulted in a misunderstanding of how to properly 

handle reasonable accommodations. This creates conflict which may 

result in the filing of formal complaints.

Objective(s) Educate all employees and management on how to properly address 

situations that may arise out of reasonable accommodation requests.

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address 

the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Michael Brenyo, Reasonable Accommodation 

Coordinator Yes

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completio

n Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

02/28/2018 Create and receive approval for a 

training module that can be 

integrated into the Civil Rights 

Awareness training that address 

harassment in the workplace 

Yes 02/21/201

8
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

22

related to disability and how to 

appropriately address issues.

03/31/2018 Integrate training module and 

provide training to all employees

Yes 02/21/201

8

07/31/2018 Review complaint activity to see if 

the number of PWD alleging 

harassment have decreased, 

review and revise training as 

required.

Yes 09/30/201

8

09/30/201

8

02/28/2019 Reaffirm commitment to training 

and information sharing. Schedule 

regular training for Agency 

employees.

Yes

07/31/2019 Review complaint activity to see if 

the number of PWD alleging 

harassment have decreased, 

review and revise training as 

required.

Yes

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY18 Completed training slides for new CRA module.

FY18 Began training workforce on new RA and PAS procedures as of 

09/18/2018.

FY18 Reviewed complaint activity.

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing

any of the planned activities.

Review of complaint activity took place later than anticipated due to training of workforce not beginning 

until September 2018. This will not be a problem in the upcoming fiscal year.

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual

impact of those activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

By more fully educating employees and managers on their obligations and responsibilities related to 

the RA and PAS process, it helps to eliminate possible areas of conflict which may develop. It ensures 

a more collaborative and solution based approach to requests. Although complaints have not yet 

decreased, a decrease is anticipated as information and training is gradually introduced.

3. 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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

23

There is still a trigger because it exceeds the government-wide average. USCG will continue to provide 

training and information to employees and managers to further educate them on the RA and PAS 

process. Feedback from the employees/managers and the complaints themselves will be analyzed to 

develop possible ways through which the trigger can be improved.
GS Level Or Equivalent GS 01 GS 02 GS 03 GS 04 GS 05 GS 06 GS 07 GS 08 GS 09 GS 10 GS 10 and 

Below

GS 11 GS 12 GS 13 GS 14 GS 15 SES GS 11 

and Above

# 0 0 1 10 41 50 145 29 118 1 395 211 347 280 137 38 5 1018

% 0.00 0.00 16.67 28.57 26.80 24.88 22.34 18.35 19.60 5.26 21.66 22.30 20.13 18.06 17.82 16.03 25.00 19.41

# 0 0 0 0 2 5 51 6 16 0 80 18 35 19 10 4 0 86

% 0 0 0 0 1.31 2.49 7.86 3.80 2.66 0.00 4.39 1.90 2.03 1.23 1.30 1.69 0.00 1.64

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 0 0 1 10 43 55 196 35 134 1 475 229 382 299 147 42 5 1104

% 0.0 0.0 16.7 28.6 28.1 27.4 30.2 22.2 22.3 5.3 26.0 24.2 22.2 19.3 19.1 17.7 25.0 21.0

Total GS/SES/SL 0 0 7 35 153 201 649 158 602 19 1824 946 1724 1550 769 237 20 5246

GS Level Or Equivalent

GS 01 GS 02 GS 03 GS 04 GS 05 GS 06 GS 07 GS 08 GS 09 GS 10

GS 10 and 

Below GS 11 GS 12 GS 13 GS 14 GS 15 SES

GS 11 

and Above

# 0 0 0 2 9 12 32 5 20 0 80 43 64 60 35 5 0 207

% 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.71 5.88 5.97 4.93 3.16 3.32 0.00 4.39 4.55 3.71 3.87 4.55 2.11 0.00 3.95

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 0 0 0 2 9 12 32 5 20 0 80 43 64 60 35 5 0 207

% 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.71 5.88 5.97 4.93 3.16 3.32 0.00 4.39 4.55 3.71 3.87 4.55 2.11 0.00 3.95

Data required in submission to EEOC and CRCL.

FY 2018 Utilization Analysis by Disability

Total

Self-Identified 

Disability [02-03, 06-

99]

Schedule A or 30% or 

more Vets, who have 

not otherwise selfidentified

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

records for employees 

who have not 

otherwise self 

identified

Total

FY 2018 Utilization Analysis by Targeted Disability

Self-Identified 

Targeted Disability 

[02,03,19,20,21,40,60,

82,90,91,92,93]

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

records for employees 

who have not 

otherwise self 

identified
Federal Goal Current Workforce 

Participation %

Individuals with Disabilities (IWD)

GS 11 and Above (or equivalent) 12% 19.41

GS 10 and Below (or equivalent) 12% 21.66

Indiviuals with Targeted Disabilities (IWTD) 

GS 11 and Above (or equivalent) 2% 3.95

GS 10 and Below (or equivalent) 2% 4.39

Data required in submission to EEOC and CRCL.

FY 2018 Workforce Goals/Current Workforce
# %

Total Schedule A Workforce 31 100%

Conversions to Career or Career Conditional 2 6%

Eligible for Conversion 11 35%

Terminiations prior to Conversion 0 0%

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2018 Schedule A Conversion and Termination Tracker
Total number of Applicants with a Disability 2496

Total number of Hires with a Disability 179

Total number of Applicants with a Targeted Disability 1160

Total number of Hires with a Targeted Disability 21

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2018 Applicants and Hires 
Date of Hire Entering Grade Level Probation Status Current Grade Level

1 10/29/2017 GS-05 step 01 10/27/2019 GS-05, Step 01

2 10/29/2017 GS-07 Step 01 10/27/2019 GS-07, Step 01

3 11/12/2017 GS-14 Step 01 11/10/2019 GS-14, Step 01

4 11/12/2017 GS-11 Step 01 11/10/2019 GS-11, Step 01

5 2/20/2018 GS-06 Step 01 2/16/2020 GS-06, Step 01

6 4/29/2018 GS-11 Step 01 4/26/2020 GS-11, Step 01

7 5/29/2018 GS-09 Step 01 5/24/2020 GS-09, Step 01

8 6/10/2018 GS-07 Step 01 6/7/2020 GS-07, Step 01

9 6/24/2018 GS-05 step 01 6/7/2020 GS-05, Step 01

10 6/24/2018 GS-13 Step 01 6/7/2020 GS-13, Step 01

11 7/8/2018 GS-05 step 01 7/5/2020 GS-05, Step 01

12 7/8/2018 GS-05 Step 01 7/5/2020 GS-05, Step 01

13 7/22/2018 GS-06 Step 01 7/19/2020 GS-06, Step 01

14 7/22/2018 GS-03 Step 01 7/19/2020 GS-03, Step 01

15 7/22/2018 GS-03 Step 01 7/19/2020 GS-03, Step 01

16 7/22/2018 GS-06 Step 04 7/19/2020 GS-06, Step 04

17 8/5/2018 GS-04 Step 01 8/2/2020 GS-04, Step 01

18 8/5/2018 GS-07 Step 03 8/2/2020 GS-07, Step 03

19 8/19/2018 GS-04 Step 01 8/16/2020 GS-04, Step 01

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2018 Total On-board Schedule A Employee Tracker

(Do not include Employee Name or anyother PII) 
Recissions of conditional job offers 0

Demotions 0

Terminations 3

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2018 Adverse Actions Due to Medical Examinations or 

Inquires of Applicants and Employees
Component

Applicant, 

Employee, 

or 

Contractor

Occupational 

Series

Grade Reasonable Accommodation 

Requested

Type of Accommodation (to apply 

for a job; to perform the essential 

functions of a job; or to enjoy the 

benefits and privileges of 

employment)

Request Granted 

(which may include 

an accommodation 

different from the 

one requested) or 

denied; Yes/No

Deciding Official If denied, basis 

for denial

Total 

number 

of days 

to 

process 

request

sample HQ Employee 260 14 Zoom Text perform essential functions of job Yes Jane Doe, Supervisor 5

1 USCG Employee 301 GS-12 Telework and Scooter perform essential functions of job Yes Zayas, Eduardo N/A 21

2 USCG Employee 343

GS-11 100% telework

perform essential functions of job

No Rioux, Robert

Negatively impact 

public (suggested 

2-day telework 

schedule)

22

3 USCG Employee 132 GS-13 Telework/AWS perform essential functions of job Yes Hahn, Peter LCDR N/A 24

4 USCG Employee 201 GS-09 Ergonomic chair/adjus workstation perform essential functions of job Yes Dong, Yvonne N/A 4

5 USCG Employee 3703

WG-10

Bare Wire MIG Welder and ability to 

make adjustments to stance or 

position for stability purposes. perform essential functions of job

Yes Carroll, Brian CDR N/A 46

6 USCG Employee 303

GS-07

There was a Ergo Helath Risk 

Assessment completed on 

employee's workstation. The final 

report is to be completed as the 

HSWL OMSEP officer is out of the 

office. perform essential functions of job

Yes Carroll, Brian CDR N/A 36

7 USCG Employee 101 GS-12 CG Imaged Laptop, Dragon (Speak to 

text software), Microphone. perform essential functions of job Yes Morrison, Frank LCDR N/A 1

8 USCG Employee 4204

WG-10 Powered air purifier respirator

perform essential functions of job

No Hoffman, William

Accommodation 

may not ease 

limitation and 

undue hardship

26

9 USCG Employee AD-00 Professor AD-00 Change of supervisor and quiet area 

to work perform essential functions of job Yes Colella, Kurt N/A 7

10 USCG Employee WG-08 WG-08 Parking Pass perform essential functions of job Yes Driscoll, John N/A 38

11 USCG Employee 260 GS-13 Weekly Discussions, Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Hunter, Carolyn N/A 13

12 USCG Employee 510 GS-14 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Manofsky, Matthew N/A 10

13 USCG Employee 905 GS13 Flexible start times perform essential functions of job Yes Macesker, Bert N/A 24

14 USCG Employee 2805 WG-10 Boots perform essential functions of job Yes Jones, Gary N/A 3

15 USCG Employee 2091 NF-02 Temp Modified duty for 3 months perform essential functions of job Yes Mowry, Kristi N/A 7

16 USCG Employee 1035 GS-12 Telework 100% perform essential functions of job Yes Balunis, Timothy G.M. CDR N/A 20

17 USCG Employee 963 GS-06 leave (sick) perform essential functions of job Yes Skuches, Ken N/A 7

18 USCG Employee 501 GS13 1. Work 4 day telework, 1 Day in the 

office. perform essential functions of job Pending Kammerer, Franche Pending Pending

19 USCG Employee 1702 NF-02 LWOP perform essential functions of job Yes Mowry, Kristi N/A 2

20 USCG Employee 260 GS-13 Flex Schedule and Telework perform essential functions of job Pending Hunter, Carolyn Pending Pending

FY 2018 Reasonable Accommodation Report
21 USCG Employee 4204 WG-10 Powered air purifier respirator perform essential functions of job Pending Hoffman, William Pending Pending

22 USCG Employee 343 GS-12 ErgoTech Freedom Desk perform essential functions of job Yes Deal, Holly N/A

1

23 USCG Employee 2210

GS-11

Employee shall remain assigned to 

cube Annex 4-250. Employee will not 

be moved to the main building. perform essential functions of job

Yes Paquette, Jonathan0 16

24 USCG Employee 525 GS-08 Larger chair with more cushion perform essential functions of job Yes Bridges, Nicholas N/A

9

25 USCG Employee 1750

GS-13

Participate in PT program, Work 

hours shift to 10:30-7:30 EST, 

Telework 4 days a week, No official 

travel, Delay in relocation perform essential functions of job

Yes Hudson, Nathan N/A 189

26 USCG Employee 132 GS-13 Handsfree telephone headset. perform essential functions of job Yes Russell, Michael N/A 22

27 USCG Employee 2091

NF-02

Light duty, part time work hours, 

breaks every 3-4 hours, no heavy 

lifting or deep squatting activity, use 

of a cane as needed perform essential functions of job

Yes Shannon, Edward N/A 12

28 USCG Employee 2892

WG-10

No stooping, no crawling, no bending, 

no climbing, no crouching with right 

knee for 60 days. perform essential functions of job

Yes Coons, Kenneth W. N/A1

29 USCG Employee 8852 WG-10 Lifting no more then 5 pounds, no 

prolong standing. perform essential functions of job Yes Cavallaro, John A. N/A

1

30 USCG Employee 2892

WG-10

No stooping, no crawling, no bending, 

no climbing, no crouching with right 

knee until May 10, 2018. perform essential functions of job

Yes Cavallaro, John A. N/A1

31 USCG Employee 28 GS-12 Telework 2 days a week - Mondays 

and Thursdays perform essential functions of job Yes Aydlett, David P. N/A 15

32 USCG Employee 2102 GS-06 2-days of telework and move to

different desk perform essential functions of job Yes

Wilson-Bacon, Maxine 

Mrs. LCDR

N/A 10

33 USCG Employee 4352

WG-10

No pushing, pulling, bending, 

squating, climbing or lifting 10 lbs or 

more. Use of cane authorized perform essential functions of job

Yes Coons, Kenneth W. N/A1

34 USCG Employee 4352

WG-10

No pushing, pulling, bending, 

stooping, kneeling climbing or lifting 

5 lbs or more. perform essential functions of job

Yes Coons, Kenneth W. N/A1

35 USCG Employee 4352

WG-10

No sitting, standing lifting more than 

40 lbs and no walking longer than 10 

minutes perform essential functions of job

Yes Coons, Kenneth W. N/A4

36 USCG Employee 8852 WG-11 No lifting greater than 5 lbs perform essential functions of job Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A

1

37 USCG Employee 8852

WG-11

No lifting greater than 15 lbs; No 

Standing or walking for more than 20 

minutes perform essential functions of job

Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A1

38 USCG Employee 4352

WG-11

No strenuous pushing or pulling of 

objects; No lifting greater than 10lbs; 

No bending, squatting, kneeling or 

climbing.

perform essential functions of job

Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A1

39 USCG Employee 4352

WG-11

No strenuous pushing or pulling of 

objects; No lifting greater than 10lbs; 

No bending squatting kneeling or 

climbing

No bending, squatting, kneeling or 

climbing.

perform essential functions of job

Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A1
40 USCG Employee 4352

WG-11

No strenuous pushing or pulling of 

objects; No lifting greater than 10lbs; 

No bending squatting kneeling, 

climbing or reaching overhead

perform essential functions of job

Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A 1

41 USCG Employee 4352

WG-11

No strenuous pushing or pulling of 

objects; No lifting greater than 10lbs; 

No bending squatting kneeling, 

climbing or reaching overhead

perform essential functions of job

Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A 1

42 USCG Employee 301

GS-11 Admin Duties or Reassignment to 

another Positon

perform essential functions of job

No Smith, Andrea LCDR

Alternate 

Accommodation 

Offered that aligns 

with medical 

documentation

29

43 USCG Employee NAF-03 Storekeeper NAF-03 Leave Without Pay for months perform essential functions of job Yes Morwy, Krsity N/A 37

44 USCG Employee 301

GS-11 Reassignment to New Positon

perform essential functions of job

No Smith, Andrea LCDR

Alternate 

Accommodation 

Offered that aligns 

with medical 

documentation

24

45 USCG Employee 2210

GS-12 Keep Office Door Shut

perform essential functions of job

No Balem, Phillip LCDR

Inadequate 

Medical 

Documentation

31

46 USCG Employee 301 GS-11 Reassignment to New Positon perform essential functions of job Pending Aaron, Dorrian LT Pending Pending

47 USCG Employee 2210

GS-14

1) Provide remote access to the Coast 

Guard network 

2) Provide phone bridge for remote 

meeting participation.

3) Provide a temporary backup 

qualified person who can assist in 

performing functions that are 

required to access the classified 

network and classified information. perform essential functions of job

Yes Williams, Phillip M. N/A 2

48 USCG Employee 326 GS-07 Assistance with removal mobile of 

chair from vehicle perform essential functions of job Yes Lewis, Michael AVI2 N/A 3

49 USCG Employee 4352

WG-11

No strenuous pushing or pulling of 

objects; No lifting greater than 10lbs; 

No bending, squating, kneeling, 

climbing or reaching overhead

perform essential functions of job

Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A 1
50 USCG Employee 4352

WG-11

No strenuous pushing or pulling of 

objects; No lifting greater than 10lbs; 

No bending, squating, kneeling, 

climbing or reaching overhead

perform essential functions of job

Yes Koons, Kenneth W. N/A 1

51 USCG Employee 2102 GS-7 Parking (closer parking spot) perform essential functions of job Yes

CDR Ashley Holt (CO, 

Base Ketchikan) N/A 9

52 USCG Employee 303

GS-07 Rest Breaks/Ergonomic Workstation 

Equipment

perform essential functions of job

No Manor, Anita

Insufficient 

Medical 

Documentation

24

53 USCG Employee 545 GS-06 Ergonomic Mouse, Sit and Stand Desk perform essential functions of job Yes Dixon, Joshua N/A 1

54 USCG Employee 343 GS-09 Varidesk perform essential functions of job Yes Stewart, James N/A 1

55 USCG Employee 950

GS-07 Telework, Job Restructuring, and 15 

minute breaks every hour

perform essential functions of job

No Mills, Roger

Insufficient 

Medical 

Documentation 

and Lowering 

Production 

Standard 

20

56 USCG Employee 545 GS-07 Ergonomic Chair perform essential functions of job Yes McCord, Kevin N/A 1

57 USCG Employee

545 GS-06 Larger Cubical

perform essential functions of job

No Matthews, Donald

Original RA denied 

alternate 

accommodation 

made to 

reconfigure 

cubical to 

accommodate 

health issues.

10

58 USCG Employee 343 GS-09 Trackball Mouse perform essential functions of job Yes Stewart, James N/A 1

59 USCG Employee 545 GS-06 Ergonomic Chair perform essential functions of job Yes McCord, Kevin N/A 1

60 USCG Employee 2150 GS-11 Chair with Lumbar Support perform essential functions of job Yes Whalen, Scott N/A 1

61 USCG Various Various Various 138 Requests for DOT Services perform essential functions of job Yes, 138 Approved DOT N/A N/A

Data required in submission to CRCL.
Component

Applicant, 

Employee, 

or 

Contractor

Occupational 

Series Grade Reasonable Accommodation Requested

Type of Accommodation (to 

apply for a job; to perform the 

essential functions of a job; or to 

enjoy the benefits and privileges 

of employment)

Request Granted 

(which may include 

an accommodation 

different from the 

one requested) or 

denied; Yes/No

Deciding Official

If denied, 

basis for 

denial

Total number 

of days to 

process 

request

sample HQ Employee 260 14 Zoom Text perform essential functions of job Yes Jane Doe, Supervisor 5

1 USCG Employee 28

GS-12

Authorization for a travel companion, 

at the employee's expense, to assist 

with daily activities after ECE's are 

completed activity of daily living

Yes

Carpenter, Gregory

N/A

103

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2018 Personal Assistance Service Report
Tab: Tab 1

Tab: Tab 2

Tab: Tab 3

Tab: Tab 4

Tab: Tab 5

Tables: A 
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

8489 5962 2527 360 140 4571 1494 665 696 189 111 33 12 111 34 33 40

 100% 70.23% 29.77% 4.24% 1.65% 53.85% 17.60% 7.83% 8.20% 2.23% 1.31% 0.39% 0.14% 1.31% 0.40% 0.39% 0.47%

8704 6111 2593 304 110 4671 1519 682 718 212 116 35 14 111 37 96 79

 100% 70.21% 29.79% 3.49% 1.26% 53.66% 17.45% 7.84% 8.25% 2.44% 1.33% 0.40% 0.16% 1.28% 0.43% 1.10% 0.91%

51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.03% 5.49% 6.53% 1.97% 1.93% 0.07% 0.07% 0.55% 0.53% 0.26% 0.28%

Difference 215 149 66 -56 -30 100 25 17 22 23 5 2 2 0 3 63 39

Ratio Change 0% -0.02% 0.02% -0.75% -0.39% -0.18% -0.15% 0% 0.05% 0.21% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02% -0.03% 0.02% 0.71% 0.44%

Net Change 2.53% 2.50% 2.61% -15.56% -21.43% 2.19% 1.67% 2.56% 3.16% 12.17% 4.50% 6.06% 16.67% 0% 8.82% 190.91% 97.50%

8318 5839 2479 357 137 4477 1461 645 685 184 111 32 12 111 33 33 40

 100% 70.20% 29.80% 4.29% 1.65% 53.82% 17.56% 7.75% 8.24% 2.21% 1.33% 0.38% 0.14% 1.33% 0.40% 0.40% 0.48%

8556 6006 2550 301 108 4590 1490 671 706 204 116 34 14 111 37 95 79

 100% 70.20% 29.80% 3.52% 1.26% 53.65% 17.41% 7.84% 8.25% 2.38% 1.36% 0.40% 0.16% 1.30% 0.43% 1.11% 0.92%

Difference 238 167 71 -56 -29 113 29 26 21 20 5 2 2 0 4 62 39

Ratio Change 0% 0% 0% -0.77% -0.38% -0.18% -0.15% 0.09% 0.02% 0.17% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% -0.04% 0.04% 0.71% 0.44%

Net Change 2.86% 2.86% 2.86% -15.69% -21.17% 2.52% 1.98% 4.03% 3.07% 10.87% 4.50% 6.25% 16.67% 0% 12.12% 187.88% 97.50%

171 123 48 3 3 94 33 20 11 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

 100% 71.93% 28.07% 1.75% 1.75% 54.97% 19.30% 11.70% 6.43% 2.92% 0% 0.58% 0% 0% 0.58% 0% 0%

148 105 43 3 2 81 29 11 12 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 70.95% 29.05% 2.03% 1.35% 54.73% 19.59% 7.43% 8.11% 5.41% 0% 0.68% 0% 0% 0% 0.68% 0%

Difference -23 -18 -5 0 -1 -13 -4 -9 1 3 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0

Ratio Change 0% -0.98% 0.98% 0.27% -0.40% -0.24% 0.30% -4.26% 1.68% 2.48% 0% 0.09% 0% 0% -0.58% 0.68% 0%

Net Change -13.45% -14.63% -10.42% 0% -33.33% -13.83% -12.12% -45.00% 9.09% 60.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% -100% 100% 0%

1420 429 991 103 175 241 563 38 119 27 78 5 13 1 4 14 39

100% 100.00% 231.00% 24.01% 40.79% 56.18% 131.24% 8.86% 27.74% 6.29% 18.18% 1.17% 3.03% 0.23% 0.93% 3.26% 9.09%

1371 404 967 99 182 227 552 29 105 26 77 7 12 1 5 15 34

100% 100.00% 239.36% 24.50% 45.05% 56.19% 136.63% 7.18% 25.99% 6.44% 19.06% 1.73% 2.97% 0.25% 1.24% 3.71% 8.42%

Difference -49 -25 -24 -4 7 -14 -11 -9 -14 -1 -1 2 -1 0 1 1 -5

Ratio Change 0.00% 0.00% 8.35% 0.50% 4.26% 0.01% 5.40% -1.68% -1.75% 0.14% 0.88% 0.57% -0.06% 0.01% 0.31% 0.45% -0.68%

Net Change -3.45% -5.83% -2.42% -3.88% 4.00% -5.81% -1.95% -23.68% -11.76% -3.70% -1.28% 40.00% -7.69% 0.00% 25.00% 7.14% -12.82%

Two or More

Races

EMPLOYMENT TENURE

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic

or

Latino

Non-Hispanic or Latino

Prior FY

American or Other Pacific Indian or

Islander Alaska Native

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Current FY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A1: Total Workforce - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Current FY

TEMPORARY

Prior FY

Current FY

NON-APPROPRIATED

Prior FY

TOTAL

Prior FY

Current FY

CLF (2010)

PERMANENT
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

8556 6006 2550 360 146 4590 1490 671 706 204 116 34 14 111 37 36 41

 100% 70.20% 29.80% 4.21% 1.71% 53.65% 17.41% 7.84% 8.25% 2.38% 1.36% 0.40% 0.16% 1.30% 0.43% 0.42% 0.48%

51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.03% 5.49% 6.53% 1.97% 1.93% 0.07% 0.07% 0.55% 0.53% 0.26% 0.28%

1129 932 197 91 22 739 119 63 38 5 4 1 0 19 4 14 10

 100% 82.55% 17.45% 8.06% 1.95% 65.46% 10.54% 5.58% 3.37% 0.44% 0.35% 0.09% 0% 1.68% 0.35% 1.24% 0.89%

324 179 145 11 8 143 72 12 55 5 6 2 0 3 1 3 3

 100% 55.25% 44.75% 3.40% 2.47% 44.14% 22.22% 3.70% 16.98% 1.54% 1.85% 0.62% 0% 0.93% 0.31% 0.93% 0.93%

5280 3808 1472 152 59 2869 871 497 402 143 63 26 8 64 19 57 50

 100% 72.12% 27.88% 2.88% 1.12% 54.34% 16.50% 9.41% 7.61% 2.71% 1.19% 0.49% 0.15% 1.21% 0.36% 1.08% 0.95%

887 548 339 21 9 442 233 41 71 27 16 1 0 9 4 7 6

 100% 61.78% 38.22% 2.37% 1.01% 49.83% 26.27% 4.62% 8.00% 3.04% 1.80% 0.11% 0% 1.01% 0.45% 0.79% 0.68%

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

449 351 98 16 3 272 61 17 8 18 15 4 4 15 3 9 4

 100% 78.17% 21.83% 3.56% 0.67% 60.58% 13.59% 3.79% 1.78% 4.01% 3.34% 0.89% 0.89% 3.34% 0.67% 2.00% 0.89%

486 187 299 10 7 124 134 41 132 6 12 0 2 1 6 5 6

 100% 38.48% 61.52% 2.06% 1.44% 25.51% 27.57% 8.44% 27.16% 1.23% 2.47% 0% 0.41% 0.21% 1.23% 1.03% 1.23%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A2: Total Workforce By Component - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Non-Hispanic or Latino

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

or

White

Black or African

Asian

DEPUTY COMDT FOR OPERATIONS (CG-DCO)

9TH CG DISTRICT, CLEVELAND, OH

PACIFIC AREA (PACAREA)

ASST COMDT FOR RESOURCES-CFO (CG-8)/ 

DEPUTY CMDT (CG-8D)

TOTAL

CLF (2010)

ATLANTIC AREA (LANTAREA)

COMMANDANT (CG-00)

DEP COMDT FOR MISSION SUPPORT

Islander Alaska Native

ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Executive/Senior Level 238 182 56 5 4 151 38 17 11 4 1 0 0 4 1 1 1

(Grades 15 and Above) 100% 76.47% 23.53% 2.10% 1.68% 63.45% 15.97% 7.14% 4.62% 1.68% 0.42% 0% 0% 1.68% 0.42% 0.42% 0.42%

- Mid-Level 515 390 125 18 6 324 79 25 32 10 6 2 0 7 1 4 1

(Grades 13-14) 100% 75.73% 24.27% 3.50% 1.17% 62.91% 15.34% 4.85% 6.21% 1.94% 1.17% 0.39% 0% 1.36% 0.19% 0.78% 0.19%

- First Level 340 271 69 19 5 207 42 33 18 5 2 2 0 3 1 2 1

(Grades 12 and Below) 100% 79.71% 20.29% 5.59% 1.47% 60.88% 12.35% 9.71% 5.29% 1.47% 0.59% 0.59% 0% 0.88% 0.29% 0.59% 0.29%

2,957 1997 960 123 51 1513 519 232 319 59 38 13 6 49 7 8 20

 100% 67.53% 32.47% 4.16% 1.72% 51.17% 17.55% 7.85% 10.79% 2.00% 1.29% 0.44% 0.20% 1.66% 0.24% 0.27% 0.68%

Officials and Managers 4050 2840 1210 165 66 2195 678 307 380 78 47 17 6 63 10 15 23

Total 100% 70.12% 29.88% 4.07% 1.63% 54.20% 16.74% 7.58% 9.38% 1.93% 1.16% 0.42% 0.15% 1.56% 0.25% 0.37% 0.57%

1704 1151 553 72 32 877 368 98 102 76 37 3 1 18 7 7 6

 100% 67.55% 32.45% 4.23% 1.88% 51.47% 21.60% 5.75% 5.99% 4.46% 2.17% 0.18% 0.06% 1.06% 0.41% 0.41% 0.35%

223 204 19 8 2 175 12 15 4 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0

 100% 91.48% 8.52% 3.59% 0.90% 78.48% 5.38% 6.73% 1.79% 1.35% 0.45% 0.45% 0% 0.90% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5. Administrative 1107 401 706 41 44 252 387 79 208 17 31 1 7 8 19 3 10

Support Workers 100% 36.22% 63.78% 3.70% 3.97% 22.76% 34.96% 7.14% 18.79% 1.54% 2.80% 0.09% 0.63% 0.72% 1.72% 0.27% 0.90%

1091 1070 21 57 1 846 14 112 5 21 0 8 0 18 1 8 0

 100% 98.08% 1.92% 5.22% 0.09% 77.54% 1.28% 10.27% 0.46% 1.92% 0% 0.73% 0% 1.65% 0.09% 0.73% 0%

181 166 15 5 0 104 11 51 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 1

 100% 91.71% 8.29% 2.76% 0% 57.46% 6.08% 28.18% 1.66% 1.66% 0% 1.10% 0% 0% 0% 0.55% 0.55%

36 32 4 0 0 25 1 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 88.89% 11.11% 0% 0% 69.44% 2.78% 11.11% 8.33% 5.56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.78% 0%

158 139 19 12 1 113 17 5 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 1

 100% 87.97% 12.03% 7.59% 0.63% 71.52% 10.76% 3.16% 0% 2.53% 0% 1.27% 0% 1.27% 0% 0.63% 0.63%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A3-1: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Non-Hispanic or Latino

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

or

White

Black or African

Asian

6. Craft Workers

7. Operatives

8. Laborers and Helpers

9. Service Workers

1. Officials and Managers

- Other Officials and Managers

2. Professionals

3. Technicians

4. Sales Workers

Islander Alaska Native

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Executive/Senior Level 238 182 56 5 4 151 38 17 11 4 1 0 0 4 1 1 1

(Grades 15 and Above) 2.78% 3.03% 2.20% 1.39% 2.74% 3.29% 2.55% 2.53% 1.56% 1.96% 0.86% 0% 0% 3.60% 2.70% 2.78% 2.78%

- Mid-Level 515 390 125 18 6 324 79 25 32 10 6 2 0 7 1 4 1

(Grades 13-14) 6.02% 6.49% 4.90% 5.00% 4.11% 7.06% 5.30% 3.73% 4.53% 4.90% 5.17% 5.88% 0% 6.31% 2.70% 11.11% 2.78%

- First Level 340 271 69 19 5 207 42 33 18 5 2 2 0 3 1 2 1

(Grades 12 and Below) 3.97% 4.51% 2.71% 5.28% 3.42% 4.51% 2.82% 4.92% 2.55% 2.45% 1.72% 5.88% 0% 2.70% 2.70% 5.56% 2.44%

2,957 1997 960 123 51 1513 519 232 319 59 38 13 6 49 7 8 20

 34.56% 33.25% 37.65% 34.17% 34.93% 32.96% 34.83% 34.58% 45.18% 28.92% 32.76% 38.24% 42.86% 44.14% 18.92% 22.22% 48.78%

Officials and Managers 4050 2840 1210 165 66 2195 678 307 380 78 47 17 6 63 10 15 23

Total 47.34% 47.29% 47.45% 45.83% 45.21% 47.82% 45.50% 45.75% 53.82% 38.24% 40.52% 50.00% 42.86% 56.76% 27.03% 41.67% 56.10%

1704 1151 553 72 32 877 368 98 102 76 37 3 1 18 7 7 6

 19.92% 19.16% 21.69% 20.00% 21.92% 19.11% 24.70% 14.61% 14.45% 37.25% 31.90% 8.82% 7.14% 16.22% 18.92% 19.44% 14.63%

223 204 19 8 2 175 12 15 4 3 1 1 0 2 0 0 0

 2.61% 3.40% 0.75% 2.22% 1.37% 3.81% 0.81% 2.24% 0.57% 1.47% 0.86% 2.94% 0% 1.80% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.01% 0% 0.04% 0% 0% 0% 0.07% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5. Administrative 1107 401 706 41 44 252 387 79 208 17 31 1 7 8 19 3 10

Support Workers 12.94% 6.68% 27.69% 11.39% 30.14% 5.49% 25.97% 11.77% 29.46% 8.33% 26.72% 2.94% 50.00% 7.21% 51.35% 8.33% 24.39%

1091 1070 21 57 1 846 14 112 5 21 0 8 0 18 1 8 0

 12.75%% 17.82% 0.82% 15.83% 0.68% 18.43% 0.94% 16.69% 0.71% 10.29% 0% 23.53% 0% 16.22% 2.70% 22.22% 0%

181 166 15 5 0 104 11 51 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 1

 2.12% 2.76% 0.59% 1.39% 0% 2.27% 0.74% 7.60% 0.42% 1.47% 0% 5.88% 0% 0% 0% 2.78% 2.44%

36 32 4 0 0 25 1 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 0.42% 0.53% 0.16% 0% 0% 0.54% 0.07% 0.60% 0.42% 0.98% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.78% 0%

158 139 19 12 1 113 17 5 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 1

 1.85% 2.31% 0.75% 3.33% 0.68% 2.46% 1.14% 0.75% 0% 1.96% 0% 5.88% 0% 1.80% 0% 2.78% 2.44%

8556 6006 2550 360 146 4590 1490 671 706 204 116 34 14 111 37 36 41

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A3-2: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Non-Hispanic or Latino

6. Craft Workers

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

or

White

Black or African

Asian

4. Sales Workers

Islander

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic

1. Officials and Managers

- Other Officials and Managers 

2. Professionals

3. Technicians

Alaska Native

7. Operatives

8. Laborers and Helpers

9. Service Workers

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows
GS/GM,SES

and

Related Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 33.33% 0% 66.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0% 33.33% 33.33% 0% 0% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0% 0% 50.00% 50.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 4 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 80.00% 20.00% 0% 0% 40.00% 0% 20.00% 20.00% 0% 0% 20.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

11 8 3 0 0 8 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 72.73% 27.27% 0% 0% 72.73% 9.09% 0% 18.18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12 7 5 1 0 5 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 58.33% 41.67% 8.33% 0% 41.67% 16.67% 8.33% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 40.00% 60.00% 0% 0% 40.00% 60.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

All other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(unspecified GS) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule(GS) Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Temp)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

 SES 

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

GS-11

GS-12
GS/GM,SES

and

Related Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0% 0% 60.00% 40.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

34 13 21 4 0 5 16 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 38.24% 61.76% 11.76% 0% 14.71% 47.06% 8.82% 8.82% 2.94% 2.94% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.94%

148 71 77 8 7 40 45 18 21 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 1

 100% 47.97% 52.03% 5.41% 4.73% 27.03% 30.41% 12.16% 14.19% 2.70% 1.35% 0.68% 0% 0% 0.68% 0% 0.68%

199 84 115 13 15 49 63 13 28 4 3 0 1 4 3 1 2

 100% 42.21% 57.79% 6.53% 7.54% 24.62% 31.66% 6.53% 14.07% 2.01% 1.51% 0% 0.50% 2.01% 1.51% 0.50% 1.01%

645 252 393 20 21 171 208 45 116 10 22 0 4 4 15 2 7

 100% 39.07% 60.93% 3.10% 3.26% 26.51% 32.25% 6.98% 17.98% 1.55% 3.41% 0% 0.62% 0.62% 2.33% 0.31% 1.09%

161 62 99 6 6 44 45 9 39 1 5 1 2 0 1 1 1

 100% 38.51% 61.49% 3.73% 3.73% 27.33% 27.95% 5.59% 24.22% 0.62% 3.11% 0.62% 1.24% 0% 0.62% 0.62% 0.62%

602 328 274 24 12 247 169 39 79 11 6 2 2 4 2 1 4

 100% 54.49% 45.51% 3.99% 1.99% 41.03% 28.07% 6.48% 13.12% 1.83% 1.00% 0.33% 0.33% 0.66% 0.33% 0.17% 0.66%

18 5 13 0 0 5 5 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 27.78% 72.22% 0% 0% 27.78% 27.78% 0% 38.89% 0% 5.56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

943 674 269 51 19 506 170 75 60 16 11 5 2 21 0 0 7

 100% 71.47% 28.53% 5.41% 2.01% 53.66% 18.03% 7.95% 6.36% 1.70% 1.17% 0.53% 0.21% 2.23% 0% 0% 0.74%

1725 1237 488 89 32 944 296 114 122 50 24 6 1 28 6 6 7

 100% 71.71% 28.29% 5.16% 1.86% 54.72% 17.16% 6.61% 7.07% 2.90% 1.39% 0.35% 0.06% 1.62% 0.35% 0.35% 0.41%

1548 1095 453 52 17 860 264 100 130 53 27 6 2 18 6 6 7

 100% 70.74% 29.26% 3.36% 1.10% 55.56% 17.05% 6.46% 8.40% 3.42% 1.74% 0.39% 0.13% 1.16% 0.39% 0.39% 0.45%

773 549 224 17 9 447 127 47 72 21 13 1 0 10 1 6 2

 100% 71.02% 28.98% 2.20% 1.16% 57.83% 16.43% 6.08% 9.31% 2.72% 1.68% 0.13% 0% 1.29% 0.13% 0.78% 0.26%

241 180 61 8 4 147 41 16 13 4 1 0 0 3 1 2 1

 100% 74.69% 25.31% 3.32% 1.66% 61.00% 17.01% 6.64% 5.39% 1.66% 0.41% 0% 0% 1.24% 0.41% 0.83% 0.41%

All other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(unspecified GS) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

 20 14 6 0 1 12 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 100% 70.00% 30.00% 0% 5.00% 60.00% 20.00% 5.00% 5.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.00% 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule(GS) Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

SES

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

GS-11

GS-12
GS/GM,SES

and

Related Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.07% 0.07% 0.08% 0% 0% 0.09% 0.14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

34 13 21 4 0 5 16 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

 0.48% 0.28% 0.84% 1.37% 0% 0.14% 1.10% 0.63% 0.43% 0.57% 0.86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.50%

148 71 77 8 7 40 45 18 21 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 1

 2.10% 1.55% 3.09% 2.74% 4.90% 1.15% 3.09% 3.75% 3.04% 2.29% 1.72% 4.55% 0% 0% 2.78% 0% 2.50%

199 84 115 13 15 49 63 13 28 4 3 0 1 4 3 1 2

 2.82% 1.84% 4.61% 4.45% 10.49% 1.41% 4.33% 2.71% 4.05% 2.29% 2.59% 0% 7.14% 4.30% 8.33% 4.00% 5.00%

645 252 393 20 21 171 208 45 116 10 22 0 4 4 15 2 7

 9.13% 5.52% 15.75% 6.85% 14.69% 4.91% 14.30% 9.38% 16.79% 5.71% 18.97% 0% 28.57% 4.30% 41.67% 8.00% 17.50%

161 62 99 6 6 44 45 9 39 1 5 1 2 0 1 1 1

 2.28% 1.36% 3.97% 2.05% 4.20% 1.26% 3.09% 1.88% 5.64% 0.57% 4.31% 4.55% 14.29% 0% 2.78% 4.00% 2.50%

602 328 274 24 12 247 169 39 79 11 6 2 2 4 2 1 4

 8.52% 7.18% 10.98% 8.22% 8.39% 7.10% 11.62% 8.13% 11.43% 6.29% 5.17% 9.09% 14.29% 4.30% 5.56% 4.00% 10.00%

18 5 13 0 0 5 5 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.25% 0.11% 0.52% 0% 0% 0.14% 0.34% 0% 1.01% 0% 0.86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

943 674 269 51 19 506 170 75 60 16 11 5 2 21 0 0 7

 13.35% 14.76% 10.78% 17.47% 13.29% 14.54% 11.68% 15.63% 8.68% 9.14% 9.48% 22.73% 14.29% 22.58% 0% 0% 17.50%

1725 1237 488 89 32 944 296 114 122 50 24 6 1 28 6 6 7

 24.43% 27.09% 19.56% 30.48% 22.38% 27.13% 20.34% 23.75% 17.66% 28.57% 20.69% 27.27% 7.14% 30.11% 16.67% 24.00% 17.50%

1548 1095 453 52 17 860 264 100 130 53 27 6 2 18 6 6 7

 21.92% 23.98% 18.16% 17.81% 11.89% 24.71% 18.14% 20.83% 18.81% 30.29% 23.28% 27.27% 14.29% 19.35% 16.67% 24.00% 17.50%

773 549 224 17 9 447 127 47 72 21 13 1 0 10 1 6 2

 10.95% 12.02% 8.98% 5.82% 6.29% 12.84% 8.73% 9.79% 10.42% 12.00% 11.21% 4.55% 0% 10.75% 2.78% 24.00% 5.00%

241 180 61 8 4 147 41 16 13 4 1 0 0 3 1 2 1

 3.41% 3.94% 2.44% 2.74% 2.80% 4.22% 2.82% 3.33% 1.88% 2.29% 0.86% 0% 0% 3.23% 2.78% 8.00% 2.50%

All other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(unspecified GS) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

20 14 6 0 1 12 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 0.28% 0.31% 0.24% 0% 0.70% 0.34% 0.27% 0.21% 0.14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.08% 0% 0% 0%

7062 4567 2495 292 143 3480 1455 480 691 175 116 22 14 93 36 25 40

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule(GS) Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

GS-11

GS-12

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

 SES 

TOTAL
GS/GM,SES

and

Related Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 2.22% 0% 5.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 6.67% 0% 15.00% 0% 0% 0% 11.11% 0% 20.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 2.22% 4.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 6.67% 4.00% 10.00% 0% 100% 5.26% 0% 0% 10.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4.44% 4.00% 5.00% 0% 0% 5.26% 11.11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 2.22% 0% 5.00% 0% 0% 0% 11.11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 4 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 11.11% 16.00% 5.00% 0% 0% 10.53% 0% 33.33% 10.00% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

11 8 3 0 0 8 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 24.44% 32.00% 15.00% 0% 0% 42.11% 11.11% 0% 20.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12 7 5 1 0 5 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 26.67% 28.00% 25.00% 100% 0% 26.32% 22.22% 33.33% 30.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 11.11% 8.00% 15.00% 0% 0% 10.53% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 2.22% 4.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

All other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(unspecified GS) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

45 25 20 1 1 19 9 3 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule(GS) Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Temp)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

GS-11

GS-12

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

 SES 

TOTAL
WD/WG,WL/WS, and

Other Wage Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

12 9 3 0 0 5 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0% 0% 41.67% 0% 25.00% 25.00% 8.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 7 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 14.29% 0% 71.43% 0% 14.29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

25 23 2 0 0 16 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

 100% 92.00% 8.00% 0% 0% 64.00% 8.00% 20.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.00% 0% 4.00% 0%

3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 66.67% 0% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

107 102 5 5 0 70 3 23 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

 100% 95.33% 4.67% 4.67% 0% 65.42% 2.80% 21.50% 0.93% 0.93% 0% 0.93% 0% 0.93% 0.93% 0.93% 0%

66 59 7 2 0 33 5 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 89.39% 10.61% 3.03% 0% 50.00% 7.58% 33.33% 3.03% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.03% 0%

41 40 1 2 0 23 1 13 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 100% 97.56% 2.44% 4.88% 0% 56.10% 2.44% 31.71% 0% 2.44% 0% 0% 0% 2.44% 0% 0% 0%

169 167 2 11 1 126 1 17 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 2 0

 100% 98.82% 1.18% 6.51% 0.59% 74.56% 0.59% 10.06% 0% 4.14% 0% 1.18% 0% 1.18% 0% 1.18% 0%

166 163 3 8 0 125 2 24 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 1

 100% 98.19% 1.81% 4.82% 0% 75.30% 1.20% 14.46% 0% 1.20% 0% 1.81% 0% 0% 0% 0.60% 0.60%

643 625 18 34 0 496 11 62 7 15 0 3 0 11 0 4 0

 100% 97.20% 2.80% 5.29% 0% 77.14% 1.71% 9.64% 1.09% 2.33% 0% 0.47% 0% 1.71% 0% 0.62% 0%

151 149 2 3 0 127 2 14 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0

 100% 98.68% 1.32% 1.99% 0% 84.11% 1.32% 9.27% 0% 0.66% 0% 1.32% 0% 1.32% 0% 0% 0%

38 38 0 1 0 33 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 2.63% 0% 86.84% 0% 5.26% 0% 2.63% 0% 2.63% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 87.50% 0% 12.50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 87.50% 0% 12.50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

All other 4 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wage Grades 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 75.00% 0% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

WG-06

Islander

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-12
WD/WG,WL/WS, and

Other Wage Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

22 21 1 0 0 16 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 95.45% 4.55% 0% 0% 72.73% 4.55% 22.73% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 6 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 85.71% 14.29% 0% 0% 71.43% 14.29% 0% 0% 14.29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 87.50% 0% 12.50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

All other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wage Grades 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Temp)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

WG-06

Islander

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-12
WD/WG,WL/WS, and

Other Wage Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

12 9 3 0 0 5 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.82% 0.64% 6.98% 0% 0% 0.46% 0% 1.58% 23.08% 3.45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 7 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.48% 0.50% 0% 1.49% 0% 0.46% 0% 0.53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

25 23 2 0 0 16 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

 1.72% 1.63% 4.65% 0% 0% 1.47% 7.41% 2.63% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5.56% 0% 9.09% 0%

3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.21% 0.21% 0% 0% 0% 0.18% 0% 0.53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

107 102 5 5 0 70 3 23 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0

 7.34% 7.21% 11.63% 7.46% 0% 6.44% 11.11% 12.11% 7.69% 3.45% 0% 8.33% 0% 5.56% 100% 9.09% 0%

66 59 7 2 0 33 5 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

 4.53%% 4.17% 16.28% 2.99% 0% 3.04% 18.52% 11.58% 15.38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18.18% 0%

41 40 1 2 0 23 1 13 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 2.81% 2.83% 2.33% 2.99% 0% 2.12% 3.70% 6.84% 0% 3.45% 0% 0% 0% 5.56% 0% 0% 0%

169 167 2 11 1 126 1 17 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 2 0

 11.60% 11.81% 4.65% 16.42% 100% 11.59% 3.70% 8.95% 0% 24.14% 0% 16.67% 0% 11.11% 0% 18.18% 0%

166 163 3 8 0 125 2 24 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 1

 11.39% 11.53% 6.98% 11.94% 0% 11.50% 7.41% 12.63% 0% 6.90% 0% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 9.09% 100%

643 625 18 34 0 496 11 62 7 15 0 3 0 11 0 4 0

 44.13% 44.20% 41.86% 50.75% 0% 45.63% 40.74% 32.63% 53.85% 51.72% 0% 25.00% 0% 61.11% 0% 36.36% 0%

151 149 2 3 0 127 2 14 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0

 10.36% 10.54% 4.65% 4.48% 0% 11.68% 7.41% 7.37% 0% 3.45% 0% 16.67% 0% 11.11% 0% 0% 0%

38 38 0 1 0 33 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 2.61% 2.69% 0% 1.49% 0% 3.04% 0% 1.05% 0% 3.45% 0% 8.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.55% 0.57% 0% 0% 0% 0.64% 0% 0.53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.55% 0.57% 0% 0% 0% 0.64% 0% 0.53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.62% 0.64% 0% 0% 0% 0.83% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

All other 4 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wage Grades 0.27% 0.28% 0% 0% 0% 0.28% 0% 0.53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1457 1414 43 67 1 1087 27 190 13 29 0 12 0 18 1 11 1

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-2: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

Islander Alaska Native

WG-12

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows
WD/WG,WL/WS, and

Other Wage Grades

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

22 21 1 0 0 16 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 6 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

All other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wage Grades 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-2: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Temp)

Year = FY 2018

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

Islander Alaska Native

WG-12

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

454 342 112 14 4 249 61 46 26 21 18 1 0 6 3 5 0

 100% 75.33% 24.67% 3.08% 0.88% 54.85% 13.44% 10.13% 5.73% 4.63% 3.96% 0.22% 0% 1.32% 0.66% 1.10% 0%

381 142 239 6 9 85 128 39 87 9 11 0 0 1 1 2 3

 100% 37.27% 62.73% 1.57% 2.36% 22.31% 33.60% 10.24% 22.83% 2.36% 2.89% 0% 0% 0.26% 0.26% 0.52% 0.79%

331 299 32 19 2 247 25 13 3 7 1 1 0 12 1 0 0

 100% 90.33% 9.67% 5.74% 0.60% 74.62% 7.55% 3.93% 0.91% 2.11% 0.30% 0.30% 0% 3.63% 0.30% 0% 0%

294 231 63 13 1 182 32 23 25 5 1 2 2 6 0 0 2

 100% 78.57% 21.43% 4.42% 0.34% 61.90% 10.88% 7.82% 8.50% 1.70% 0.34% 0.68% 0.68% 2.04% 0% 0% 0.68%

159 132 27 9 2 107 20 8 1 5 2 0 0 2 2 1 0

 100% 83.02% 16.98% 5.66% 1.26% 67.30% 12.58% 5.03% 0.63% 3.14% 1.26% 0% 0% 1.26% 1.26% 0.63% 0%

159 146 13 12 1 120 11 11 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

 100% 91.82% 8.18% 7.55% 0.63% 75.47% 6.92% 6.92% 0.63% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.89% 0% 0% 0%

138 49 89 6 1 40 66 3 18 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 35.51% 64.49% 4.35% 0.72% 28.99% 47.83% 2.17% 13.04% 0% 2.17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.72%

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2018 Occ Ser = 0080- SECUR ADM or 0132- INTELLIGENCE or 0963- LEGAL INSTRUMENTS EXAMINING or 1102- CONTRACTING or 1801- GEN. INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION

Non-Hispanic or Latino

American Two or More

WORKFORCE Hispanic

Races

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Islander Alaska Native

1801 - GENERAL INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION 

and COMPLIANCE

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or

Major Occupations

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

2210 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

MANAGEMENT

Occupational CLF

1102 - CONTRACTING

Occupational CLF

Native Hawaiian

Occupational CLF

0963 - LEGAL INSTRUMENTS EXAMINING

Occupational CLF

Occupational CLF

0080 - SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Occupational CLF

0132 - INTELLIGENCE

Occupational CLF

2150 - TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Received # 3685

# 3090 2278 812 280 75 1308 348 478 342 78 21 29 6 45 5 60 15

% 100% 73.72% 26.28% 9.06% 2.43% 42.33% 11.26% 15.47% 11.07% 2.52% .68% .94% .19% 1.46% .16% 1.94% .49%

# 1698 1186 512 128 50 695 205 262 227 38 14 18 1 23 5 22 10

% 100% 69.85% 30.15% 7.54% 2.94% 40.93% 12.07% 15.43% 13.37% 2.24% .82% 1.06% .06% 1.35% .29% 1.30% .59%

# 18 15 3 2 0 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 83.33% 16.67% 11.11% .00% 50.00% 16.67% 22.22% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00%

36.71% 63.29% 2.86% 5.87% 27.06% 43.84% 3.60% 8.89% 2.57% 3.64% .03% .05% .33% .62% .26% .39%

Total Received # 2858

# 2342 1841 501 296 62 1152 309 209 84 121 28 9 0 29 7 25 11

% 100% 78.61% 21.39% 12.64% 2.65% 49.19% 13.19% 8.92% 3.59% 5.17% 1.20% .38% .00% 1.24% .30% 1.07% .47%

# 1717 1363 354 227 44 851 222 148 56 89 18 7 0 22 7 19 7

% 100% 79.38% 20.62% 13.22% 2.56% 49.56% 12.93% 8.62% 3.26% 5.18% 1.05% .41% .00% 1.28% .41% 1.11% .41%

# 23 20 3 5 1 13 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 86.96% 13.04% 21.74% 4.35% 56.52% 4.35% 4.35% 4.35% .00% .00% .00% .00% 4.35% .00% .00% .00%

48.02% 51.97% 2.81% 3.36% 38.77% 40.68% 4.16% 4.59% 1.52% 2.30% .04% .02% .43% .73% .28% .30%

Total Received # 2048

# 1791 743 1048 78 104 452 618 134 235 54 58 4 8 13 6 8 19

% 100% 41.49% 58.51% 4.36% 5.81% 25.24% 34.51% 7.48% 13.12% 3.02% 3.24% .22% .45% .73% .34% .45% 1.06%

# 957 338 619 25 48 241 443 48 99 14 17 0 3 4 3 6 6

% 100% 35.32% 64.68% 2.61% 5.02% 25.18% 46.29% 5.02% 10.34% 1.46% 1.78% .00% .31% .42% .31% .63% .63%

# 16 5 11 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 31.25% 68.75% .00% .00% 31.25% 68.75% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00%

25.90% 74.10% 2.00% 7.30% 19.20% 55.70% 2.60% 7.30% 1.50% 2.10% .00% .10% .20% .60% .30% .70%

Table A7: APPLICANTS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Total RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non- Hispanic or Latino

White Black or African

American

Asian Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacific

Islander

Qualified of those Identified

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

Job Title/Series: 0080 Security Administration

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those Identified

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Job Title/Series: 0132 Intelligence

Voluntarily Identified

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Job Title/Series: 0963 Legal Instruments Examiner

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those Identified

Selected of those Identified

CLF
Total Received # 18279

# 15289 7763 7526 1136 808 3486 2379 2510 3592 420 486 40 17 66 63 105 181

% 100% 50.78% 49.22% 7.43% 5.28% 22.80% 15.56% 16.42% 23.49% 2.75% 3.18% .26% .11% .43% .41% .69% 1.18%

# 8457 4199 4258 517 394 1961 1418 1355 2018 233 296 23 9 41 29 69 94

% 100% 49.65% 50.35% 6.11% 4.66% 23.19% 16.77% 16.02% 23.86% 2.76% 3.50% .27% .11% .48% .34% .82% 1.11%

# 86 42 44 1 4 27 20 10 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

% 100% 48.84% 51.16% 1.16% 4.65% 31.40% 23.26% 11.63% 19.77% 3.49% 1.16% .00% .00% .00% .00% 1.16% 2.33%

46.24% 53.76% 3.29% 3.80% 38.09% 41.87% 3.01% 5.47% 1.38% 1.77% .02% .12% .34% .48% .11% .26%

Total Received # 2480

# 2078 1818 260 336 34 1125 134 199 69 78 11 7 1 32 7 41 4

% 100% 87.49% 12.51% 16.17% 1.64% 54.14% 6.45% 9.58% 3.32% 3.75% .53% .34% .05% 1.54% .34% 1.97% .19%

# 1312 1138 174 193 21 719 94 120 47 48 5 5 0 23 5 30 2

% 100% 86.74% 13.26% 14.71% 1.60% 54.80% 7.16% 9.15% 3.58% 3.66% .38% .38% .00% 1.75% .38% 2.29% .15%

# 23 17 6 3 0 12 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 73.91% 26.09% 13.04% .00% 52.17% 26.09% .00% .00% 4.35% .00% .00% .00% 4.35% .00% .00% .00%

53.57% 46.43% 4.37% 4.33% 41.05% 32.18% 4.26% 6.89% 2.89% 2.11% .05% .10% .63% .52% .31% .30%

Total Received # 437

# 358 298 60 40 2 191 43 45 11 11 0 1 0 4 3 6 1

% 100% 83.24% 16.76% 11.17% .56% 53.35% 12.01% 12.57% 3.07% 3.07% .00% .28% .00% 1.12% .84% 1.68% .28%

# 222 184 38 23 2 122 26 29 9 4 0 1 0 3 1 2 0

% 100% 82.88% 17.12% 10.36% .90% 54.95% 11.71% 13.06% 4.05% 1.80% .00% .45% .00% 1.35% .45% .90% .00%

# 7 6 1 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 85.71% 14.29% 42.86% .00% 28.57% .00% 14.29% 14.29% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00%

36.70% 63.30% 2.80% 5.80% 27.10% 43.80% 3.60% 8.80% 2.40% 3.20% .00% .10% .20% .40% .40% .70%

Total Received # 5307

# 4291 3358 933 352 83 1386 263 1054 432 471 120 12 0 43 6 40 29

% 100% 78.26% 21.74% 8.20% 1.93% 32.30% 6.13% 24.56% 10.07% 10.98% 2.80% .28% .00% 1.00% .14% .93% .68%

# 2798 2210 588 228 53 928 173 674 277 310 65 11 0 32 5 27 15

% 100% 78.98% 21.02% 8.15% 1.89% 33.17% 6.18% 24.09% 9.90% 11.08% 2.32% .39% .00% 1.14% .18% .96% .54%

# 32 23 9 0 1 17 4 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 71.88% 28.13% .00% 3.13% 53.13% 12.50% 12.50% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00%

70.36% 29.64% 5.39% 2.17% 52.21% 20.89% 6.61% 4.50% 5.14% 1.55% .10% .05% .53% .29% .38% .18%

Qualified of those Identified

Job Title/Series: 1102 Contracting

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those Identified

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Job Title/Series: 1801 Vessel Safety

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those Identified

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Job Title/Series: 2150 Vessel Traffic Control Specialist

Voluntarily Identified

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Job Title/Series: 2210 Information Technology Specialist

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those Identified
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

875 574 301 25 24 404 165 89 81 37 15 4 3 9 6 6 7

 100% 65.60% 34.40% 2.86% 2.74% 46.17% 18.86% 10.17% 9.26% 4.23% 1.71% 0.46% 0.34% 1.03% 0.69% 0.69% 0.80%

91 66 25 3 1 49 13 10 11 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 72.53% 27.47% 3.30% 1.10% 53.85% 14.29% 10.99% 12.09% 3.30% 0% 1.10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

NON- 447 125 322 23 54 71 187 11 36 8 21 3 4 2 9 18

APPROPRIATED 100% 27.96% 72.04% 5.15% 12.08% 15.88% 41.83% 2.46% 8.05% 1.79% 4.70% 0.67% 0.89% 0.00% 0.45% 2.01% 4.03%

51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.03% 5.49% 6.53% 1.97% 1.93% 0.07% 0.07% 0.55% 0.53% 0.26% 0.28%

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A8: New Hires By Type of Appointment - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

Islander Alaska Native

or

White

Black or African

Asian

PERMANENT

TEMPORARY

CLF (2010)

Latino American

TYPE OF APPOINTMENT

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Applications Received # 14 12 2 0 0 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 8 7 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 87.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3.00% 0.73% 0.12% 0.01% 2.13% 0.47% 0.25% 0.38% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.08% 0.03%

Total Applications Received # 15 8 7 1 0 4 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

# 12 6 6 1 0 4 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 8.33% 0.00% 33.33% 8.33% 8.33% 25.00% 0.00% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33%

# 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1.63% 2.73% 0.06% 0.04% 1.07% 1.58% 0.45% 1.00% 0.09% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 0.10%

Total Applications Received # 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3.43% 0.37% 0.10% 0.00% 3.11% 0.39% 0.13% 0.03% 0.07% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.13% 0.01%

Total Applications Received # 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

# 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

4.00% 1.30% 0.03% 0.01% 3.00% 0.70% 0.53% 0.31% 0.23% 0.16% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.03% 0.14% 0.05%

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Total RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non- Hispanic or Latino

White Black or African

American

Asian Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacific

Islander

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

Job Series of Vacancy: 0080 Security Administration

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Job Series of Vacancy: 1102 Contracting

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Job Series of Vacancy: 1801 General Inspection, Investigation, and Compliance

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Job Series of Vacancy: 2210 Information Technology Specialist

Qualified

Selected
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Employees

Eligible for Career

Ladder Promotions 100% 50.49% 49.51% 1.62% 2.59% 31.39% 25.24% 10.03% 16.50% 3.56% 1.94% 0% 0% 1.94% 0.65% 1.94% 2.59%

41 24 17 1 1 10 4 11 11 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

 100% 58.54% 41.46% 2.44% 2.44% 24.39% 9.76% 26.83% 26.83% 2.44% 2.44% 0% 0% 2.44% 0% 0% 0%

10 6 4 0 0 6 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0% 0% 60.00% 20.00% 0% 10.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10.00%

31 15 16 1 1 9 11 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 48.39% 51.61% 3.23% 3.23% 29.03% 35.48% 3.23% 12.90% 6.45% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.45% 0%

American Two or More

Latino American

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A10: NON-COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS - TIME IN GRADE - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Non-Hispanic or Latino

TYPE OF APPOINTMENT

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

309 156 153 5 8 97 78 31 51

Islander Alaska Native

25+ months

11 6 0 0 6 8

Time in grade in excess of minimum

1 - 12 months

13 - 24 months

6 2
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

# 18 14 4 0 0 10 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 77.78% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 55.56% 5.56% 11.11% 5.56% 11.11% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 13 10 3 0 0 8 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 76.92% 23.08% 0.00% 0.00% 61.54% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 4 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

14.73% 5.60% 0.31% 0.13% 11.30% 3.40% 1.26% 1.40% 0.54% 0.23% 0.08% 0.01% 0.06% 0.01% 0.45% 0.25%

# 15 12 3 0 0 11 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 73.33% 13.33% 6.67% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 10 9 1 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 90.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 10.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

13.00% 5.23% 0.12% 0.05% 10.04% 3.04% 1.20% 1.49% 0.48% 0.24% 0.08% 0.02% 0.07% 0.05% 0.33% 0.20%

# 12 9 3 0 0 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1

% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33%

# 9 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 44.44% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11%

# 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

6.40% 3.00% 0.05% 0.01% 5.21% 1.46% 0.52% 0.82% 0.22% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.23% 0.09%

# 95 36 11 4 0 27 8 5 3 4 1 1 0 2 2 3 2

% 100% 37.89% 11.58% 4.21% 0.00% 28.42% 8.42% 5.26% 3.16% 4.21% 1.05% 1.05% 0.00% 2.11% 2.11% 3.16% 2.11%

# 11 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1

% 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 44.44% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11%

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2.20% 0.70% 0.04% 0.00% 1.78% 0.45% 0.17% 0.17% 0.05% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.08% 0.01%

Table A11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS (GS 13/14, GS 15, and SES) by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Total RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic or 

Latino

Non- Hispanic or Latino

White Black or African

American

Asian Native

Hawaiian or

Other Pacific

Islander

Relevant Applicant Pool %

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Two or More 

Races

13

Total Applications Received

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

14

Total Applications Received

Qualified

Selected

Total Applications Received

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

15

Total Applications Received

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

SES
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Time-Off 493 359 134 23 4 280 83 40 39 10 5 3 1 2 0 1 2

Awards Given 100% 72.82% 27.18% 4.67% 0.81% 56.80% 16.84% 8.11% 7.91% 2.03% 1.01% 0.61% 0.20% 0.41% 0% 0.20% 0.41%

Total Hours 3545 2544 1001 180 20 1990 630 268 293 67 40 18 8 17 0 4 10

Average Hours 7 7 7 8 5 7 8 7 8 7 8 6 8 9 0 4 5

Total Time-Off 3503 2349 1154 153 57 1821 733 237 271 61 49 14 10 50 18 13 16

Awards Given 100% 67.06% 32.94% 4.37% 1.63% 51.98% 20.92% 6.77% 7.74% 1.74% 1.40% 0.40% 0.29% 1.43% 0.51% 0.37% 0.46%

Total Hours 110122 74030 36092 4535 1685 58618 23835 6714 7542 1764 1572 560 340 1529 577 310 541

Average Hours 31 32 31 30 30 32 33 28 28 29 32 40 34 31 32 24 34

Total Cash Awards 2558 1784 774 113 35 1358 462 203 212 62 36 8 7 31 8 9 14

Given 100% 69.74% 30.26% 4.42% 1.37% 53.09% 18.06% 7.94% 8.29% 2.42% 1.41% 0.31% 0.27% 1.21% 0.31% 0.35% 0.55%

Total Amount 775541 542093 233448 32966 9130 412366 140691 62324 63120 19422 11676 2750 1950 9665 2750 2600 4131

Average Amount 303 304 302 292 261 304 305 307 298 313 324 344 279 312 344 289 295

Total Cash Awards 4887 3521 1366 199 76 2725 770 380 410 116 64 19 3 63 17 19 26

Given 100% 72.05% 27.95% 4.07% 1.56% 55.76% 15.76% 7.78% 8.39% 2.37% 1.31% 0.39% 0.06% 1.29% 0.35% 0.39% 0.53%

Total Amount 9654093 7061292 2592801 399592 137207 5473873 1466779 714387 782943 250354 127847 36734 4458 144621 30791 41731 42776

Average Amount 1975 2005 1898 2008 1805 2009 1905 1880 1910 2158 1998 1933 1486 2296 1811 2196 1645

251 169 82 9 7 140 54 9 15 8 4 0 0 3 1 0 1

 100% 67.33% 32.67% 3.59% 2.79% 55.78% 21.51% 3.59% 5.98% 3.19% 1.59% 0% 0% 1.20% 0.40% 0% 0.40%

Total Benefit 561880 378156 183724 18491 13787 321171 122394 17411 34318 15648 9051 0 0 5435 1195 0 2979

Average Benefit 2239 2238 2241 2055 1970 2294 2267 1935 2288 1956 2263 0 0 1812 1195 0 2979

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A13: Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Non-Hispanic or Latino

American Two or More

WORKFORCE Hispanic

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Total QSI's Awarded

TIME-OFF AWARDS - 1-9 HOURS

TIME-OFF AWARDS - 9+ HOURS

CASH AWARDS - $100 - $500

CASH AWARDS - $500+

QUALITY STEP INCREASES (QSI)

Islander Alaska Native

Type of Award

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

Native Hawaiian
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

670 431 239 22 15 316 145 63 62 17 8 2 1 9 3 2 5

 100% 64.33% 35.67% 3.28% 2.24% 47.16% 21.64% 9.40% 9.25% 2.54% 1.19% 0.30% 0.15% 1.34% 0.45% 0.30% 0.75%

34 26 8 1 2 15 3 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 76.47% 23.53% 2.94% 5.88% 44.12% 8.82% 26.47% 8.82% 2.94% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

704 457 247 23 17 331 148 72 65 18 8 2 1 9 3 2 5

 100% 64.91% 35.09% 3.27% 2.41% 47.02% 21.02% 10.23% 9.23% 2.56% 1.14% 0.28% 0.14% 1.28% 0.43% 0.28% 0.71%

8556 6006 2550 360 146 4590 1490 671 706 204 116 34 14 111 37 36 41

 100% 70.20% 29.80% 4.21% 1.71% 53.65% 17.41% 7.84% 8.25% 2.38% 1.36% 0.40% 0.16% 1.30% 0.43% 0.42% 0.48%

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A14: Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2018

Non-Hispanic or Latino

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

or

White

Black or African

Asian

WORKFORCE Hispanic

Latino American

VOLUNTARY

INVOLUNTARY

TOTAL SEPARATIONS 

TOTAL WORKFORCE

Islander Alaska Native

TYPE OF SEPARATION

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

Native Hawaiian American Two or More
Tables: B 
# 8489 6427 464 1598 337 0 3 179 24 3 18 48 12 2 40 4 4

% 100% 75.71% 5.47% 18.82% 3.97% 0% 0.04% 2.11% 0.28% 0.04% 0.21% 0.57% 0.14% 0.02% 0.47% 0.05% 0.05%

# 8704 6578 504 1622 329 0 4 175 23 3 16 47 9 2 42 4 4

% 100% 75.57% 5.79% 18.64% 3.78% 0% 0.05% 2.01% 0.26% 0.03% 0.18% 0.54% 0.10% 0.02% 0.48% 0.05% 0.05%

Difference # 215 151 40 24 -8 0 1 -4 -1 0 -2 -1 -3 0 2 0 0

Ratio Change % 0% -0.14% 0.32% -0.19% -0.19% 0% 0.01% -0.10% -0.02% 0% -0.03% -0.03% -0.04% 0% 0.01% 0% 0%

Net Change % 2.53% 2.35% 8.62% 1.50% -2.37% 0.00% 33.33% -2.23% -4.17% 0.00% -11.11% -2.08% -25.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Federal Goal % 2.00%

#

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Difference # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ratio Change % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Net Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 8318 6282 460 1576 334 0 3 177 24 3 18 47 12 2 40 4 4

% 100% 75.52% 5.53% 18.95% 4.02% 0% 0.04% 2.13% 0.29% 0.04% 0.22% 0.57% 0.14% 0.02% 0.48% 0.05% 0.05%

# 8556 6452 500 1604 327 0 4 174 23 3 16 46 9 2 42 4 4

% 100% 75.41% 5.84% 18.75% 3.82% 0% 0.05% 2.03% 0.27% 0.04% 0.19% 0.54% 0.11% 0.02% 0.49% 0.05% 0.05%

Difference # 238 170 40 28 -7 0 1 -3 -1 0 -2 -1 -3 0 2 0 0

Ratio Change % 0% -0.11% 0.31% -0.20% -0.19% 0% 0.01% -0.09% -0.02% 0% -0.03% -0.03% -0.04% 0% 0.01% 0% 0%

Net Change % 2.86% 2.71% 8.70% 1.78% -2.10% 0% 33.33% -1.69% -4.17% 0% -11.11% -2.13% -25.00% 0% 5.00% 0% 0%

# 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1,371 1,315 23 33 5 1 2 2

% 100% 95.92% 1.68% 2.41% 0.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00%

Difference # 1,371 1,315 23 33 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

Ratio Change % 0% 96% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Net Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Prior FY

Current FY 

PERMANENT

Table B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes] 

Employment 

Tenure

TOTAL

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Development

al Disability 

[02]

TOTAL

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing 

[19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing [20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Prior FY

Current FY

Prior FY

Current FY

Prior FY

Current FY

NON-APPROPRIATED

TEMPORARY
# 8556 6452 500 1604 327 0 4 174 23 3 16 46 9 2 42 4 4

%

 100% 75.41% 5.84% 18.75% 3.82% 0% 0.05% 2.03% 0.27% 0.04% 0.19% 0.54% 0.11% 0.02% 0.49% 0.05% 0.05%

# 1129 846 61 222 42 0 2 20 3 0 2 7 2 1 4 1 0

% 100% 74.93% 5.40% 19.66% 3.72% 0.00% 0.18% 1.77% 0.27% 0.00% 0.18% 0.62% 0.18% 0.09% 0.35% 0.09% 0.00%

# 324 253 27 44 17 0 0 8 1 0 2 2 1 0 3 0 0

% 100% 78.09% 8.33% 13.58% 5.25% 0.00% 0.00% 2.47% 0.31% 0.00% 0.62% 0.62% 0.31% 0.00% 0.93% 0.00% 0.00%

# 5280 3973 313 994 192 0 2 110 14 2 6 30 3 0 20 3 2

% 100% 75.25% 5.93% 18.83% 3.64% 0.00% 0.04% 2.08% 0.27% 0.04% 0.11% 0.57% 0.06% 0.00% 0.38% 0.06% 0.04%

# 887 680 48 159 40 0 0 20 3 1 3 3 0 1 7 0 2

% 100% 76.66% 5.41% 17.93% 4.51% 0.00% 0.00% 2.25% 0.34% 0.11% 0.34% 0.34% 0.00% 0.11% 0.79% 0.00% 0.23%

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 449 315 32 102 18 0 0 10 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 0

% 100% 70.16% 7.13% 22.72% 4.01% 0.00% 0.00% 2.23% 0.22% 0.00% 0.22% 0.22% 0.45% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00% 0.00%

# 486 384 19 83 18 0 0 6 1 0 2 3 1 0 5 0 0

% 100% 79.01% 3.91% 17.08% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00% 1.23% 0.21% 0.00% 0.41% 0.62% 0.21% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00%

Table B2: TOTAL WORKFORCE BY COMPONENT - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes]

Employment Tenure TOTAL

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 

06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02]

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Total Work Force 

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing 

[19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

PACIFIC AREA (PACAREA)

Federal Goal 2.00%

ATLANTIC AREA (LANTAREA)

COMMANDANT (CG-00)

DEP COMDT FOR MISSION SUPPORT

DEPUTY COMDT FOR OPERATIONS (CG-DCO)

9TH CG DISTRICT, CLEVELAND, OH

ASST COMDT FOR RESOURCES-CFO (CG-8)/ DEPUTY CMDT 

(CG-8D)
#

212 165 12 35 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 77.83% 5.66% 16.51% 2.36% 0.00% 0.00% 2.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 

515 391 36 88 20 0 0 13 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0

% 100% 75.92% 6.99% 17.09% 3.88% 0.00% 0.00% 2.52% 0.39% 0.00% 0.19% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 0.19% 0.00%

# 

340 260 21 59 11 0 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

% 100% 76.47% 6.18% 17.35% 3.24% 0.00% 0.00% 2.06% 0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.29% 0.00%

# 

2,957 2138 207 612 121 0 2 74 5 1 5 13 5 1 12 2 1

% 100% 72.30% 7.00% 20.70% 4.09% 0.00% 0.07% 2.50% 0.17% 0.03% 0.17% 0.44% 0.17% 0.03% 0.41% 0.07% 0.03%

# 

4024 2954 276 794 157 0 2 99 8 1 6 15 5 1 15 4 1

% 100% 73.41% 6.86% 19.73% 3.90% 0.00% 0.05% 2.46% 0.20% 0.02% 0.15% 0.37% 0.12% 0.02% 0.37% 0.10% 0.02%

# 

1704 1289 94 321 71 0 2 26 8 1 7 15 1 1 10 0 0

% 100% 75.65% 5.52% 18.84% 4.17% 0.00% 0.12% 1.53% 0.47% 0.06% 0.41% 0.88% 0.06% 0.06% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00%

# 

223 154 14 55 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 69.06% 6.28% 24.66% 1.79% 0.00% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 

1107 800 64 243 58 0 0 19 5 0 3 13 3 0 14 0 1

% 100% 72.27% 5.78% 21.95% 5.24% 0.00% 0.00% 1.72% 0.45% 0.00% 0.27% 1.17% 0.27% 0.00% 1.26% 0.00% 0.09%

# 

1091 911 37 143 31 0 0 24 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2

% 100% 83.50% 3.39% 13.11% 2.84% 0.00% 0.00% 2.20% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.18%

# 

181 157 5 19 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 86.74% 2.76% 10.50% 1.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.55% 0.00% 0.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 

36 29 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100% 80.56% 2.78% 16.67% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00%

# 

158 134 6 18 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 84.81% 3.80% 11.39% 1.90% 0.00% 0.00% 1.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Table B3: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES - Distribution by Disability Employees 

Occupational Category Total 

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 

06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02]

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

9. Service Workers

- Mid-Level (Grades 13-

14) 

- First-Level (Grades 12 

and Below) 

- Other Officials and 

Managers 

Officials and Managers - 

TOTAL

2. Professionals

3. Technicians

4. Sales Workers

5. Administrative 

Support Workers

6. Craft Workers

7. Operatives

8. Labors and Helpers

1. Officials and Managers -

Executive/Senior Level (Grades 

15 and Above

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing 

[19]
# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 34 20 4 10 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100% 100% 20.00% 50.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 148 100 7 41 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0

% 100% 100% 7.00% 41.00% 9.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 199 134 15 50 12 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 1 0 3 0 0

% 100% 100% 11.19% 37.31% 8.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.49% 0.00% 0.75% 3.73% 0.75% 0.00% 2.24% 0.00% 0.00%

# 645 472 28 145 32 0 0 13 3 0 2 5 2 0 7 0 0

% 100% 100% 5.93% 30.72% 6.78% 0.00% 0.00% 2.75% 0.64% 0.00% 0.42% 1.06% 0.42% 0.00% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00%

# 161 123 9 29 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 7.32% 23.58% 4.07% 0.00% 0.00% 2.44% 0.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 602 447 37 118 20 0 2 9 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 0 1

% 100% 100% 8.28% 26.40% 4.47% 0.00% 0.45% 2.01% 0.22% 0.22% 0.22% 0.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 0.22%

# 18 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 943 667 65 211 43 0 1 23 1 0 2 5 2 0 8 0 1

% 100% 100% 9.75% 31.63% 6.45% 0.00% 0.15% 3.45% 0.15% 0.00% 0.30% 0.75% 0.30% 0.00% 1.20% 0.00% 0.15%

# 1725 1267 111 347 64 0 1 36 4 0 0 13 4 1 4 1 0

% 100% 100% 8.76% 27.39% 5.05% 0.00% 0.08% 2.84% 0.32% 0.00% 0.00% 1.03% 0.32% 0.08% 0.32% 0.08% 0.00%

# 1548 1167 101 280 60 0 0 30 4 0 8 9 0 1 7 1 0

% 100% 100% 8.65% 23.99% 5.14% 0.00% 0.00% 2.57% 0.34% 0.00% 0.69% 0.77% 0.00% 0.09% 0.60% 0.09% 0.00%

# 773 581 55 137 35 0 0 21 4 1 2 2 0 0 4 1 0

% 100% 100% 9.47% 23.58% 6.02% 0.00% 0.00% 3.61% 0.69% 0.17% 0.34% 0.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.69% 0.17% 0.00%

# 241 188 15 38 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 7.98% 20.21% 2.66% 0.00% 0.00% 2.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 20 15 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

# 7062 5203 447 1412 287 0 4 145 20 2 16 45 9 2 39 3 2

% 100% 100.00% 8.59% 27.14% 5.52% 0.00% 0.08% 2.79% 0.38% 0.04% 0.31% 0.86% 0.17% 0.04% 0.75% 0.06% 0.04%

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Table B4: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR GENERAL SCHEDULE (GS) GRADES by Disability

GS/GM, SES, and 

Related Grade

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02]

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

GS - 13

GS - 02

GS - 03

GS - 04

GS - 05

GS - 06

GS - 07

GS - 08

GS- 09

GS - 10

GS - 11

GS - 12

GS - 01

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing 

[19]

GS - 14

GS - 15

All Other (EX)

SES

Total 

Workforce
# 12 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 7 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 57.14% 14.29% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 25 21 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100% 84.00% 0.00% 16.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 107 86 5 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

% 100% 80.37% 4.67% 14.95% 1.87% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.93% 0.00% 0.93%

# 66 54 2 10 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 81.82% 3.03% 15.15% 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 41 32 1 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 78.05% 2.44% 19.51% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 169 136 8 25 7 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

% 100% 80.47% 4.73% 14.79% 4.14% 0.00% 0.00% 2.37% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00%

# 166 144 4 18 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

% 100% 86.75% 2.41% 10.84% 3.01% 0.00% 0.00% 1.81% 0.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00%

# 643 551 18 74 17 0 0 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 85.69% 2.80% 11.51% 2.64% 0.00% 0.00% 2.49% 0.00% 0.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 151 118 6 27 6 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 78.15% 3.97% 17.88% 3.97% 0.00% 0.00% 2.65% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.66%

# 38 31 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 81.58% 10.53% 7.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 8 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 75.00% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 9 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 88.89% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table B5: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR WAGE GRADES by Disability

WD/WG, WL/WS Other 

Wage Grades 

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis [60]

Grade - 07

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability [90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Grade - 02

Grade - 03

Grade - 04

Grade - 05

Grade - 06

Grade - 01

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing [20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Grade - 14

Grade - 15

All Other Wage 

Grades

Grade - 08

Grade - 09

Grade - 10

Grade - 11

Grade - 12

Grade - 13
# 203 28 63 9 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 116 7 36 5 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 121 2 15 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 310 22 49 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 244 24 63 10 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 129 7 23 7 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 322 24 108 21 0 0 7 4 0 1 5 1 0 3 0 0

% 100%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table B6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Disability

Job Title/Series Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

2210 - INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

MANAGEMENT

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

0132 - INTELLIGENCE

0963 - LEGAL 

INSTRUMENTS 

EXAMINING

1102 - CONTRACTING

1801 - GENERAL 

INSPECTION, 

INVESTIGATION and 

COMPLIANCE

2150 - TRANSPORTATION 

OPERATIONS

0080 - SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing [20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]
#

2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

35092 22771 9825 2496 1160 26 170 118 49 24 110 74 91 18 672 3 24

% 64.89% 28.00% 7.11% 3.31% 0.07% 0.48% 0.34% 0.14% 0.07% 0.31% 0.21% 0.26% 0.05% 1.91% 0.01% 0.07%

#

175 105 62 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 60.00% 35.43% 4.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Received #

#

3685 2371 999 315 126 0 36 12 1 2 12 6 6 1 79 0 5

% 64.34% 27.11% 8.55% 3.42% 0.00% 0.98% 0.33% 0.03% 0.05% 0.33% 0.16% 0.16% 0.03% 2.14% 0.00% 0.14%

#

2069 1323 582 164 64 0 0 4 1 2 6 4 4 0 39 0 3

% 63.94% 28.13% 7.93% 3.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.05% 0.10% 0.29% 0.19% 0.19% 0.00% 1.88% 0.00% 0.14%

#

22 13 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 59.09% 36.36% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CLF % 36.71% 63.29% 2.86% 5.87% 27.06% 43.84% 3.60% 8.89% 2.57% 3.64% .03% .05% .33% .62% .26% .39%

Total Received #

#

2342 1841 501 296 62 1152 309 209 84 121 28 9 0 29 7 25 11

% 78.61% 21.39% 12.64% 2.65% 49.19% 13.19% 8.92% 3.59% 5.17% 1.20% 0.38% 0.00% 1.24% 0.30% 1.07% 0.47%

#

1717 1363 354 227 44 851 222 148 56 89 18 7 0 22 7 19 7

% 79.38% 20.62% 13.22% 2.56% 49.56% 12.93% 8.62% 3.26% 5.18% 1.05% 0.41% 0.00% 1.28% 0.41% 1.11% 0.41%

#

23 20 3 5 1 13 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

% 86.96% 13.04% 21.74% 4.35% 56.52% 4.35% 4.35% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CLF % 48.02% 51.97% 2.81% 3.36% 38.77% 40.68% 4.16% 4.59% 1.52% 2.30% .04% .02% .43% .73% .28% .30%

Total Received #

#

1791 743 1048 78 104 452 618 134 235 54 58 4 8 13 6 8 19

% 41.49% 58.51% 4.36% 5.81% 25.24% 34.51% 7.48% 13.12% 3.02% 3.24% 0.22% 0.45% 0.73% 0.34% 0.45% 1.06%

#

957 338 619 25 48 241 443 48 99 14 17 0 3 4 3 6 6

% 35.32% 64.68% 2.61% 5.02% 25.18% 46.29% 5.02% 10.34% 1.46% 1.78% 0.00% 0.31% 0.42% 0.31% 0.63% 0.63%

#

16 5 11 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 31.25% 68.75% 0.00% 0.00% 31.25% 68.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CLF % 25.90% 74.10% 2.00% 7.30% 19.20% 55.70% 2.60% 7.30% 1.50% 2.10% .00% .10% .20% .60% .30% .70%

Table B7: APPLICATIONS AND HIRES by Disability

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02]

Schedule A

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis [60]

Epilepsy or 

Other Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Qualified

 Applications

 Hires

Voluntarily Identified (Outside of Schedule A Applicants)

 Applications

 Hires

Job Series: 0080 Security Administration

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified

 Selected

Job Series: 0132 Intelligence

Voluntarily Identified

 Selected

Job Series: 0963 Legal Instruments Examiner

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified

 Selected
Total Received

##

15289 7763 7526 1136 808 3486 2379 2510 3592 420 486 40 17 66 63 105 181

% 50.78% 49.22% 7.43% 5.28% 22.80% 15.56% 16.42% 23.49% 2.75% 3.18% 0.26% 0.11% 0.43% 0.41% 0.69% 1.18% #

8457 4199 4258 517 394 1961 1418 1355 2018 233 296 239 41 29 69 94

% 49.65% 50.35% 6.11% 4.66% 23.19% 16.77% 16.02% 23.86% 2.76% 3.50% 0.27% 0.11% 0.48% 0.34% 0.82% 1.11% #

86 42 4414 27 20 10 1731000012

% 48.84% 51.16% 1.16% 4.65% 31.40% 23.26% 11.63% 19.77% 3.49% 1.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.16% 2.33%

CLF

% 46.24% 53.76% 3.29% 3.80% 38.09% 41.87% 3.01% 5.47% 1.38% 1.77% .02% .12% .34% .48% .11% .26%

Total Received

## 2078 1818 260 336 34 1125 134 199 69 78 11

71 327 414

% 87.49% 12.51% 16.17% 1.64% 54.14% 6.45% 9.58% 3.32% 3.75% 0.53% 0.34% 0.05% 1.54% 0.34% 1.97% 0.19% # 1312 1138 174 193 21 719 94 120 47 48 5 5 0 23 5 30 2 % 86.74% 13.26% 14.71% 1.60% 54.80% 7.16% 9.15% 3.58% 3.66% 0.38% 0.38% 0.00% 1.75% 0.38% 2.29% 0.15% # 23 17 6 3 0 12 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 % 73.91% 26.09% 13.04% 0.00% 52.17% 26.09% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CLF

% 53.57% 46.43% 4.37% 4.33% 41.05% 32.18% 4.26% 6.89% 2.89% 2.11% .05% .10% .63% .52% .31% .30%

Total Received

## 358 298 60 40

2 191 43 45 11 110104361

% 83.24% 16.76% 11.17% 0.56% 53.35% 12.01% 12.57% 3.07% 3.07% 0.00% 0.28% 0.00% 1.12% 0.84% 1.68% 0.28% # 222 184 38 23 2 122 26 29 9 4 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 % 82.88% 17.12% 10.36% 0.90% 54.95% 11.71% 13.06% 4.05% 1.80% 0.00% 0.45% 0.00% 1.35% 0.45% 0.90% 0.00% # 7 6 1 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 85.71% 14.29% 42.86% 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 14.29% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CLF

% 36.70% 63.30% 2.80% 5.80% 27.10% 43.80% 3.60% 8.80% 2.40% 3.20% .00% .10% .20% .40% .40% .70%

Total Received

## 4291 3358 933 352 83 1386 263 1054 432 471 120 12

0 436 40 29

% 78.26% 21.74% 8.20% 1.93% 32.30% 6.13% 24.56% 10.07% 10.98% 2.80% 0.28% 0.00% 1.00% 0.14% 0.93% 0.68% # 2798 2210 588 228 53 928 173 674 277 310 65 11 0 32 5 27 15 % 78.98% 21.02% 8.15% 1.89% 33.17% 6.18% 24.09% 9.90% 11.08% 2.32% 0.39% 0.00% 1.14% 0.18% 0.96% 0.54% # 32 23 9 0 1 17 4 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 71.88% 28.13% 0.00% 3.13% 53.13% 12.50% 12.50% 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CLF

% 70.36% 29.64% 5.39% 2.17% 52.21% 20.89% 6.61% 4.50% 5.14% 1.55% .10% .05% .53% .29% .38% .18%

Qualified

Job Series: 1102 Contracting

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified

 Selected

Job Series: 1801 Vessel Safety

Voluntarily Identified

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified

 Selected

 Selected

Job Series: 2150 Vessel Traffic Control Specialist

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified

 Selected

Job Series: 2210 Information Technology Specialist
# 623 86 166 20 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 69 9 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 447 4 1 2 1

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 692 95 179 21 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Prior Year % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table B8: NEW HIRES By Type of Appointment - Distribution by Disability

Type of 

Appointment

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Temporary

NonAppropriated

Total

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Permanent

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]
#

17 7 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 41.18% 41.18% 17.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

9 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 66.67% 22.22% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 2.37% 0.32% 0.73% 0.10% 0.00% 0.01% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%

#

17 7 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 41.18% 52.94% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

13 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 46.15% 53.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 3.53% 0.27% 0.57% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 2.81% 0.25% 0.74% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 3.73% 0.28% 1.23% 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.05% 0.00% 0.01% 0.06% 0.01% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00%

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Table B9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Disability

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Qualified

Epilepsy or 

Other Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Total Applications Received

Qualified

 Selected 

Job Series: 1102 Contracting

Total Applications Received

Job Series: 0080 Security Administration

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing 

[19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Total Applications Received

Qualified

 Selected 

"Relevant Applicant Pool" = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.

 Selected 

Job Series: 1801 General Inspection, Investigation, and Compliance

Total Applications Received

Qualified

 Selected 

Job Series: 2210 Information Technology Specialist
# 235 20 54 13 - - 4 - - 1 2 2 - 4 - -

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 31 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 7 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 25 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table B10: NON-COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS - TIME IN GRADE by Disability

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

25+ months

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Time in Grade in excess of minimum

1-12 months

13-24 months

Total Employees in Career Ladder

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]
Relevant Pool 15.00% 1.19% 3.63% 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.43% 0.05% 0.01% 0.00% 0.15% 0.05% 0.01% 0.05% 0.01% 0.00%

#

19 13 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 68.42% 26.32% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

14 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 64.29% 35.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Pool 13.60% 1.14% 3.31% 0.80% 0.00% 0.01% 0.37% 0.05% 0.00% 0.10% 0.12% 0.01% 0.01% 0.08% 0.01% 0.00%

#

22 10 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 45.45% 40.91% 13.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

14 8 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 57.14% 35.71% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Pool 6.80% 0.63% 1.60% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.05% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.01% 0.00%

#

14 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

9 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 44.44% 55.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Pool 2.22% 0.20% 0.44% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 95 23 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 24.21% 27.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Table B11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL (GS 13/14, GS 15, SES) POSITIONS by Disability

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Qualified

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

 Selected 

Job Series/Grade(s) of Vacancy: 14

Total Applications 

Received

Job Series/Grade(s) of Vacancy: 13

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

 Selected 

"Relevant Applicant Pool"= all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced. 

 Selected 

Job Series/Grade(s) of Vacancy: 15

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

 Selected 

Job Series/Grade(s) of Vacancy: SES
Slots #

 Relevant Pool % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Slots #

 Relevant Pool % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Slots #

 Relevant Pool % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

#

% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table B12: PARTICIPATION IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT - Distribution by Disability

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 

06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Career Development Programs for GS 5-12

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability [90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

 Applied

 Participants

"Relevant Applicant Pool" = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.

 Applied

 Participants

Career Development Programs for GS 13-14

 Applied

 Participants

Career Development Programs for GS 15 and SES
# 493 393 19 81 15 0 0 7 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 1

% 79.72% 3.85% 16.43% 3.04% 0.00% 0.00% 46.67% 13.33% 0.00% 6.67% 13.33% 0.00% 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 6.67%

3545 2822 110 613 116 0 0 60 17 0 8 17 0 0 10 0 4

7 7 6 8 8 0 0 9 9 0 8 9 0 0 5 0 4

# 3503 2542 229 732 166 0 2 90 7 1 6 31 6 1 20 1 1

% 72.57% 6.54% 20.90% 4.74% 0.00% 1.20% 54.22% 4.22% 0.60% 3.61% 18.67% 3.61% 0.60% 12.05% 0.60% 0.60%

110122 79679 7229 23214 5130 0 50 2831 220 40 219 871 180 40 599 40 40

31 31 32 32 31 0 25 31 31 40 37 28 30 40 30 40 40

# 2558 1966 137 455 117 0 1 65 12 2 3 14 1 1 14 1 3

% 76.86% 5.36% 17.79% 4.57% 0.00% 0.85% 55.56% 10.26% 1.71% 2.56% 11.97% 0.85% 0.85% 11.97% 0.85% 2.56%

775541 597303 42268 135970 34100 0 250 19000 3650 500 750 4450 250 250 4000 250 750

303 304 309 299 291 0 250 292 304 250 250 318 250 250 286 250 250

# 4908 3859 221 828 185 0 2 109 17 2 13 17 3 1 16 3 2

% 78.63% 4.50% 16.87% 3.77% 0.00% 1.08% 58.92% 9.19% 1.08% 7.03% 9.19% 1.62% 0.54% 8.65% 1.62% 1.08%

9973502 7725852 462170 1785480 384509 0 2520 229336 36820 3337 26425 34503 4325 2204 33613 8004 3422

2032 2002 2091 2156 2078 0 1260 2104 2166 1669 2033 2030 1442 2204 2101 2668 1711

# 251 180 21 50 5 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 71.71% 8.37% 19.92% 1.99% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%

561880 404966 48144 108770 10815 0 0 7219 1075 0 0 0 0 0 2521 0 0

2239 2250 2293 2175 2163 0 0 2406 1075 0 0 0 0 2521 0 0

Table B13: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS - Distribution by Disability

Recognition or Award 

Program # Awards 

Given Total Cash 

Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 06-

99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Time-Off Awards, 1-9 hours

Traumatic 

Brain Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing 

[19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing 

[20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Cash Awards: $501+

Total Time-Off Awards Given

Total Hours

Average Hours

Time-Off Awards - 9+ hours

Total Time-Off Awards Given

Total Hours

Average Hours

Cash Awards: $100 - $500 

Total Cash Awards Given

Total Amount

Average Amount

Average Benefit

Total Cash Awards Given

Total Amount

Average Amount

Quality Step Increases:

Total QSI Award

Total Benefit
# 670 483 45 142 25 0 0 12 1 0 2 1 3 0 6 0 0

% 100% 72.09% 6.72% 21.19% 3.73% 0.00% 0.00% 48.00% 4.00% 0.00% 8.00% 4.00% 12.00% 0.00% 24.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 34 17 5 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 14.71% 35.29% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 704 500 50 154 29 0 0 12 1 0 2 1 4 0 9 0 0

% 100% 71.02% 7.10% 21.88% 4.12% 0.00% 0.00% 41.38% 3.45% 0.00% 6.90% 3.45% 13.79% 0.00% 31.03% 0.00% 0.00%

# 8556 6452 500 1604 327 0 4 174 23 3 16 46 9 2 42 4 4

% 100% 75.41% 5.84% 18.75% 3.82% 0.00% 1.22% 53.21% 7.03% 0.92% 4.89% 14.07% 2.75% 0.61% 12.84% 1.22% 1.22%

Table B14: SEPARATIONS By Type of Separation- Distribution by Disability

Type of Separation Total

Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[02-03, 

06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Significant 

Disfigurement 

[93]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial or 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[60]

Involuntary

Total Separations

Total Workforce

Epilepsy or 

Other 

Seizure 

Disorders 

[82]

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Voluntary

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury 

[03]

Deaf or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Hearing [19]

Blind or 

Serious 

Difficulty 

Seeing [20]

Missing 

Extremities 

[31]