UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

2017 ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

(Management Directive 715)

Ms. 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 1,2016 to September 30, 2017

Report Sections:

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

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 andAdvancement 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
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, 2016, to September 30, 2017.

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. 8,364

2. Enter total number of temporary employees 2. 184

3. Enter total number employees paid from non-appropriated funds 3. 1,420

4. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT [add lines B 1 through 3] 4. 9,968

PART C

Agency

Official(s)

Responsible

For Oversight

of EEO

Program(s)

1. Head of Agency

Official Title

ADMIRAL PAUL F. ZUKUNFT, Commandant

2. Agency Head Designee ADMIRAL CHARLES D. MICHEL, Vice Commandant

3. Principal EEO Director/Official

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 TIMOTHY J. SCHANG, Chief, Policy, Planning & Resources

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

GWENDOLYN E. WHITE, MD 715 Program Manager, GS-14

5. Section 501 Affirmative Action

Program Official

KENNETH DAVIS, Disability Program Manager, GS-13

6. Complaint Processing Program

Manager

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

7. Other Responsible EEO Staff MICHAEL BRENYO, Reasonable Accommodations, Program 

Manager, GS-14

DEBORAH JOHNSON-HOOD, Section 508 Coordinator, GS-13
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
Executive Summary

Introduction

This report serves as the U.S. Coast Guard’s Annual Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 

Status Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 17 in compliance with the U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) Management Directive 715 (MD-715). The report 

includes 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.

United States Coast Guard Mission

The U.S. Coast Guard (CG) is a multi-mission maritime agency, one of the Nation’s five 

Armed Forces, and the only military Service within the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). Its mission is focused on protecting the public, the environment, and national 

economic interests in the Nation’s ports and waterways, along the coast, in international 

waters and in any maritime region in support of national security. The CG total workforce is 

approximately 55,000 personnel consisting of full-time (active duty), part-time (reserve)

military members, and civilian employees assigned to more than 600 locations worldwide. 

The Commandant is the Agency head. 

The Agency’s Annual Self-Assessment

During the fiscal year, the CG remained fully engaged in efforts toward achieving a model 

EEO program by continuing to integrate EEOC’s six essential elements into its strategic plan 

of action. As a result, its annual self-assessment reached a compliance rate of 99%. The 

CG attributes much of its success to activities aligned to each element including:

Essential Element One: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Officials

 The Commandant issued Equal Opportunity and Anti-Discrimination/AntiHarassment policy statements annually; these statements were last released on

May 17, 2017.

 The CG initiated a Women’s Retention Study and Holistic Analysis designed to

examine behavioral, cultural and organizational norms to determine and validate

reasons why women are departing the Service at a greater rate than men during

the first 12 years of their careers. Activities focus on unconscious bias, microaggressions, unfair or unequal treatment, discrimination, and other possible

contributors. The final report will be available early FY19.

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

 CG leadership facilitated an inclusive work environment by designating Executive

Champions (Admirals and members of the SES Corps) who conducted activities

for nine special emphasis programs throughout the year.

 The CG Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) integrated “Unconscious Bias”
 2

modules into leadership training curricula. In FY17, ODI presented three 

“Unconscious Bias” workshops. Additionally 1,920 employees and 80 senior 

leaders participated in Diversity and Inclusion-related training during 43 sessions. 

Essential Element Three: Management and Program Accountability

 The Civil Rights Directorate (CRD) hosted Senior Executive Leadership Equal 

Opportunity Seminars for newly appointed Admirals, Senior Executives and 

Command Master Chiefs (senior enlisted service members). Discussion topics 

included the promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the processes

and services administered by the EEO program. In addition, all members of the 

workforce continued to be administered in-person EEO training triennially.

Essential Element Four: Proactive Prevention

 In FY17, CRD staff members participated in the Extended Learning Institute (ELI)

Civil Treatment Training Program. ELI training has been found by some agencies 

to reduce harassment in the workplace. Accordingly, efforts are underway to 

deliver key modules from this training to the entire workforce.

 The CG established a mobility program at its Headquarters facility to provide 

access through devices such as motorized scooters and wheelchairs to CG 

employees, applicants, and visitors. In FY17, the program received 29 requests 

which were approved and provided temporary accommodations for 26 individuals 

with mobility needs. Drawing on the success experienced at HQ, the CG 

expanded the program to 13 locations nationwide in FY17.

Essential Element Five: Efficiency

 The CG continued its collaborative approach to barrier analysis through the 

utilization of a cross-functional team. Appointed annually, the team is stratified

into three levels of operation: an Executive Guidance Team, an Oversight 

Committee, and a Working Group that conducts analyses using standards from

MD-715. 

 In FY17, the CG’s complaints processing unit exceeded expectations based on its

planned objectives. As examples:

o Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) was offered to 100% of individuals 

initiating pre-complaints, of whom 61% accepted. 

o One hundred percent of pre-complaints were processed in a timely 

manner, exceeding the Federal average of 93.5%. 

o Ninety percent of formal complaints were processed in a timely 

manner, exceeding the Federal average of 73%.

 The CG’s nationally recognized Partnership in Education (PIE) Program is vital to 

reaching a diverse future workforce. PIE enhances educational opportunities and 

provides career awareness for the Nation's youth at all grade levels through direct 

volunteer service of workforce members. For the 2016-2017 school year, 190 

units through 8,569 volunteers dedicated more than 89,000 hours at 284 schools. 

Since FY12, student participation in PIE has grown 100% and volunteer hours 

have increased by almost 90%.
 3

Essential Element Six: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

 The CG performs on-site EO reviews of select units to determine if perceptions or 

triggers exist that affect EEO/EO readiness. For FY17, the CG conducted on-site 

EO reviews at 22 units, a 29% increase over the 17 conducted in FY16.

 In FY17, the CG provided grants of approximately $105 million to U.S. states and 

territories, and an additional $5 million to 15 non-profit organizations. To ensure 

against discrimination by grantees, the Civil Rights Directorate conducted 

compliance reviews of all recipients.

Workforce Profile

The summary that follows is based on 4th quarter FY17 data from the National Finance 

Center (NFC). In FY17, the CG’s total civilian workforce was 9,968 employees, an increase 

of 248 employees (2.55%) from the FY16 total workforce of 9,720. The workforce is 

comprised of 8,364 permanent, 184 temporary and 1,420 Non-Appropriated Fund 

employees.

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

to analyze its workforce. The CG highlights five of the 18 CLF work groups below because 

of noteworthy changes. These are: 

(1) Participation of female employees was 2,550 or 29.83% compared with 48.14% in the 

CLF. This group increased by 95 employees but remained 18.31% below the CLF. For the 

first time since 2001, female attrition appears to be slowing. The female hiring rate 

exceeded the female separation rate reversing a 15-year trend. 

(2) Despite an increase of 23 White Females employees, this group remained below the 

CLF by 16.44%. 

(3) Hispanic/Latino Male participation was below the CLF by 1.58%. Participation decreased 

by 53 employees, a significant portion of the 360 total; 307 remain in the workforce. 

(4) Participation of Hispanic/Latino Females was 107 or 1.25% compared with 4.79% in the 

CLF – a negative difference of 3.54%. The decrease of 33 employees from FY16 

represented nearly one quarter of the group’s participation and was the largest percentage 

decline of any group.

(5) Participation of Individuals of Two or More Races was 166 or 1.94% compared with

0.54% in the CLF. This group’s increase of 96 employees was the largest percentage 

change of any group.

The above five groups will be further examined in FY18.

Additionally, Individuals with Targeted Disabilities participated at rates higher than the EEOC 

goal of two percent. The CG currently enjoys a 3.97% participation. The increase was 

largely the result of a re-designation of the disability codes by the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM).
 4

Summary of Planned Actions Initiated or Completed

At the end of FY16, two deficiencies remained, which are described in Part G (Agency 

Self-assessment): Element B, Section 4, Sufficient EEO Program Funding. Specifically, 

(1) the CG was unable to collect and track applicant flow data for Senior Executive 

Service (SES) employment, and (2) architectural barriers remained at CG Headquarters. 

An update follows:

(1) The CG advertises SES vacancies to all U.S. citizens using the commercially available 

Monster hiring database, which was not able to produce the outputs required by the 

EEOC. This barrier remains for FY18.

(2) As of the end of FY17, all accessibility deficiencies for CG controlled buildings at its 

Headquarters location were corrected and are now in compliance with the 

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The 

CG plans to additionally notify DHS and GSA, in writing, of any remaining 

discrepancies not in its control from the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support by 

January 2018.

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) Explore alternatives for obtaining applicant flow data for Senior Executive Service

(SES) positions.

(2) Increase secured remote access capability to accommodate employees who are 

eligible to telework.

(3) Promote the creation and utilization of rotational details, developmental assignments 

and career ladder positions from which women employees may obtain skills and 

training that support upward mobility. 

(4) Designate a Rotational Assignment Program Manager.

(5) Require managers and supervisors to offer all career ladder employees the 

opportunity to create Individual Development Plans (IDPs).

Additionally, in 2017, the EEOC conducted a technical assistance visit and recommended

in its September 25, 2017 feedback letter that the CG find ways to assist the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) with improving its issuance of Final Agency Decisions 

(FADs). While authority to issue FADs for civilian complaints remains with CG’s 

executive agency, members of the Civil Rights Directorate explored ways to contribute to 

their timely issuance:

(1) CRD supports DHS’s multi-year plan to issue timely FADs by 30 September 2019. 

(2) CRD implemented a process that will improve its request time for FADs from DHS

when complainants do not respond to the option letter for a decision from the U.S. 

EEOC or DHS. 

(3) The CG maintains authority to issue FADs for its military members. This action 
 5

relieves the Department of this FAD workload.

Summary of Action Items Implemented or Accomplished

The CG accomplished the following action items during FY17:

 Installed push-button mechanically activated door openers for all restrooms within 

CG HQ. Completed May 2017.

 Reconstructed access ramp for employees with disabilities from CG HQ Lower 

Level 1 to the sidewalk level was to meet ABA requirements. Completed May 

2017.

 Established benchmarks for telework participation in pay period three, February 

2014 based on the date the revised telework Instruction was issued. Achieved a

35% increase (1,039 to 1,404 participants) since the benchmark was established. 

Completed August 2017.

 Human Resources representatives met one-on-one with six hiring officials who 

had or anticipated vacancies during FY16 in major occupations having low 

participation of women. The Office of Civilian Human Resources assisted those 

that elected to pursue career ladder opportunities in structuring position 

descriptions and vacancy announcements commensurately. Completed July 

2017.

 The Office of Civilian Human Resources completed a substantial re-design of its 

portal, web, and social media presence to advertise leadership development 

opportunities to civilian employees. As a result of this, the number of applications 

to key civilian leadership development programs increased from approximately 45 

in 2016 to more than 270 in 2017. Completed September 2017.

Conclusion

The Coast Guard is committed to ensuring that equal employment opportunities are 

afforded to all eligible applicants and employees without discrimination of any kind. The 

Service remains focused on achieving the stated objectives and conducting the planned 

activities toward attaining a Model EEO program while sustaining the progress already 

made.

Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

1

Self-Assessment towards a Model EEO Program

Checklist

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership

Requires the agency head to issue written policy statements ensuring a workplace free of

discriminatory harassment and a commitment to equal employment opportunity.

PART G, Essential Element A, Section 1 - Issuance of EEO Policy Statement

Measures Measure Met? Comments

A.1.a. Was an EEO policy statement issued within 6 - 9 months

of installation of the agency head? (Please list date of agency

head installation and date of issuance in the comments

column).

YES The agency head was installed 

May 30, 2014. The EEO 

policy statement was re-issued 

May 17, 2017.

A.1.b. During the current agency head’s tenure, has the EEO

policy statement been reissued annually?

YES

A.1.c. Are new employees provided a copy of the EEO policy

statement during orientation?

YES

A.1.d. When an employee is promoted into the supervisory

ranks, is he/she provided a copy of the EEO policy statement?

YES

PART G, Essential Element A, Section 2 – Communication of EEO Policy Statement

Measures Measure Met? Comments

A.2.a. Have the heads of subordinate reporting components

communicated support of all agency EEO policies through the

ranks?

YES

A.2.b. Has the agency made written materials available to all

employees and applicants, informing them of the variety of EEO

programs and administrative and judicial remedial procedures

available to them?

YES

A.2.c. Has the agency prominently posted such written materials

in all personnel and EEO offices, and on the agency's internal

website? [29 C.F.R. 1614.102(b)(5)]

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

2

Essential Element A, Section 3 - Evaluation of Managers and Supervisors on

Commitment to EEO Principles

Measures Measure Met? Comments

A.3.a. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to agency EEO policies and principles?

YES

A.3.b. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to resolve problems/disagreements and other

conflicts in their respective work environments as they arise?

YES

A.3.c. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to address concerns, whether perceived or real,

raised by employees and following up with appropriate action to

correct or eliminate tension in the workplace?

YES

A.3.d. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to support the agency's EEO program through the 

allocation of mission personnel to participate in community outreach and recruitment programs with private employers, public

schools, and universities?

YES

A.3.e. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to ensure full cooperation of employees under

his/her supervision with EEO office officials such as EEO

counselors, EEO investigators, etc.?

YES

A.3.f. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation?

YES

A.3.g. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to ensure that subordinate supervisors have effective

managerial communication and interpersonal skills in order to

supervise most effectively in a workplace with diverse

employees and avoid disputes arising fromineffective

communications?

YES

A.3.h. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to ensure the provision of requested religious

accommodations when such accommodations do not cause an

undue hardship?

YES

A.3.i. Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their

commitment to ensure the provision of requested disability

accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities when

such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

3

Measures Measure Met? Comments

A.3.j. Have all employees been informed about what behaviors

are inappropriate in the workplace and that this behavior may

result in disciplinary actions? If yes, describe what means were

utilized by the agency to inform its workforce about penalties for

unacceptable behavior in the comments column.

YES Labor/employee relations guidance is 

issued as Advisory Notices from 

Civilian Human Resources 

(ANCHRs)for supervisors. A-Z fact 

sheets by HR topics are delivered via 

email to an all employees listserv. 

Human Resource Specialists and 

Command Advisors provide advice 

and respond to questions, as needed. 

ovided by Human Resource

Specialists/Command Staff

Advisors

A.3.k. Have the procedures for reasonable accommodation for

individuals with disabilities been made readily

available/accessible to all employees by disseminating such

procedures during orientation of new employees and by making

such procedure available on the World-Wide Web or Internet?

YES

A.3.l. Have managers and supervisors been trained on their

responsibilities under the procedures for reasonable

accommodation?

YES

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

Element B requires that the agency's EEO programs be organized and structured to maintain a 

workplace that is free from discrimination in any of the agency's policies, procedures or practices

and support the agency's strategic mission.

PART G, Essential Element B, Section 1 - Reporting Structure for EEO Program

Measures Measure Met? Comments

B.1.a. Is the EEO Director under the direct supervision of the

agency head? [See 29 C.F.R. 1614.102(b)(4)] For subordinate

level reporting components, is the EEO Director/Officer under

the immediate supervision of the lower level component's

head official? (For example, does the Regional EEO Officer 

report to the Regional Administrator?)

YES

B.1.b. Are the duties and responsibilities of the EEO officials

clearly defined?

YES

B.1.c. Do the EEO officials have the knowledge, skills, and

abilities to carry out the duties and responsibilities of their

positions?

YES

B.1.d. If the agency has 2nd level reporting components, are 

there organizational charts that clearly define the reporting 

structure for EEO programs? 

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

4

B.1.e. If the agency has 2nd level reporting components; does the

agency-wide EEO Director have authority for EEO programs

within the subordinate reporting components?

YES

B.1.f. If no, please describe how EEO program authority is

delegated to subordinate reporting components in Part H.

N/A

PART G, Essential Element B, Section 2 - EEO Communication with Senior Leaders

Measures Measure Met? Comments

B.2.a. Does the EEO Director/Officer have a regular, effective

means of informing the agency head and other top

management of the effectiveness, efficiency, and legal

compliance of the agency's EEO program?

YES

B.2.b. After submission of the previous Form 715, did the EEO

Director/Officer present a State of the Agency briefing to the

agency head and other senior officials, including a performance

assessment in each of the 6 elements of the Model EEO

program, and report agency progress in completing its barrier

analysis - including barriers identified, eliminated, or impact

reduced?

YES

Measures Measure Met? Comments

B.2.c. Are EEO officials present during agency predecisional deliberationsregarding recruitment strategies,

vacancy projections, succession planning, selections for

training/career development opportunities, and other

workforce changes?

YES

B.2.d. Does the agency consider whether any group of

employees or applicants might be negatively impacted prior

to making human resource decisions such as reorganizations

and realignments?

YES

B.2.e. Are management/personnel policies, procedures and

practices examined at regular intervals to assess whether there

are any hidden impediments to the realization of equality of

opportunity for any group(s) of employees or applicants? [See

29 C.F.R. 1614.102(b)(3)]

YES

B.2.f. Is the EEO Director included in the agency's strategic

planning, especially the agency's human capital plan, regarding

succession planning, training, etc., to ensure that EEO concerns

are integrated into the agency's strategic mission?

YES

PART G, Essential Element B, Section 3 - Sufficient EEO Program Staffing
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

5

Measures Measure Met? Comments

B.3.a. Does the EEO Director have the authority and funding to

ensure implementation of agency EEO action plans to improve

EEO program efficiency and/or eliminate identified barriers to

the realization of equality of opportunity?

YES

B.3.b. Are sufficient personnel resources allocated to the EEO

Program to ensure that agency self-assessments and selfanalyses prescribed by EEO MD-715 are conducted annually

and to maintain an effective complaint processing system?

YES

B.3.c. Are statutory/regulatory EEO-related Special Emphasis 

Programs sufficiently staffed?

YES

B.3.d. Is the Federal Women's Program sufficiently staffed - 5

U.S.C. 7201; 38 U.S.C. 4214; Title 5 C.F.R., Subpart B,

720.204?

YES

B.3.e. Is the Hispanic Employment Program sufficiently staffed

Title 5 C.F.R., Subpart B, 720.204?

YES

B.3.f. Is the People With Disabilities Program Manager;

Selective Placement Program for Individuals With Disabilities

sufficiently staffed - Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act;

Title 5 U.S.C. Subpart B, Chapter 31, Subchapter I-3102: 5

C.F.R. 213.3102(u); 5 C.F.R. 315.709?

YES

Measures Measure Met? Comments

B.3.g. Are other agency Special Emphasis Programs monitored

by the EEO Office for coordination and compliance with EEO

guidelines and principles such as: FEORP - 5 C.F.R. 720;

Veterans Employment Programs; Black or African American;

American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian and Native

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Programs?

 YES

PART G, Essential Element B, Section 4 - Sufficient EEO Program Funding

Measures Measure Met? Comments

B.4.a. Are there sufficient resources to enable the agency to

conduct a thorough barrier analysis of its workforce, including

the provision of adequate data collection and tracking systems?

NO Planned activities for 

compliance are included in

Part H.

B.4.b. Is there sufficient budget allocated to all employees to

utilize, when desired, all EEO programs, including the 

complaint processing program and ADR, and to make a request

for reasonable accommodation? (Including subordinate level

reporting components?)

YES

B.4.c. Has funding been secured for publication and distribution

of EEO materials (e.g. harassment policies, EEO posters,

reasonable accommodations procedures, etc.)?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

6

B.4.d. Is there a central funding or other mechanism for funding 

supplies, equipment and services necessary to provide disability 

accommodations?

YES

B.4.e. Does the agency fund major renovation projects to ensure

timely compliance with Uniform Federal Accessibility

Standards?

YES Completed. See Part H.

B.4.f. Is the EEO Program allocated sufficient resources to

train all employees on EEO programs, including

administrative and judicial remedial procedures available to

employees?

YES

B.4.g. Is there sufficient funding to ensure the prominent posting

of written materials in all personnel and EEO offices? [See 29

C.F.R. 1614.102(b)(5)]

YES

B.4.h. Is there sufficient funding to ensure that all

employees have access to this training and information?

YES

B.4.i. Is there sufficient funding to provide all

managers/supervisors with training and periodic updates on their

EEO responsibilities for ensuring a workplace that is free from

all forms of discrimination, including harassment and retaliation?

YES

Measures Measure Met? Comments

B.4.j. Is there sufficient funding to provide all

managers/supervisors with training and periodic updates on

their EEO responsibilities to provide religious

accommodations?

YES

B.4.k. Is there sufficient funding to provide all

managers/supervisors with training and periodic updates on

their EEO responsibilities to provide disability

accommodations in accordance with the agency's written

procedures?

YES

B.4.l. Is there sufficient funding to provide all

managers/supervisors with training and periodic updates on

their EEO responsibilities in the EEO discrimination complaint

process?

YES

B.4.m. Is there sufficient funding to provide all

managers/supervisors with training and periodic updates on

their EEO responsibilities to participate in ADR?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

7

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability

Element C 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.

PART G, Essential Element C, Section 1 - EEO Communication with

Managers and Supervisors

Measures Measure Met? Comments

C.1.a. Are regular (monthly/quarterly/semi-annually) EEO

updates provided to management/supervisory officials by

EEO program officials?

YES

C.1.b. Do EEO program officials coordinate the development

and implementation of EEO Plans with all appropriate agency

managers to include Agency Counsel, Human Resource

Officials, Finance, and the Chief Information Officer?

YES

PART G, Essential Element C, Section 2 - EEO & Human Resources

Collaboration and Coordination

Measures Measure Met? Comments

C.2.a. Have timetables or schedules been established for the

agency to review its Merit Promotion Program Policy and

Procedures for systemic barriers that may be impeding full

participation in promotion opportunities by all groups?

YES

C.2.b. Have timetables or schedules been established for the

agency to review its Employee Recognition Awards Program

and Procedures for systemic barriers that may be impeding full

participation in promotion opportunities by all groups?

YES

C.2.c. Have timetables or schedules been established for the

agency to review its Employee Development/Training Programs

for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in

training opportunities by all groups?

YES

PART G, Essential Element C, Section 3 - Disciplinary Action Taken

Measures Measures Met? Comments

C.3.a. Does the agency have a disciplinary policy and/or a table

of penalties that covers employees found to have committed

discrimination?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

8

Measures Measures Met? Comments

C.3.b. Have all employees, supervisors, and managers been

informed of the penalties for being found to perpetrate

discriminatory behavior or for taking personnel actions based

upon a prohibited basis?

YES

C.3.c. Has the agency, when appropriate, disciplined or

sanctioned managers/supervisors or employees found to have

discriminated over the past two years? If yes, in the Comments

column, cite the number found to have discriminated and list

penalty/disciplinary action for each type of violation. 

YES There were no findings of 

discrimination in FY 16 and 

FY 17. 

C.3.d. Does the agency promptly (within the established time

frame) comply with EEOC, Merit Systems Protection Board,

Federal Labor Relations Authority, labor arbitrators, and

District Court orders?

YES

C.3.e. Does the agency review disability accommodation

decisions/actions to ensure compliance with its written

procedures and analyze the information tracked for trends,

problems, etc.?

YES

Essential Element D, Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination

Element D requires that the Agency Head makes early efforts to prevent discriminatory actions and

eliminate barriers to Equal Employment Opportunity in the workplace.

PART G, Essential Element D, Section 1 - Barrier Analysis Process

Measures Measures Met? Comments

D.1.a. Do senior managers meet with and assist the EEO Director

and/or other EEO Program Officials in the identification of

barriers that may be impeding the realization of equal

employment opportunity?

YES

D.1.b. When barriers are identified, do senior managers develop

and implement, with the assistance of the agency EEO office,

agency EEO Action Plans to eliminate said barriers?

YES

D.1.c. Do senior managers successfully implement EEO Action

Plans and incorporate the EEO Action Plan Objectives into

agency strategic plans?

YES

D.1.d. Are trend analyses of workforce profiles conducted

by race, national origin, sex, and disability?

YES

D.1.e. Are trend analyses of the workforce's major occupations

conducted by race, national origin, sex, and disability?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

9

D.1.f. Are trend analyses of the workforce's grade level

distribution conducted by race, national origin, sex, and

disability?

YES

D.1.g. Are trend analyses of the workforce's compensation and

reward system conducted by race, national origin, sex, and

disability?

YES

D.1.h. Are trend analyses of the effects of

management/personnel policies, procedures and practices

conducted by race, national origin, sex, and disability?

YES

PART G, Essential Element D, Section 2 - Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is

Encouraged

Measures Measures Met? Comments

D.2.a. Are all employees encouraged to use ADR? YES

D.2.b. Is the participation of supervisors and managers in the

ADR processrequired?

YES

Essential Element E, Efficiency

Element E requires that the Agency Head ensure that there are effective systems in place for

evaluating the impact and effectiveness of the agency's EEO programs as well as an efficient and fair

dispute resolution process.

PART G, Essential Element E, Section 1 - Sufficient Resources to

Evaluation EEO Program

Measures Measure Met? Comments

E.1.a. Does the EEO office employ personnel with adequate

training and experience to conduct the analyses required by

MD-715 and these instructions?

YES

E.1.b. Has the agency implemented an adequate data

collection and analysis systems that permits tracking of the

information required by MD-715 and these instructions?

YES Confirmed the data collection 

and analysis systems are 

adequate during an EEOC 

training session, August 15-18, 

2017 and a meeting with the 

DHS statistician on September 

8, 2017.
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

10

E.1.c. Have sufficient resources been provided to conduct

effective audits of field facilities' efforts to achieve a model

EEO program and eliminate discrimination under Title VII

and the Rehabilitation Act?

YES

E.1.d. Is there a designated agency official or other mechanism in

place to coordinate or assist with processing requests for

disability accommodations in all major components of the

agency?

YES

E.1.e. Are 90% of accommodation requests processed within

the timeframe set forth in the agency's procedures for

reasonable accommodation?

YES

PART G, Essential Element E, Section 2 - Effective Complaint Tracking and

Monitoring System

Measures Measure Met? Comments

E.2.a. Does the agency use a complaint tracking and monitoring

system that allows identification of the location and status of

complaints and length of time elapsed at each stage of the

agency's complaint resolution process?

YES

E.2.b. Does the agency's tracking system identify the issues and

bases of the complaints, the aggrieved individuals/complainants,

the involved management officials and other information to

analyze complaint activity and trends?

YES

E.2.c. Does the agency hold contractors accountable for delay 

in counseling and investigation processing times? If yes, briefly 

describe how.

YES The Performance Work 

Statement provides specific 

delivery accountability. 

Measures Measure Met? Comments

E.2.d. Does the agency monitor and ensure that new

investigators, counselors, including contract and collateral duty

investigators, receive the 32 hours of training required in

accordance with EEO Management Directive MD-110?

YES

E.2.e. Does the agency monitor and ensure that experienced

counselors, investigators, including contract and collateral duty

investigators, receive the 8 hours of refresher training required on

an annual basis in accordance with EEO Management Directive

MD-110?

YES

PART G, Essential Element E, Section 3 - Timeliness in EEO Complaint Process

Measures Measure Met? Comments
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

11

E.3.a. Are benchmarks in place that compare the agency's

discrimination complaint processes with 29 C.F.R. Part 1614?

YES

E.3.b. Does the agency provide timely EEO counseling within 30

days of the initial request or within an agreed upon extension in

writing, up to 60 days?

YES

E.3.c. Does the agency provide an aggrieved person with written

notification of his/her rights and responsibilities in the EEO

process in a timely fashion?

YES

E.3.d. Does the agency complete the investigations within the

applicable prescribed time frame?

YES

E.3.e. When a complainant requests a final agency decision, does

the agency issue the decision within 60 days of the request?

YES

E.3.f. When a complainant requests a hearing, does the agency

immediately upon receipt of the request from the EEOC AJ

forward the investigative file to the EEOC Hearing Office?

YES

E.3.g. When a settlement agreement is entered into, does the

agency timely complete any obligations provided for in such

agreements?

YES

E.3.h. Does the agency ensure timely compliance with EEOC

AJ decisions which are not the subject of an appeal by the

agency?

YES

PART G, Essential Element E, Section 4 - Efficient and Fair ADR Process

Measures Measure Met? Comments

E.4.a. In accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1614.102(b), has the agency

established an ADR Program during the pre-complaint and

formal complaint stages of the EEO process?

YES

E.4.b. Does the agency require all managers and supervisors to

receive ADR training in accordance with EEOC (29 C.F.R. Part

1614) regulations, with emphasis on the federal government's

interest in encouraging mutual resolution of disputes and the

benefits associated with utilizing ADR?

YES

E.4.c. After the agency has offered ADR and the complainant has

elected to participate in ADR, are the managers required to

participate?

YES

E.4.d. Does the responsible management official directly

involved in the dispute have settlement authority?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

12

PART G, Essential Element E, Section 5 - Effectiveness of EEO Data

Collection Systems

Measures Measure Met? Comments

E.5.a. Does the agency have a system of management controls in

place to ensure the timely, accurate, complete and consistent

reporting of EEO complaint data to the EEOC?

YES

E.5.b. Does the agency provide reasonable resources for

the EEO complaint process to ensure efficient and

successful operation in accordance with 29 C.F.R.

1614.102(a) (1)?

YES

E.5.c. Does the agency EEO office have management controls in

place to monitor and ensure that the data received from Human

Resources is accurate, timely received, and contains all of the

required data elements for submitting annual reports to the

EEOC?

YES

E.5.d. Do the agency's EEO programs address all of the laws 

enforced by the EEOC?

YES

E.5.e. Does the agency identify and monitor significant trends in

complaint processing to determine whether the agency is meeting

its obligations under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act?

YES

Measures Measure Met? Comments

E.5.f. Does the agency track recruitment efforts and analyze

efforts to identify potential barriers in accordance with MD715 standards?

YES

E.5.g. Does the agency consult with other agencies of similar size

on the effectiveness of their EEO programs to identify best

practices and share ideas?

YES

PART G, Essential Element E, Section 6 - Elimination of Conflict of Interest with Legal

Defense Function

Measures Measure Met? Comments

E.6.a. Are legal sufficiency reviews of EEO matters handled by a

functional unit that is separate and apart from the unit which

handles agency representation in EEO complaints?

YES

E.6.b. Does the agency discrimination complaint process

ensure a neutral adjudication function?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

13

E.6.c. If applicable, are processing time frames incorporated for

the legal counsel's sufficiency review for timely processing of

complaints?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

14

Essential Element F, Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

Element F requires that federal agencies are in full compliance with EEO statutes and EEOC 

regulations, policy guidance, and other written instructions.

PART G, Essential Element F, Section 1 - Timely Compliance with

Administrative Judge Orders

Measures Measure Met? Comments

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

ensure that the agency officials timely comply with any orders or

directives issued by EEOC Administrative Judges?

YES

PART G, Essential Element F, Section 2 - Timely Completion of Ordered

Corrective Action

Measures Measure Met? Comments

F.2.a. Does the agency have control over the payroll 

processing function of the agency? If yes, answer the

two questions below.

YES

F.2.b. Are there steps in place to guarantee responsive,

timely, and predictable processing of ordered monetary

relief?

YES

F.2.c. Are procedures in place to promptly process other

forms of ordered relief?

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

15

PART G, Essential Element F, Section 3 - Staff Accountability for

Legal Compliance

Measures Measure Met? Comments

F.3.a. Is compliance with EEOC orders encompassed in the

performance standards of any agency employees? If yes, please

identify the employees by title in the comments column, and

state how performance is measured.

YES Regional Managers, EEO 

Managers, EEO Specialists, 

Chief, Solutions and 

Complaints, ADR Specialist, 

ADR Manager, Chief Senior 

Technical Advisor, Senior 

Technical Advisor, and 

Technical Advisor/EEO 

Specialist

Measurement: Each 

employee receives a yearly 

Performance Plan and 

Appraisal measuring several 

critical core competencies 

associated with five 

performance goals aligning 

CRD goals in support of 

DHS/EEOC mission.

F.3.b. Is the unit charged with the responsibility for compliance

with EEOC orders located in the EEO office? If no, please

identify the unit in which it is located in the comments column.

YES

F.3.c. Have the involved employees received any formal training

in EEO compliance?

YES

F.3.d. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC Attorney

Fee documentation for completing compliance, such as a copy

of the check issued for attorney fees and/or a narrative

statement by an appropriate agency official, or agency payment

order dating the dollar amount of attorney fees paid?

YES

Measures Measure Met? Comments

F.3.e. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC awards

documentation for completing compliance, such as a narrative

statement by an appropriate agency official stating the dollar

amount and the criteria used to calculate the award?

YES

F.3.f. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC 

documentation of back pay and interest for completing 

compliance, such as computer printouts or payroll documents 

outlining gross back pay and interest, copy of any checks issued, 

or narrative statement by an appropriate agency official of total 

monies paid? 

YES
Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard

FY 2017 - Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report

Self-Assessment Part G

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 715 ANNUAL REPORT – FY 2017 

16

F.3.g. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC 

documentation regarding compensatory damages for completing 

compliance, such as the final agency decision and evidence of 

payment, if made? 

YES

F.3.h. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC training 

documentation for completing compliance, such as the 

attendance roster at training session(s), or a narrative statement 

by an appropriate agency official confirming that specific 

persons or groups of persons attended training on a certain date?

YES

F.3.i. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC personnel 

action documentation for completing compliance (e.g., 

reinstatement, promotion, hiring, reassignment), such as copies 

of SF-50s? 

YES

F.3.j. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC 

documentation of the posting of Notice of Violation for 

completing compliance, such as the original, signed and dated

notice, reflecting the dates of posting? (A copy will suffice if original 

is not available.) 

YES

F.3.k. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC 

documentation of supplemental investigations, such as: (1) a 

copy of the letter to complainant acknowledging receipt from the 

EEOC of a remanded case; (2) a copy of the letter to 

complainant transmitting the Report of Investigation (not the 

ROI itself, unless specified); and (3) a copy of the request for a 

hearing (complainant's request or agency's transmittal letter)?

YES

F.3.l. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC the Final 

Agency Decision (FAD) or a copy of the complainant's request 

for a hearing? 

YES

F.3.m. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC 

documentation of restoration of leave, such as a printout or 

statement identifying the amount of leave restored, if applicable? 

If no, provide an explanation or statement in the comments 

column. 

YES

Measures Measure Met? Comments

F.3.n. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC 

documentation of civil actions, such as a complete copy of the 

civil action complaint demonstrating the same issues raised as in 

compliance matter?

YES

F.3.o. Does the agency promptly provide the EEOC with 

settlement agreements, such as the signed and dated agreement 

with specific dollar amounts, and appropriate documentation of 

the relief provided? 

YES
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 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. 

 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 _13__

STATEMENT of 

MODEL PROGRAM 

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT 

DEFICIENCY:

Not in compliance with the Architectural Barrier Act, and the Americans with Disability 

Act.

OBJECTIVE: Identify and implement strategy for the new Coast Guard Headquarters’ compliance 

with the Architectural Barriers Act, and the Americans with Disability Act.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Commanding Officer, Base National Capitol Region (BNCR)

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 25, 2013

TARGET DATE FOR 

COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

August 26, 2016

PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD 

COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:

December 2014 Schedule a meeting with GSA and the architect of record for a walkthrough of the Saint 

Elizabeth campus to verify compliance or non-compliance with the Architectural Barrier 

Act and the Americans with Disability Act through the use of measurements (slopes, 

pull weight of doors, sidewalks, power assist door openers, ramps, bathroom and other 

pedestrian entry dimensions for individuals with disabilities). 

January 14, 2015 Develop a list of non-compliance areas identified during the GSA and architect of record 

walkthrough.

February 10, 2015 Identify Saint Elizabeth campus non-compliance priorities in order to ascertain timeline 

for CG compliance with the Architectural Barrier Act and the Americans with Disability 

Act.

August 26, 2016 Provide periodic (at least annually) updates on progress toward CG compliance with the 

Architectural Barrier Act and the Americans with Disability Act.

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

September, 2016 Area F2: Sidewalk along the south side of Birch Street from Area E towards the Coast 

Guard Exchange Bldg 49 modified to include wheelchair accessible ramps.

September, 2016 Area G: Sidewalk leading to the Coast Guard Exchange from Birch Street modified to 

include wheelchair accessible ramps.

December, 2016 GSA has taken the stance that only one entry location per building requires a remote 

push button exterior door and that all other doors must meet the 5lb pull test to be 

ABA compliant. CG Base NCR has voluntarily exceeded this standard by installing 

push-button mechanically operated door openers at all entrances to all CG controlled 

buildings; CG HQ building (bldg 50) and buildings 33 (Historian/Credit Union), 48 

(Semper Paratus Fitness Center), and 49 (Exchange/Security Operations) on the St. 

Elizabeths campus.

May, 2017 Push-button mechanically activated door openers installed within CG HQ building (bldg 

50) on all restroom doors.

May, 2017 Area E: Handicap Ramp for employee access from USCG HQ LL1 to the sidewalk level

re-constructed to meet ABA requirements.
REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

The St. Elizabeths Campus is a GSA owned and operated facility, with DHS as the sole lease-holder. Due to ongoing

construction around the Center Building, DOC-A, and the Central Utility Plant (CUP), the General Services Administration 

(GSA) do not intend to perform modifications to any the following locations until other construction activities in these areas 

are completed:

(1) Areas B1 and B2: Ash Street

(2) Area C: Access ramp at the south side of Lower Ash Street between the parking garage and Buildings 48/49/52

(3) Area D: Access from the USCG HQ (Building 50) at LL1 to Building 48 (Semper Paratus Fitness Center)

(4) Area F1: Sidewalk along the north side of Birch Street leading towards Interim Gate B

(5) Area H: Path along Birch Street to the east of interim fence/Gate B

As a non-primary tenant aboard the Campus, the Coast Guard, and CG Base NCR have no authority or influence over GSA in 

completing campus infrastructure improvements to remove architectural barriers. DHS, as the primary lease-holder should 

work directly with GSA on remaining campus barriers outside of Coast Guard controlled spaces (buildings 33, 48, 49, and 

50). CG Base NCR anticipates that the above locations will be addressed in approximately 4-6 years, following completion of 

the active construction projects.

Given that all CG controlled buildings are now in compliance with ABA/ADA requirements, with all remaining discrepancies 

above depending solely on DHS and GSA action, this item has been removed as a discrepancy from the Coast Guard’s MD715 compliance report. DHS and GSA will be informed in writing of this action NLT January 2018.
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
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

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. 

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.
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

Reassigned to Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers and Information Technology 

(C4&IT)

DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: September 25, 2013

TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: June 30, 2014

(30 September 2018)
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, 2018

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. Reassign program responsibility to an Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and

Information Technology (C4&IT) representative.
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

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
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.

This activity is ongoing. The CG has available mentoring resources to include an online mentoring course and we provide 

mentoring assistance through the Leadership Development Center Leader Assist program. We are in the process of finalizing a 

comprehensive Civilian Leader Strategic Needs Assessment (SNA) and updating the Coast Guard’s Leadership Development 

Program policy. The use of mentoring as a leadership development tool is likely to be included in the final analysis and then 

updated 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.
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

Modified to June 30, 2018

June 30, 2016

Modified to June 30, 2018

Completed September 30, 

2017.

June 30, 2018

Individual Development Plan

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

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE

1a. Currently the Coast Guard does not have a fully developed, organic rotational assignment program. This year will mark the

second FY that resources have been requested via Resource Proposal to assist with implementation and management of an 

organically resourced program. In light of resource limitations, CG-12C has identified and is leveraging external resources to 

provide these opportunities. This includes four different courses through the USA Graduate School, appealing to the spectrum

of civilian grades in the Coast Guard. These courses include shadowing and rotational assignment opportunities. In FY16, 

CG-12C increased the number of quotas to the USA Graduate School by 20%. Participation at this increased level remained 

steady in FY17. In 2017, CG-12C identified these rotational assignment opportunities currently available to Coast Guard 

members via the DHS Rotational Assignment program on its re-designed web-site and social media sites. 

1b. A rotational assignment capability has been identified and remains sustainable within current resource levels, CG-12C will 

work to codify procedures to access these programs and advertise this capability as part of its newly revamped leadership 

program web-site.

1c. 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 e-mail 

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. 

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. 

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, we will issue guidance 

to supervisors and managers that a discussion about career advancement should be part of annual performance cycle 

discussions.
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 21.75% in FY 2017, which 

exceeds the goal of 12%. The percentage of PWD in the GS-11 to SES cluster was 

19.65% in FY 2017, 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 4.73% in FY 2017, which 

exceeds the goal of 2%. The percentage of PWTD in the GS-11 to SES cluster was 

4.15% in FY 2017, which exceeds the goal of 2%.

2. Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring 

managers and/or recruiters.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

2

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 Specialist, etc. Monthly updates on the hiring goals are 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 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 

X X X Joint responsibility 

depending on how 

applications are received

Answering questions from the public 

about hiring authorities that take 

disability into account

X X X Kenneth Davis, HR 

Specialist, Office of Civilian 

Human Resources, 

Kenneth.R.Davis@uscg.mil

Processing reasonable 

accommodation requests from 

applicants and employees

5 0 0 Michael Brenyo, 

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

Coordinator, Civil Rights 

Directorate, 

Michael.E.Brenyo@uscg.mil
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

3

Section 508 Compliance 1 1 0 Deborah Johnson-Hood, 

USCG National Section 508 

Coordinator, Office of 

Enterprise Architecture and 

Governance, 

Deborah.A.JohnsonHood@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, 

Michael.E.Brenyo@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.

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.

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 Warfighter 

(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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

5

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(3), describe the agency’s use of hiring authorities 

that take disability into account (e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for 

positions in the permanent workforce. 

Schedule A 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. 

Due to the 2014 EEO case Complainant v. Arne Duncan, Secretary, Department of Education, 

USCG has been advised by DHS to no longer ask applicants if they are Schedule A eligible 

during the initial hiring process. However, applicants who self disclose their disability, provide 

the appropriate documentation, and are determined qualified 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 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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

6

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 (17.32%), 

which is above the benchmark of 12%, and a trigger does not exist for PWTD (2.03%), 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. 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.

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. 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. USCG only identifies major occupations.

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for

Employees with Disabilities 
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

7

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.

USCG offers Leader Development programs that are offered by Graduate School 

(Aspiring Leader, New Leader, Executive Leader, and Executive Potential Leader).

B. CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its 

employees. 

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
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

8

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 0

b. Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0

There may be low applicant and participation rates for PWD for career development programs. 

USCG will have data when the FY 2018 MD-715 report is prepared.

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 0

b. Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0

There may be low applicant and participation rates for PWTD for career development programs.

USCG will have data when the FY 2018 MD-715 report is prepared. 

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 0 No X

For PWD, the inclusion rate for time-off awards is 43.22% and cash awards is 86.1%. For 

PWTD, the inclusion rate for time-off awards is 27.76% and cash awards is 56.71%. The CG 

will monitor the inclusion rate in the future years to determine if a trigger exits.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

9

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

For PWD, the inclusion rate for Quality-Step Increases is 2.71%. For PWTD, the inclusion rate

for Quality-Step Increases is 5.22%. The CG will monitor the inclusion rate in the future years to 

determine if a trigger exits.

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

All applicable USCG employee recognition programs are captured in the previous questions 

under this section.

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. 
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

10

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 MD715 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 MD715 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 collect this information. 

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 collect this information. 

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 three Schedule A employees with a disability during FY

2017.

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 0 No X

b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes 0 No X

The inclusion rate for voluntary separations is 7.57% and for involuntary separations is 

.25%. The voluntary separations inclusion rate for persons without disabilities is 6.44% 

and involuntary separations are 0.44%. Therefore the inclusion rate for PWD 

separations is higher than 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 0 No X

Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No X

The inclusion rate for voluntary separations is 4.18% and for involuntary separations is 

.90%. The voluntary separations inclusion rate for persons without disabilities is 6.44% 

and involuntary separations are 0.44%. Therefore the inclusion rate of PWTD for 

involuntary separations is greater than the separations 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.

USCG does not collect disability data with the exit survey data.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

16

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: http://www.overview.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.

USCG has not issued a notice of rights pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, but is 

currently in the process of drafting one. USCG plans to post the notice on its public website by

Fourth Quarter, FY 2018. USCG will also engage with other agencies to integrate their best 

practices into our ABA compliance.

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 plans to use those findings to 

improve accessibility to Agency facilities and/or technology. USCG anticipates having a plan 

and budget submission in place by Fourth Quarter, FY 2018. 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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

17

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 16.41 days in FY 2017, 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. USCG plans to have its request and funding approved by Fourth Quarter, 

FY 2018.

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.

In FY 2017, USCG began drafting its PAS procedures for submittal to the EEOC for approval. It 

will also be placed on the Agency website and published in the Agency’s Civil Rights Manual. 

USCG plans to have this completed by Fourth Quarter, FY 18. USCG is also developing a 

communication plan through which information regarding PAS can be shared with the 

workforce. USCG plans to have this completed by Fourth Quarter, FY 18. In addition, in FY 

2017, USCG began tracking PAS requests and approvals. USCG currently has a partnership 

with DRC which allows for PAS and RA at no cost to the Agency.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

18

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 17: 17.24% (10 complaints, 58 total complaints filed)

Federal FY 14: 14.23% (2137 complaints, 15013 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

5 settlements during the informal 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 17: 12.10% (7 complaints, 58 total complaints filed)

Federal FY 14: 9.80% (1463 complaints, 15013 total complaints filed)

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

3 settlements during the informal 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.
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

19

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 the last fiscal year, a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO 

complaint alleging harassment (17.24%) as compared to the government-wide 

average in FY 14 (14.23%).

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.

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)

Completion 

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

03/31/2018 Integrate training module and provide 

training to all employees

Yes

07/31/2018 Review complaint activity to see if the 

number of PWD alleging harassment 

Yes
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

20

have decreased, review and revise 

training as required.

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing 

any of the planned activities.

Not applicable, planned activities are for next fiscal year.

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual 

impact of those activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

Not applicable, planned activities are for next fiscal year.

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.

Not applicable, planned activities are for next fiscal year.

Trigger 2

During the last fiscal year, a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO 

complaint alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation (12.10%) as 

compared to the government-wide average in FY 14 (9.80%).

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
EEOC FORM

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

21

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified 

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion 

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

03/31/2018 Integrate training module and provide 

training to all employees

Yes

07/31/2018 Review complaint activity to see if the 

number of PWD alleging harassment 

have decreased, review and revise 

training as required.

Yes

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing 

any of the planned activities.

Not applicable, planned activities are for next fiscal year.

2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual 

impact of those activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).

Not applicable, planned activities are for next fiscal year.

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.

Not applicable, planned activities are for next fiscal year.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

POLICY STATEMENT

Our Active Duty, Reserve, Civilian and Auxiliary personnel are the foundation upon 

which the Coast Guard sustains mission excellence. Our Duty to People requires a 

workplace that, at all times, promotes professional growth and opportunity and 

upholds our Core Values of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty. 

Every member of the Coast Guard is responsible for preventing and eliminating all forms 

of discrimination that violate law or policy including practices and procedures that 

discriminatorily impact our workforce, applicants for employment and those seeking to 

participate or receive benefits from Coast Guard-sponsored programs. Adherence to 

this principle is a requirement for Coast Guard service.

Leaders, Managers and Supervisors shall:

• Recruit, train, develop, promote, reward, retain and deploy a skilled and capable

diverse workforce in a fair and consistent manner on the basis of merit.

• Ensure that opportunities in the Coast Guard are publicized to the widest extent

possible to identify, from all areas of our country and all parts of our society, highly

qualified applicants for enlistment, officer accession, civilian employment and Auxiliary

enrollment.

• Maintain a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment.

• Provide reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants and employees with

disabilities.

• Ensure all men and women of the Coast Guard are educated about their rights and

 responsibilities under Federal civil rights laws.

• Act promptly, appropriately, and decisively in support of this policy to ensure

 personal accountability throughout the Coast Guard.

Every single member of our Coast Guard force has the right to expect and require equal 

and fair treatment with dignity and respect without any regard to race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual harassment, pregnancy and sexual 

orientation), age, disability, genetic information, marital status, parental status, political 

affiliation, engagement in a protected Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity, or 

any other basis protected by law. Those who fail to demonstrate these tenets are in 

conflict with our Core Values and will be held accountable.

PAUL F. ZUKUNFT

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard

May 17, 2017

THE COMMANDANT OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Washington, DC 20593 UN TI EDSTATESCOASTGUARD

17 90

SEMPER

PARATUS

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

POLICY STATEMENT

Our Active Duty, Reserve, Civilian and Auxiliary personnel are the foundation upon 

which the Coast Guard sustains mission excellence. Our Duty to People requires a 

workplace that, at all times, promotes professional growth and opportunity and 

upholds our Core Values of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty. 

Every member of the Coast Guard is responsible for preventing and eliminating all forms

of discrimination that violate law or policy including practices and procedures that

discriminatorily impact our workforce, applicants for employment and those seeking to 

participate or receive benefits from Coast Guard-sponsored programs. Adherence to 

this principle is a requirement for Coast Guard service.

Leaders, Managers and Supervisors shall:

• Recruit, train, develop, promote, reward, retain and deploy a skilled and capable 

diverse workforce in a fair and consistent manner on the basis of merit.

• Ensure that opportunities in the Coast Guard are publicized to the widest extent

possible to identify, from all areas of our country and all parts of our society, highly

qualified applicants for enlistment, officer accession, civilian employment and Auxiliary

enrollment.

• Maintain a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment.

• Provide reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants and employees with 

disabilities.

• Ensure all men and women of the Coast Guard are educated about their rights and 

responsibilities under Federal civil rights laws.

• Act promptly, appropriately, and decisively in support of this policy to ensure 

personal accountability throughout the Coast Guard.

Every single member of our Coast Guard force has the right to expect and require equal

and fair treatment with dignity and respect without any regard to race, color, national

origin, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual harassment, pregnancy and sexual

orientation), age, disability, genetic information, marital status, parental status, political

affiliation, engagement in a protected Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity, or

any other basis protected by law. Those who fail to demonstrate these tenets are in 

conflict with our Core Values and will be held accountable.

PAUL F. ZUKUNFT

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard

May 17, 2017
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION and 

ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY STATEMENT

Our Core Values of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty demand our commitment and 

dedication to a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. Sustained mission 

excellence requires it. Federal law and policy compel it. Our Duty to People is founded 

upon it.

Unlawful discrimination, including harassment, is incompatible with our Service values. 

We will respect those we serve and those who serve with us. We will cultivate and 

sustain a work environment that is free from conduct that unreasonably interferes with 

an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, offensive or hostile work 

environment based on an individual’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including 

gender identity, sexual harassment, pregnancy and sexual orientation), age, disability, 

genetic information, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, engagement in a 

protected Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity or any other basis protected by 

the law. We will proactively address such conduct before it affects our people and our 

mission performance. Each Coast Guard member will be familiar with our EEO policies 

to prevent and eliminate all forms of discrimination and harassment.

The Coast Guard’s Civil Rights Directorate website contains guidelines for appropriately

reporting and responding to incidents of unlawful discrimination and harassment: 

https://www.uscg.mil/Resources/Civil-Rights/. Coast Guard members who believe they 

have been subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or harassment should report it as 

well as any suspected retaliation or reprisal related to an EEO complaint. Reports shall 

be made promptly through the supervisory chain of command, the local Civil Rights or 

Human Resources Offices, or through other appropriate grievance procedures. All 

complaints and reports alleging unlawful discrimination and/or harassment will be 

processed promptly, thoroughly, impartially and through a process that protects privacy. 

In cases where it is determined that discrimination has occurred, leaders and managers 

will take immediate and appropriate corrective action. 

At all times, we will provide an environment that promotes dignity, respect, fairness and 

inclusion. These are essential elements to the sustainment of operational excellence, a 

positive command climate and a healthy work environment. It is who we are. 

PAUL F. ZUKUNFT

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard

May 17, 2017

THE COMMANDANT OF THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Washington, DC 20593 UN TI EDSTATESCOASTGUARD

17 90

SEMPER

PARATUS

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION and

ANTI-HARASSMENT POLICY STATEMENT

Our Core Values of Honor, Respect and Devotion to Duty demand our commitment and 

dedication to a workplace free of discrimination and harassment. Sustained mission 

excellence requires it. Federal law and policy compel it. Our Duty to People is founded 

upon it.

Unlawful discrimination, including harassment, is incompatible with our Service values.

We will respect those we serve and those who serve with us. We will cultivate and 

sustain a work environment that is free from conduct that unreasonably interferes with 

an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, offensive or hostile work

environment based on an individual’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including 

gender identity, sexual harassment, pregnancy and sexual orientation), age, disability,

genetic information, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, engagement in a 

protected Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity or any other basis protected by

the law. We will proactively address such conduct before it affects our people and our

mission performance. Each Coast Guard member will be familiar with our EEO policies

to prevent and eliminate all forms of discrimination and harassment.

The Coast Guard’s Civil Rights Directorate website contains guidelines for appropriately

reporting and responding to incidents of unlawful discrimination and harassment:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg00/cg00h. Coast Guard members who believe they have 

been subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or harassment should report it as well as

any suspected retaliation or reprisal related to an EEO complaint. Reports shall be 

made promptly through the supervisory chain of command, the local Civil Rights or

Human Resources Offices, or through other appropriate grievance procedures. All

complaints and reports alleging unlawful discrimination and/or harassment will be 

processed promptly, thoroughly, impartially and through a process that protects privacy.

In cases where it is determined that discrimination has occurred, leaders and managers

will take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

At all times, we will provide an environment that promotes dignity, respect, fairness and 

inclusion. These are essential elements to the sustainment of operational excellence, a 

positive command climate and a healthy work environment. It is who we are.

PAUL F. ZUKUNFT

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard

May 17, 2017

\.._.;' 

ates Coast 

rganization 

I 

Deputy Comdt 

for Operations 

(DCC) 

I 

Asst. Comdt for 

lntelNgence and Asst. Comdt for Asst. Comdt for 

Criminal Response Policy Prevention Policy 

lnvesUgations (CG-SR) (CG-SP) 

(CG-2) 

Grav shad~d or1iln1ialions are CG Headquarters Units. The reportln1 

relationship (Technical Control) is described within their respective functional 

statements and is reflected here via dashed lines. 

Asst. Comdt for 

CapabUlty 

(CG-7) 

\..._./ 

Commandomt 

Guard (CG·DO) 

Chart Director Civil Rights MCPOCG I (CG·OOH) (CG-DOB) 

Chief Administrative Law Chaplain of the Coast I Judge Guard 

(CG-OOJ) (CG-DOA) 

Vice Commandant 

(CG·01l) 

Asst Comdt for Resources I Government & Publk: Affairs 

(CG-8) I (CG-092) 

Judge 

Chief 

Advocate 

Counsel 

General & I I CG lllvnllgolM ~ 

I I (CG-CGl8} (CG·01l4) 

I 

Deputy Commandant for ·I Dndorol Mission Support I Mission 

(DCMS) 

Support --~, Units (Bases) 

I - --------1 

Asst. Comdt for Asst. Comdt for 

Human Engineering & Asst. Comdt for Asst. Comdt for Fon:eRNdlness 

C41T Acquisition commend Resources Logistics 

(CG-1) (CG-4) (CG-6) (CG-9) (CG FORCECOM) 

I r--"' I - Is:-~ I Hle~-11 ~~.I 

~=~=I 

Training Centers 

1 ___ _ 

ti L==er I 

I I 

Atlantic Area Pacific Area 

I I I Districts I (D1 , DS, D7, DB, 09) I D1Stricts I (D11 , D13, D14. D17) 

I I I Mis~on Execution I Units 

I Mission Execution I untts 

Approved: CCG 2DOB 

Modified: FC to DCMS: VCG 11 Nov 2010 

Modified: CG-2 to DCC: CG-81 13 Aug 2014 

Modified: CGIS to VCG: VCG 6 Oct 2014 

Deleted: CG-09S Approved 22 Oct 201S 
Supplemental Information - Part J
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 5 43 50 142 32 118 1 391 212 340 279 138 39 6 1014

% 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.81 27.04 23.70 22.65 19.51 19.97 5.00 21.75 22.65 20.15 18.07 18.60 17.03 28.57 19.65

# 0 0 1 4 13 14 44 6 42 1 125 66 115 85 38 15 1 320

% 0 0 20.00 19.05 8.18 6.64 7.02 3.66 7.11 5.00 6.95 7.05 6.82 5.51 5.12 6.55 4.76 6.20

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 9 56 64 186 38 160 2 516 278 455 364 176 54 7 1334

% 0.0 0.0 20.0 42.9 35.2 30.3 29.7 23.2 27.1 10.0 28.7 29.7 27.0 23.6 23.7 23.6 33.3 25.9

Total GS/SES/SL 0 0 5 21 159 211 627 164 591 20 1798 936 1687 1544 742 229 21 5159

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 12 14 34 4 19 0 85 49 64 63 33 5 0 214

% 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.52 7.55 6.64 5.42 2.44 3.21 0.00 4.73 5.24 3.79 4.08 4.45 2.18 0.00 4.15

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 12 14 34 4 19 0 85 49 64 63 33 5 0 214

% 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.52 7.55 6.64 5.42 2.44 3.21 0.00 4.73 5.24 3.79 4.08 4.45 2.18 0.00 4.15

Data required in submission to EEOC and CRCL.

FY 2017 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 2017 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% 19.65

GS 10 and Below (or equivalent) 12% 21.75

Indiviuals with Targeted Disabilities (IWTD) 

GS 11 and Above (or equivalent) 2% 4.15

GS 10 and Below (or equivalent) 2% 4.73

Data required in submission to EEOC and CRCL.

FY 2017 Workforce Goals/Current Workforce
# %

Total Schedule A Workforce 19 100%

Conversions to Career or Career Conditional 3 16%

Eligible for Conversion 16 84%

Terminiations prior to Conversion 0 0%

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2017 Schedule A Conversion and Termination Tracker
Total number of Applicants with a Disability 1256

Total number of Hires with a Disability 128

Total number of Applicants with a Targeted Disability 547

Total number of Hires with a Targeted Disability 10

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2017 Applicants and Hires 
Date of Hire Entering Grade Level Probationaly Status Current Grade Level

1 1/10/2016 GS-07, Step 01 1/6/2018 GS-09, Step 01

2 9/4/2016 GS-12, Step 01 9/1/2018 GS-13, Step 01

3 10/30/2016 GS-11, Step 01 10/27/2018 GS-11, Step 01

4 10/30/2016 GS-12, Step 01 10/27/2018 GS-12, Step 01

5 1/8/2017 GS-08, Step 01 1/5/2019 GS-08, Step 01

6 1/22/2017 GS-07, Step 01 1/19/2019 GS-07, Step 01

7 1/22/2017 GS-05, Step 01 1/19/2019 GS-05, Step 01

8 1/22/2017 GS-07, Step 04 1/19/2019 GS-07, Step 04

9 4/2/2017 GS-12, Step 01 3/30/2019 GS-12, Step 01

10 4/2/2017 GS-04, Step 04 3/30/2019 GS-07, Step 04

11 4/16/2017 GS-08, Step 01 4/13/2019 GS-08, Step 01

12 5/14/2017 GS-12, Step 01 5/11/2019 GS-12, Step 01

13 7/9/2017 GS-05, Step 01 7/6/2019 GS-05, Step 01

14 7/9/2017 GS-07, Step 01 7/6/2019 GS-07, Step 01

15 7/9/2017 GS-11, Step 01 7/6/2019 GS-11, Step 01

16 11/13/2017 GS-05, Step 01 11/9/2019 GS-05, Step 01

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2017 Total On-board Schedule A Employee Tracker

(Do not include Employee Name or anyother PII) 
Recissions of conditional job offers 0

Demotions 0

Terminations 5

Data required in submission to CRCL.

FY 2017 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 Offic

sample HQ Employee 260 14 Zoom Text perform essential functions of job Yes Jane Doe, Superv

1 USCG Employee 1670 GS‐12 Use of flex time for rehab from  surgery perform essential functions of job Yes LT Langilier 

2 USCG Employee 501 GS‐14 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Reinert, Tod 3 USCG Employee 303 GS‐08 Mobility Scooter perform essential functions of job Yes CAPT Danie4 USCG Employee

AD‐00 

Professor AD‐00 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Pavilonis, Brig

5 USCG Employee 2010 GS‐11 Computer Monitor, Ergo, Chair,  Parking, no lifting, telework perform essential functions of job Yes Madden, Jenni

6 USCG Employee 301 GS‐11 Adjusted Work Hours, Leave as  Needed for Medical Condition perform essential functions of job Yes CDR John Barr

7 USCG Employee 201 GS‐13 Leave as Needed for Medical  Condition, Telework perform essential functions of job Yes O. Thomas Cra

8 USCG Employee 801 GS‐13 Time to Exercise 30 Minutes, 4 Days  Per Week  perform essential functions of job Yes Kevin Wilson 

9 USCG Employee 343 GS‐13 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Leslie Wirkkun

10 USCG Employee 1035 GS‐12 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes CAPT Howard W11 USCG Employee

510

GS‐14

Telework

perform essential functions of job Partial

Stella Whitse

12 USCG Employee 1102 GS‐11 Ergo Chair, Foot Stand perform essential functions of job Yes Tillman II, Alle13 USCG Employee 1102 GS‐09 Telework 4 days per week perform essential functions of job Yes Mack, Walter 14 USCG Employee

303

GS‐08

Telework

perform essential functions of job Partial

LCDR Steven My

15 USCG Employee 1412 GS‐12 Telework, CAC‐RAS perform essential functions of job Yes Frid, Mitch 16 USCG Employee 3502 WG‐03 Additional Time for Taskings perform essential functions of job Yes Way, Jordan 17 USCG Employee 1412 GS‐11 Trackball mouse perform essential functions of job Yes Swidrak, Joh18 USCG Employee 303 GS‐08 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Steven Myer19 USCG Employee 2210 GS‐14 Chair perform essential functions of job Yes Gary Chappe20 USCG Employee 301 GS‐14 parking pass CWS, RDO, FMLA,  Tteleowrk, FWS perform essential functions of job Yes Christina Curl

21 USCG Employee 525 GS‐07 Adjustable Desk perform essential functions of job Yes Robey, Tedd22 USCG Employee 525 GS‐07 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Young, Janice 

23 USCG Employee 510 GS‐11 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Finley, Ian 

FY 2017 Reasonable Accommodation Report
24 USCG Employee

905

GS‐13

select non‐contract domestic air 

carrier

perform essential functions of job No

Coleman, Peyt

25 USCG Employee 4102 GS‐12 reassignment perform essential functions of job No Carl Woody 

26 USCG Employee NF‐03 NF‐03 90‐days of Leave without pay perform essential functions of job Yes Albritton, Rebe27 USCG Employee 525 GS‐07 Temp Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Young, Janice 28 USCG Employee 510 GS‐12 AD Hoc telework perform essential functions of job Yes Jackson, Share29 USCG Employee 510 GS‐07 Ergonomic Chair perform essential functions of job Yes Fenner, Christop30 USCG Employee 343 GS‐12 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Taylor, Robert L31 USCG Employee

2892

WG‐10

Temporary; No lifting over 20 

pounds duty restriction until 

February 15, 2017. perform essential functions of job Yes

Cavallaro, Joh

32 USCG Employee 8852 WG‐10 Bench work and light duty activity as  tolerated permitted. perform essential functions of job Yes Cavallaro, Joh

33 USCG Employee 2130 GS‐11 Alternate Work Schedule 4/10 and  Telework 2‐days a week perform essential functions of job Yes Balem, Phillip J. 34 USCG Employee

81

GS‐07

Alternative accommodation: remain 

in a LWOP status until April 2017 per 

health care provider previous note, 

pending further direction from the 

health care provider.

perform essential functions of job No

Grabe, Christop

35 USCG Employee 8852 WG‐10 No lifting over 20 lbs/no bending or  climbing perform essential functions of job Yes Cavallaro, Joh
36 USCG Employee

510

GS‐12

Varidesk, Ergonomic Chair

perform essential functions of job Partial

Degaraff, Stac

37 USCG Employee 510 GS‐09 Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Griffin, Carm38 USCG Employee

905

GS‐13

Adjusted Air Travel

perform essential functions of job No

Coleman, Peyt

39 USCG Employee 301 GS‐11 Temporary (3‐month) Removal from  Watch Standing perform essential functions of job Yes Smith, Andrea L
40 USCG Employee

4749

WG‐08

Reassignment; change in job duties; 

partime work; 

perform essential functions of job N/A

Cetrulo, Theodo

41 USCG Employee NF‐01 NF‐01 Chair/Stool to sit on  perform essential functions of job Yes Besse, Sandra M42 USCG Employee

830

GS‐12

Frenquent breaks; Flexiable 

stop/start times; Full spectum desk 

lighting  perform essential functions of job Yes

Arana, Orlando 

43 USCG Employee 391 GS‐13 Aerus Pure & Dry HEPA 70 Pint  Dehumidifier and Air purifier perform essential functions of job Yes Jensen, Erik CD

44 USCG Employee

2102

GS‐06

Move to another office

perform essential functions of job N/A

Wilson‐Bacon, M

Mrs. LCDR

45 USCG Employee 301 GS‐11 Work 2‐days (20 hours) a week perform essential functions of job Yes Balem, Phillip LC46 USCG Employee

2010

GS‐11

Placed in position where there is no 

foot traffic that approach him from 

behind. perform essential functions of job Yes

O'Neal, Walla

47 USCG Employee 525 GS‐07

Telework (Approved after pending 

medical documentation was 

provided) perform essential functions of job Yes Bell, Sandra 

48 USCG Employee 303 GS‐08

Flex Schedule, Telework, Spectrum 

desk lighting, exclusion from active 

shooter drills, AWS, Flexible break 

schedule, Most tasking presented via 

email with expected completion 

timeline, private safe place to go in 

the event of an anxiety attack.  perform essential functions of job Partial Pettigrew, Kevin 

49 USCG Employee 2135 GS‐09 Telephone Headset perform essential functions of job Yes Bridges, Nicho50 USCG Employee 525 GS‐07

Telework 5 days a week for up to 6 

weeks beginning 8/28/2017 through 

10/6/2017 perform essential functions of job Yes Randall, Jame

51 USCG Employee 2892 WG‐05 No Jumping or Pivoting perform essential functions of job Yes Coons, Kenneth
52 USCG Employee 4352 WG‐10

No Pushing, Pulling, Bending, 

Squatting, Climbing or Lifting 

Greater than 5lbs perform essential functions of job Yes Coons, Kenneth

53 USCG Employee 301 GS‐11

Limit Watch Standing from Watch 

Standing perform essential functions of job Yes Smith, Andrea L

54 USCG Employee 905 GS‐13 Sick Leave/Telecommute perform essential functions of job Yes Scott, Anita 55 USCG Employee 1102 GS‐12 Captioned Phone, Real‐Time CART  Provider, Workplace Relocation. perform essential functions of job Yes Atillman, Alle56 USCG Employee 260 GS‐12 Modified work schedule,  Ergo Desk  eval perform essential functions of job Yes Razavi, Ahma

57 USCG Employee 1801 GS‐12 Varidesk perform essential functions of job Yes Fry, LT Jeffre58 USCG Employee

702

GS‐05

One hour out of the classroom with 

feet elevated for every two hours 

worked perform essential functions of job Yes

Mejias, Nydi

59 USCG Employee

702

GS‐05

Work 4‐8 hours total via telework for 

an estimated 10 week period 

perform essential functions of job No

Mejias, Nydi

60 USCG Employee 301 GS‐13 Temporary Telework perform essential functions of job Yes LCDR Vinelov

Rebecca 

61 USCG Employee 545 GS‐08 Amigo HD Portable CCTV perform essential functions of job Yes Terry Fritz 62 USCG Employee 545 GS‐06 Ergo Keyboard, Footrest, Sit to Stand  Desk perform essential functions of job Yes Terry Fritz 

63 USCG Employee 540 GS‐06 Ergo Keyboard, Footrest, Sit to Stand  Desk perform essential functions of job Yes Terry Fritz 

64 USCG Employee

260

GS‐09

Limited use of voice during 

performance of duties for 180 days 

(Training etc...)  perform essential functions of job Yes

Vesone Dean 

65 USCG Employee 950 GS‐09 Telework  perform essential functions of job Yes Teague, Ronal66 USCG Employee 101 GS‐12 Telework  perform essential functions of job Yes Vinelove, Rebe67 USCG Employee 303 GS‐06  LCD Flat Panel Monitor (2) perform essential functions of job Yes Fritz, Terry L 68 USCG Employee 1170 GS‐12 VDI Remote Access Account perform essential functions of job Yes Woodall, Dan69 USCG Employee 1170 GS‐12

Additional Telework days and New 

Chair perform essential functions of job Yes Woodall, Dan

70 USCG Employee 2210 GS‐12

Allow employee to make up missed 

time due to medical condition perform essential functions of job Yes McCord, Hale

71 USCG Employee NF‐5 NF‐5

Occupational change, Walk Away 

option for high stress periods, one 

hour lunch perform essential functions of job Yes Coleman, Fran

72 USCG Employee 950 GS‐05

Flexible work hours, self‐paced 

workload, rest periods, Telework perform essential functions of job Yes Washburn, Chris

73 USCG Employee 305 GS‐05 Varidesk Pro Plus perform essential functions of job Yes LT Legate, Joh74 USCG Employee 260 GS‐13

Temporary Parking Spot

perform essential functions of job

N/A Vesone Dean

75 USCG Employee 986 GS‐07 LIGHT LAMP THERAPY perform essential functions of job Yes FRITZ, TERRY 
76 USCG Employee 3410 WG‐10

Shift Change; up to 3 hrs of leave 

each day to report; leave restriction 

lifted perform essential functions of job Partial D. Shields

78 USCG Employee 1102 GS‐12 Captioned Phone (cost $75), CART  Provider ($60 ‐ $200 per hr.) perform essential functions of job Yes Tillman II, Alle79 USCG Employee 346 GS‐11

Situational Telework during medical 

flare‐ups perform essential functions of job Yes E. Zaruba 

80 USCG Employee

1801

GS‐12

Telework

perform essential functions of job No

Duarte, Benjam

81 USCG Employee 201 GS‐12 Frequent Breaks, and Rearrange  Priorities perform essential functions of job Yes LCDR Brand

Marquardt 

82 USCG Employee 1102 GS‐11 Sit/Stand wordesk. Back Support perform essential functions of job Yes Sturdifen, Den83 USCG Employee

343

GS‐11

100% telework

perform essential functions of job No

Robert Rioux

84 USCG Employee 1412 GS‐11 Sit/Stand wordesk. Back Support perform essential functions of job Yes Swidrak, Joh85 USCG Employee 501 GS‐13 Reassignment perform essential functions of job N/A CDR Kristopher J86 USCG Employee 501 GS‐12 Easy activation sit/stand desk perform essential functions of job N/A CDR Gregory Bar87 USCG Employee 201 GS‐09 Ergonomic chair/adjus wkstat perform essential functions of job N/A Dong, Yvonn88 USCG Various Various Various 135 Requests for DOT Services perform essential functions of job Yes, 130 Approved DOT 

Data required in submission to CRCL.
FY2017 WORKFORCE TABLES

Data Tables A – Workforce Table Titles

A1 Total Workforce – Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A2 Total Workforce by Component - Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A3-1 Occupational Categories - Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A3-2 Occupational Categories - Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A4-1

Participation Rates for General Schedule (GS) Grades by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

(Permanent & Temp)

A4-2

Participation Rates for General Schedule (GS) Grades by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

(Permanent & Temp)

A5-1 Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race, Ethnicity and Sex (Permanent & Temp)

A5-2 Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race, Ethnicity and Sex (Permanent & Temp)

A6 Participation Rates for Major Occupations –Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A7 Applicants and Hires for Major Occupations by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A8 New Hires by Appointment Type - Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A9 Selections for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major Occupations by Race, Ethnicity 

and Sex

A10 Non-Competitive Promotions – Time in Grade - Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A11 Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions (GS13, GS15, and SES) by Race, Ethnicity and 

Sex

A12 Participation in Career Development by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A13 Employment Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

A14 Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Race, Ethnicity and Sex

Data Tables B – Workforce Table Titles

B1 Total Workforce – Distribution by Disability

B2 Total Workforce by Component - Distribution Disability

B3-1 Occupational Categories - Distribution Disability

B3-2 Occupational Categories - Distribution Disability

B4-1 Participation Rates for General Schedule (GS) Grades by Disability (Permanent & Temp)

B4-2 Participation Rates for General Schedule (GS) Grades by Disability (Permanent & Temp)

B5-1 Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Disability (Permanent & Temp)

B5-2 Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Disability (Permanent & Temp)

B6 Participation Rates for Major Occupations – Distribution by Disability (Permanent & Temp)

B7 Applicants and Hires for Major Occupations by Disability (Permanent & Temp)

B8 New Hires by Appointment Type - Distribution by Disability

B9 Selections for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major Occupations by Disability

B10 Non-Competitive Promotions – Time in Grade - Distribution by Disability

B11 Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions (GS13, GS15, and SES) by Disability

B12 Participation in Career Development by Disability

B13 Employment Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Disability

B14 Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Disability
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

8345 5890 2455 360 140 4537 1481 631 646 185 100 32 14 115 34 30 40

 100% 70.58% 29.42% 4.31% 1.68% 54.37% 17.75% 7.56% 7.74% 2.22% 1.20% 0.38% 0.17% 1.38% 0.41% 0.36% 0.48%

8548 5998 2550 307 107 4594 1504 670 703 191 113 32 12 114 35 90 76

 100% 70.17% 29.83% 3.59% 1.25% 53.74% 17.59% 7.84% 8.22% 2.23% 1.32% 0.37% 0.14% 1.33% 0.41% 1.05% 0.89%

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 203 108 95 -53 -33 57 23 39 57 6 13 0 -2 -1 1 60 36

Ratio Change 0% -0.41% 0.41% -0.72% -0.43% -0.62% -0.15% 0.28% 0.48% 0.02% 0.12% -0.01% -0.03% -0.04% 0% 0.69% 0.41%

Net Change 2.43% 1.83% 3.87% -14.72% -23.57% 1.26% 1.55% 6.18% 8.82% 3.24% 13.00% 0% -14.29% -0.87% 2.94% 200.00% 90.00%

8173 5769 2404 354 139 4442 1444 616 635 181 99 31 13 115 34 30 40

 100% 70.59% 29.41% 4.33% 1.70% 54.35% 17.67% 7.54% 7.77% 2.21% 1.21% 0.38% 0.16% 1.41% 0.42% 0.37% 0.49%

8364 5871 2493 304 103 4496 1466 650 690 186 113 31 12 114 34 90 75

 100% 70.19% 29.81% 3.63% 1.23% 53.75% 17.53% 7.77% 8.25% 2.22% 1.35% 0.37% 0.14% 1.36% 0.41% 1.08% 0.90%

Difference 191 102 89 -50 -36 54 22 34 55 5 14 0 -1 -1 0 60 35

Ratio Change 0% -0.39% 0.39% -0.70% -0.47% -0.60% -0.14% 0.23% 0.48% 0.01% 0.14% -0.01% -0.02% -0.04% -0.01% 0.71% 0.41%

Net Change 2.34% 1.77% 3.70% -14.12% -25.90% 1.22% 1.52% 5.52% 8.66% 2.76% 14.14% 0% -7.69% -0.87% 0% 200.00% 87.50%

172 121 51 6 1 95 37 15 11 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

 100% 70.35% 29.65% 3.49% 0.58% 55.23% 21.51% 8.72% 6.40% 2.33% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0% 0% 0% 0%

184 127 57 3 4 98 38 20 13 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

 100% 69.02% 30.98% 1.63% 2.17% 53.26% 20.65% 10.87% 7.07% 2.72% 0% 0.54% 0% 0% 0.54% 0% 0.54%

Difference 12 6 6 -3 3 3 1 5 2 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 0 1

Ratio Change 0% -1.33% 1.33% -1.86% 1.59% -1.97% -0.86% 2.15% 0.67% 0.39% -0.58% -0.04% -0.58% 0% 0.54% 0% 0.54%

Net Change 6.98% 4.96% 11.76% -50.00% 300.00% 3.16% 2.70% 33.33% 18.18% 25.00% -100% 0% -100% 0% 100% 0% 100%

1375 404 971 102 178 239 571 27 105 22 72 4 11 2 6 8 28

100% 29.38% 70.62% 7.42% 12.95% 17.38% 41.53% 1.96% 7.64% 1.60% 5.24% 0.29% 0.80% 0.15% 0.44% 0.58% 2.04%

1420 429 991 103 175 241 563 38 119 27 78 5 13 1 4 14 39

100% 30.21% 69.79% 7.25% 12.32% 16.97% 39.65% 2.68% 8.38% 1.90% 5.49% 0.35% 0.92% 0.07% 0.28% 0.99% 2.75%

Difference 45 25 20 1 -3 2 -8 11 14 5 6 1 2 -1 -2 6 11

Ratio Change 0.00% 0.83% -0.83% -0.16% -0.62% -0.41% -1.88% 0.71% 0.74% 0.30% 0.26% 0.06% 0.12% -0.08% -0.15% 0.40% 0.71%

Net Change 3.27% 6.19% 2.06% 0.98% -1.69% 0.84% -1.40% 40.74% 13.33% 22.73% 8.33% 25.00% 18.18% -50.00% -33.33% 75.00% 39.29%

Prior FY

Current FY

Prior FY

Current FY

TEMPORARY

Prior FY

Current FY

NON-APPROPRIATED

PERMANENT

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

Islander Alaska Native

TOTAL

Prior FY

Current FY

CLF (2010)

TOTAL WORKFORCE

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A1: Total Workforce - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

EMPLOYMENT TENURE

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American Two or More
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

8364 5871 2493 361 137 4496 1466 650 690 186 113 31 12 114 34 33 41

 100% 70.19% 29.81% 4.32% 1.64% 53.75% 17.53% 7.77% 8.25% 2.22% 1.35% 0.37% 0.14% 1.36% 0.41% 0.39% 0.49%

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%

1115 927 188 93 24 739 111 53 36 5 4 2 0 21 3 14 10

 100% 83.14% 16.86% 8.34% 2.15% 66.28% 9.96% 4.75% 3.23% 0.45% 0.36% 0.18% 0% 1.88% 0.27% 1.26% 0.90%

315 180 135 14 7 138 67 13 53 6 5 2 0 3 1 4 2

 100% 57.14% 42.86% 4.44% 2.22% 43.81% 21.27% 4.13% 16.83% 1.90% 1.59% 0.63% 0% 0.95% 0.32% 1.27% 0.63%

5133 3681 1452 151 55 2775 881 488 382 128 63 23 6 63 18 53 47

 100% 71.71% 28.29% 2.94% 1.07% 54.06% 17.16% 9.51% 7.44% 2.49% 1.23% 0.45% 0.12% 1.23% 0.35% 1.03% 0.92%

868 538 330 18 8 441 219 41 77 23 17 1 0 9 3 5 6

 100% 61.98% 38.02% 2.07% 0.92% 50.81% 25.23% 4.72% 8.87% 2.65% 1.96% 0.12% 0% 1.04% 0.35% 0.58% 0.69%

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%

447 352 95 18 3 275 58 13 8 17 15 3 4 17 3 9 4

 100% 78.75% 21.25% 4.03% 0.67% 61.52% 12.98% 2.91% 1.79% 3.80% 3.36% 0.67% 0.89% 3.80% 0.67% 2.01% 0.89%

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%

484 191 293 10 6 127 130 41 134 7 9 0 2 1 6 5 6

 100% 39.46% 60.54% 2.07% 1.24% 26.24% 26.86% 8.47% 27.69% 1.45% 1.86% 0% 0.41% 0.21% 1.24% 1.03% 1.24%

DEPUTY COMDT FOR OPERATIONS (CG-DCO)

9TH CG DISTRICT, CLEVELAND, OH

PACIFIC AREA (PACAREA)

SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE LOGISTICS CENTER

ASST COMDT FOR RESOURCES-CFO (CG-8)/ DEPUTY 

CMDT (CG-8D)

DEP COMDT FOR MISSION SUPPORT

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or

TOTAL

CLF (2010)

ATLANTIC AREA (LANTAREA)

COMMANDANT (CG-00)

American Two or More

Races

Islander Alaska Native

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A2: Total Workforce By Component - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Executive/Senior Level 231 180 51 3 4 149 32 19 10 4 3 0 0 4 1 1 1

(Grades 15 and Above) 100% 77.92% 22.08% 1.30% 1.73% 64.50% 13.85% 8.23% 4.33% 1.73% 1.30% 0% 0% 1.73% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43%

Mid-Level 510 385 125 18 7 320 81 23 30 12 5 0 0 8 1 4 1

(Grades 13-14) 100% 75.49% 24.51% 3.53% 1.37% 62.75% 15.88% 4.51% 5.88% 2.35% 0.98% 0% 0% 1.57% 0.20% 0.78% 0.20%

First Level 327 259 68 16 6 201 39 31 19 3 2 3 0 3 1 2 1

(Grades 12 and Below) 100% 79.20% 20.80% 4.89% 1.83% 61.47% 11.93% 9.48% 5.81% 0.92% 0.61% 0.92% 0% 0.92% 0.31% 0.61% 0.31%

2,866 1951 915 125 42 1482 512 221 297 51 38 13 4 50 6 9 16

 100% 68.07% 31.93% 4.36% 1.47% 51.71% 17.86% 7.71% 10.36% 1.78% 1.33% 0.45% 0.14% 1.74% 0.21% 0.31% 0.56%

Officials and Managers 3934 2775 1159 162 59 2152 664 294 356 70 48 16 4 65 9 16 19

Total 100% 70.54% 29.46% 4.12% 1.50% 54.70% 16.88% 7.47% 9.05% 1.78% 1.22% 0.41% 0.10% 1.65% 0.23% 0.41% 0.48%

1697 1149 548 69 33 885 363 89 103 74 34 4 1 22 7 6 7

 100% 67.71% 32.29% 4.07% 1.94% 52.15% 21.39% 5.24% 6.07% 4.36% 2.00% 0.24% 0.06% 1.30% 0.41% 0.35% 0.41%

227 209 18 8 3 179 10 16 4 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0

 100% 92.07% 7.93% 3.52% 1.32% 78.85% 4.41% 7.05% 1.76% 1.76% 0.44% 0% 0% 0.88% 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 1113 399 714 40 41 255 386 82 220 11 30 1 7 7 18 3 12

Support Workers 100% 35.85% 64.15% 3.59% 3.68% 22.91% 34.68% 7.37% 19.77% 0.99% 2.70% 0.09% 0.63% 0.63% 1.62% 0.27% 1.08%

1028 1013 15 61 1 793 9 115 4 17 0 6 0 16 0 5 1

 100% 98.54% 1.46% 5.93% 0.10% 77.14% 0.88% 11.19% 0.39% 1.65% 0% 0.58% 0% 1.56% 0% 0.49% 0.10%

175 161 14 8 0 98 10 48 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 1

 100% 92.00% 8.00% 4.57% 0% 56.00% 5.71% 27.43% 1.71% 2.29% 0% 1.14% 0% 0% 0% 0.57% 0.57%

21 20 1 0 0 18 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 95.24% 4.76% 0% 0% 85.71% 4.76% 0% 0% 4.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.76% 0%

164 142 22 13 0 113 21 6 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 1 1

 100% 86.59% 13.41% 7.93% 0% 68.90% 12.80% 3.66% 0% 3.05% 0% 1.22% 0% 1.22% 0% 0.61% 0.61%

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

American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A3-1: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Executive/Senior Level 231 180 51 3 4 149 32 19 10 4 3 0 0 4 1 1 1

(Grades 15 and Above) 2.76% 3.07% 2.05% 0.83% 2.92% 3.31% 2.18% 2.92% 1.45% 2.15% 2.65% 0% 0% 3.51% 2.94% 3.03% 3.03%

Mid-Level 510 385 125 18 7 320 81 23 30 12 5 0 0 8 1 4 1

(Grades 13-14) 6.10% 6.56% 5.01% 4.99% 5.11% 7.12% 5.53% 3.54% 4.35% 6.45% 4.42% 0% 0% 7.02% 2.94% 12.12% 3.03%

First Level 327 259 68 16 6 201 39 31 19 3 2 3 0 3 1 2 1

(Grades 12 and Below) 3.91% 4.41% 2.73% 4.43% 4.38% 4.47% 2.66% 4.77% 2.75% 1.61% 1.77% 9.68% 0% 2.63% 2.94% 6.06% 2.44%

2,866 1951 915 125 42 1482 512 221 297 51 38 13 4 50 6 9 16

 34.27% 33.23% 36.70% 34.63% 30.66% 32.96% 34.92% 34.00% 43.04% 27.42% 33.63% 41.94% 33.33% 43.86% 17.65% 27.27% 39.02%

Officials and Managers 3934 2775 1159 162 59 2152 664 294 356 70 48 16 4 65 9 16 19

Total 47.03% 47.27% 46.49% 44.88% 43.07% 47.86% 45.29% 45.23% 51.59% 37.63% 42.48% 51.61% 33.33% 57.02% 26.47% 48.48% 46.34%

1697 1149 548 69 33 885 363 89 103 74 34 4 1 22 7 6 7

 20.29% 19.57% 21.98% 19.11% 24.09% 19.68% 24.76% 13.69% 14.93% 39.78% 30.09% 12.90% 8.33% 19.30% 20.59% 18.18% 17.07%

227 209 18 8 3 179 10 16 4 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0

 2.71% 3.56% 0.72% 2.22% 2.19% 3.98% 0.68% 2.46% 0.58% 2.15% 0.88% 0% 0% 1.75% 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 1113 399 714 40 41 255 386 82 220 11 30 1 7 7 18 3 12

Support Workers 13.31% 6.80% 28.64% 11.08% 29.93% 5.67% 26.33% 12.62% 31.88% 5.91% 26.55% 3.23% 58.33% 6.14% 52.94% 9.09% 29.27%

1028 1013 15 61 1 793 9 115 4 17 0 6 0 16 0 5 1

 12.29%% 17.25% 0.60% 16.90% 0.73% 17.64% 0.61% 17.69% 0.58% 9.14% 0% 19.35% 0% 14.04% 0% 15.15% 2.44%

175 161 14 8 0 98 10 48 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 1

 2.09% 2.74% 0.56% 2.22% 0% 2.18% 0.68% 7.38% 0.43% 2.15% 0% 6.45% 0% 0% 0% 3.03% 2.44%

21 20 1 0 0 18 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 0.25% 0.34% 0.04% 0% 0% 0.40% 0.07% 0% 0% 0.54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.03% 0%

164 142 22 13 0 113 21 6 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 1 1

 1.96% 2.42% 0.88% 3.60% 0% 2.51% 1.43% 0.92% 0% 2.69% 0% 6.45% 0% 1.75% 0% 3.03% 2.44%

8364 5871 2493 361 137 4496 1466 650 690 186 113 31 12 114 34 33 41

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

1. Officials and Managers

Other Officials and Managers 

2. Professionals

3. Technicians

4. Sales Workers

Islander Alaska Native

6. Craft Workers

7. Operatives

8. Laborers and Helpers

9. Service Workers

American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A3-2: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian
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 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0% 0% 40.00% 0% 0% 40.00% 20.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 12 9 5 0 6 6 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 57.14% 42.86% 23.81% 0% 28.57% 28.57% 4.76% 9.52% 0% 4.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

159 69 90 8 7 40 57 16 19 4 4 1 0 0 2 0 1

 100% 43.40% 56.60% 5.03% 4.40% 25.16% 35.85% 10.06% 11.95% 2.52% 2.52% 0.63% 0% 0% 1.26% 0% 0.63%

211 85 126 12 10 53 76 15 34 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 2

 100% 40.28% 59.72% 5.69% 4.74% 25.12% 36.02% 7.11% 16.11% 0.47% 0.47% 0% 0.47% 1.42% 0.95% 0.47% 0.95%

627 251 376 17 24 168 191 47 116 11 17 1 4 4 15 3 9

 100% 40.03% 59.97% 2.71% 3.83% 26.79% 30.46% 7.50% 18.50% 1.75% 2.71% 0.16% 0.64% 0.64% 2.39% 0.48% 1.44%

164 60 104 8 6 45 43 7 45 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 1

 100% 36.59% 63.41% 4.88% 3.66% 27.44% 26.22% 4.27% 27.44% 0% 3.66% 0% 1.22% 0% 0.61% 0% 0.61%

591 333 258 25 13 248 168 49 66 7 7 1 0 3 1 0 3

 100% 56.35% 43.65% 4.23% 2.20% 41.96% 28.43% 8.29% 11.17% 1.18% 1.18% 0.17% 0% 0.51% 0.17% 0% 0.51%

20 5 15 1 0 3 5 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

 100% 25.00% 75.00% 5.00% 0% 15.00% 25.00% 0% 45.00% 0% 5.00% 0% 0% 5.00% 0% 0% 0%

936 647 289 52 20 496 181 61 68 13 11 5 2 20 0 0 7

 100% 69.12% 30.88% 5.56% 2.14% 52.99% 19.34% 6.52% 7.26% 1.39% 1.18% 0.53% 0.21% 2.14% 0% 0% 0.75%

1687 1220 467 84 25 940 285 105 119 47 26 6 2 33 5 5 5

 100% 72.32% 27.68% 4.98% 1.48% 55.72% 16.89% 6.22% 7.05% 2.79% 1.54% 0.36% 0.12% 1.96% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30%

1544 1101 443 50 17 864 260 99 124 56 27 6 1 19 6 7 8

 100% 71.31% 28.69% 3.24% 1.10% 55.96% 16.84% 6.41% 8.03% 3.63% 1.75% 0.39% 0.06% 1.23% 0.39% 0.45% 0.52%

742 536 206 19 7 435 124 46 63 18 9 0 0 11 1 7 2

 100% 72.24% 27.76% 2.56% 0.94% 58.63% 16.71% 6.20% 8.49% 2.43% 1.21% 0% 0% 1.48% 0.13% 0.94% 0.27%

229 172 57 5 4 143 35 15 13 4 3 0 0 3 1 2 1

 100% 75.11% 24.89% 2.18% 1.75% 62.45% 15.28% 6.55% 5.68% 1.75% 1.31% 0% 0% 1.31% 0.44% 0.87% 0.44%

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%

 21 16 5 0 1 13 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 100% 76.19% 23.81% 0% 4.76% 61.90% 14.29% 9.52% 4.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4.76% 0% 0% 0%

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

SES

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

GS-11

GS-12

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American

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 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY
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%

3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0% 0% 33.33% 66.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12 4 8 0 2 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 16.67% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0% 0% 0% 50.00% 50.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 1 12 0 1 1 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

 100% 7.69% 92.31% 0% 7.69% 7.69% 46.15% 0% 30.77% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7.69% 0% 0%

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%

3 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 66.67% 33.33% 0% 33.33% 66.67% 0% 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%

10 7 3 0 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 70.00% 30.00% 0% 0% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0% 0% 10.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 12 1 0 0 10 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 92.31% 7.69% 0% 0% 76.92% 0% 15.38% 7.69% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 4 3 1 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 57.14% 42.86% 14.29% 0% 42.86% 28.57% 0% 14.29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 33.33% 66.67% 0% 0% 33.33% 66.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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

(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%

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

 SES 

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

GS-11

GS-12

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American

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 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY
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 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.07% 0.07% 0.08% 0% 0% 0.06% 0% 0% 0.29% 0.62% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 12 9 5 0 6 6 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.30% 0.27% 0.37% 1.75% 0% 0.17% 0.42% 0.22% 0.29% 0% 0.88% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

159 69 90 8 7 40 57 16 19 4 4 1 0 0 2 0 1

 2.29% 1.53% 3.68% 2.80% 5.22% 1.16% 3.97% 3.46% 2.79% 2.47% 3.54% 5.00% 0% 0% 5.88% 0% 2.56%

211 85 126 12 10 53 76 15 34 1 1 0 1 3 2 1 2

 3.03% 1.88% 5.15% 4.20% 7.46% 1.53% 5.30% 3.24% 4.99% 0.62% 0.88% 0% 8.33% 3.06% 5.88% 4.00% 5.13%

627 251 376 17 24 168 191 47 116 11 17 1 4 4 15 3 9

 9.01% 5.57% 15.37% 5.94% 17.91% 4.86% 13.32% 10.15% 17.03% 6.79% 15.04% 5.00% 33.33% 4.08% 44.12% 12.00% 23.08%

164 60 104 8 6 45 43 7 45 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 1

 2.36% 1.33% 4.25% 2.80% 4.48% 1.30% 3.00% 1.51% 6.61% 0% 5.31% 0% 16.67% 0% 2.94% 0% 2.56%

591 333 258 25 13 248 168 49 66 7 7 1 0 3 1 0 3

 8.50% 7.38% 10.54% 8.74% 9.70% 7.18% 11.72% 10.58% 9.69% 4.32% 6.19% 5.00% 0% 3.06% 2.94% 0% 7.69%

20 5 15 1 0 3 5 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

 0.29% 0.11% 0.61% 0.35% 0% 0.09% 0.35% 0% 1.32% 0% 0.88% 0% 0% 1.02% 0% 0% 0%

936 647 289 52 20 496 181 61 68 13 11 5 2 20 0 0 7

 13.45% 14.35% 11.81% 18.18% 14.93% 14.35% 12.62% 13.17% 9.99% 8.02% 9.73% 25.00% 16.67% 20.41% 0% 0% 17.95%

1687 1220 467 84 25 940 285 105 119 47 26 6 2 33 5 5 5

 24.25% 27.05% 19.08% 29.37% 18.66% 27.20% 19.87% 22.68% 17.47% 29.01% 23.01% 30.00% 16.67% 33.67% 14.71% 20.00% 12.82%

1544 1101 443 50 17 864 260 99 124 56 27 6 1 19 6 7 8

 22.19% 24.41% 18.10% 17.48% 12.69% 25.00% 18.13% 21.38% 18.21% 34.57% 23.89% 30.00% 8.33% 19.39% 17.65% 28.00% 20.51%

742 536 206 19 7 435 124 46 63 18 9 0 0 11 1 7 2

 10.67% 11.88% 8.42% 6.64% 5.22% 12.59% 8.65% 9.94% 9.25% 11.11% 7.96% 0% 0% 11.22% 2.94% 28.00% 5.13%

229 172 57 5 4 143 35 15 13 4 3 0 0 3 1 2 1

 3.29% 3.81% 2.33% 1.75% 2.99% 4.14% 2.44% 3.24% 1.91% 2.47% 2.65% 0% 0% 3.06% 2.94% 8.00% 2.56%

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%

21 16 5 0 1 13 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 0.30% 0.35% 0.20% 0% 0.75% 0.38% 0.21% 0.43% 0.15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.02% 0% 0% 0%

6957 4510 2447 286 134 3456 1434 463 681 162 113 20 12 98 34 25 39

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

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

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American

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 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY
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

 1.39% 0% 2.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4.17% 2.86% 5.41% 0% 0% 3.85% 10.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12 4 8 0 2 2 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 16.67% 11.43% 21.62% 0% 50.00% 7.69% 10.00% 28.57% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 2.78% 2.86% 2.70% 0% 0% 0% 5.00% 14.29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 1 12 0 1 1 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

 18.06% 2.86% 32.43% 0% 25.00% 3.85% 30.00% 0% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1.39% 2.86% 0% 0% 0% 3.85% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4.17% 5.71% 2.70% 0% 25.00% 7.69% 0% 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

 1.39% 0% 2.70% 0% 0% 0% 5.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 7 3 0 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 13.89% 20.00% 8.11% 0% 0% 15.38% 10.00% 28.57% 8.33% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 12 1 0 0 10 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 18.06% 34.29% 2.70% 0% 0% 38.46% 0% 28.57% 8.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 4 3 1 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 9.72% 11.43% 8.11% 100% 0% 11.54% 10.00% 0% 8.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 8.33% 5.71% 10.81% 0% 0% 7.69% 20.00% 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% 0% 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%

72 35 37 1 4 26 20 7 12 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

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

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

GS-06

Islander

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American

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 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY
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%

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%

21 20 1 0 0 15 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 95.24% 4.76% 0% 0% 71.43% 4.76% 14.29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9.52% 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%

66 65 1 5 0 43 1 14 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 98.48% 1.52% 7.58% 0% 65.15% 1.52% 21.21% 0% 1.52% 0% 1.52% 0% 0% 0% 1.52% 0%

63 55 8 2 0 31 6 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 87.30% 12.70% 3.17% 0% 49.21% 9.52% 31.75% 3.17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.17% 0%

44 43 1 3 0 26 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 100% 97.73% 2.27% 6.82% 0% 59.09% 2.27% 29.55% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.27% 0% 0% 0%

164 163 1 16 1 118 0 19 0 7 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

 100% 99.39% 0.61% 9.76% 0.61% 71.95% 0% 11.59% 0% 4.27% 0% 1.22% 0% 0.61% 0% 0% 0%

157 154 3 9 0 115 2 25 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 98.09% 1.91% 5.73% 0% 73.25% 1.27% 15.92% 0% 1.27% 0% 1.91% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.64%

627 611 16 34 0 480 10 66 6 12 0 3 0 13 0 3 0

 100% 97.45% 2.55% 5.42% 0% 76.56% 1.59% 10.53% 0.96% 1.91% 0% 0.48% 0% 2.07% 0% 0.48% 0%

162 161 1 3 0 138 0 16 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1

 100% 99.38% 0.62% 1.85% 0% 85.19% 0% 9.88% 0% 0.62% 0% 1.23% 0% 0.62% 0% 0% 0.62%

27 27 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 7.41% 0% 81.48% 0% 7.41% 0% 3.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 6 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 83.33% 0% 16.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 6 0 0 0 4 0 2 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%

9 9 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 77.78% 0% 22.22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

All other 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wage Grades 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-12

WG-06

Islander

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WD/WG,WL/WS, and 

Other Wage Grades

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian
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%

18 17 1 0 0 13 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 94.44% 5.56% 0% 0% 72.22% 5.56% 22.22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 13 0 0 0 9 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 69.23% 0% 23.08% 0% 7.69% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 50.00% 0% 50.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 75.00% 0% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 0 0 2 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%

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%

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%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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%

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-12

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

WG-06

Islander

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American

Alaska Native

Two or More

Latino American

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Temp)

Year = FY 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY
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%

7 7 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.51% 0.52% 0% 1.33% 0% 0.49% 0% 0.54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 20 1 0 0 15 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

 1.54% 1.50% 3.13% 0% 0% 1.48% 4.76% 1.62% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25.00% 0%

3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.22% 0.22% 0% 0% 0% 0.20% 0% 0.54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

66 65 1 5 0 43 1 14 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

 4.83% 4.87% 3.13% 6.67% 0% 4.24% 4.76% 7.57% 0% 4.17% 0% 9.09% 0% 0% 0% 12.50% 0%

63 55 8 2 0 31 6 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

 4.61%% 4.12% 25.00% 2.67% 0% 3.05% 28.57% 10.81% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25.00% 0%

44 43 1 3 0 26 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

 3.22% 3.22% 3.13% 4.00% 0% 2.56% 4.76% 7.03% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.25% 0% 0% 0%

164 163 1 16 1 118 0 19 0 7 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

 12.01% 12.22% 3.13% 21.33% 100% 11.63% 0% 10.27% 0% 29.17% 0% 18.18% 0% 6.25% 0% 0% 0%

157 154 3 9 0 115 2 25 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1

 11.49% 11.54% 9.38% 12.00% 0% 11.33% 9.52% 13.51% 0% 8.33% 0% 27.27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50.00%

627 611 16 34 0 480 10 66 6 12 0 3 0 13 0 3 0

 45.90% 45.80% 50.00% 45.33% 0% 47.29% 47.62% 35.68% 75.00% 50.00% 0% 27.27% 0% 81.25% 0% 37.50% 0%

162 161 1 3 0 138 0 16 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1

 11.86% 12.07% 3.13% 4.00% 0% 13.60% 0% 8.65% 0% 4.17% 0% 18.18% 0% 6.25% 0% 0% 50.00%

27 27 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1.98% 2.02% 0% 2.67% 0% 2.17% 0% 1.08% 0% 4.17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 6 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.44% 0.45% 0% 0% 0% 0.49% 0% 0.54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 6 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.44% 0.45% 0% 0% 0% 0.39% 0% 1.08% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9 9 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.66% 0.67% 0% 0% 0% 0.69% 0% 1.08% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

All other 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wage Grades 0.29% 0.30% 0% 0% 0% 0.39% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1366 1334 32 75 1 1015 21 185 8 24 0 11 0 16 0 8 2

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

WG-12

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

Indian or Races

Islander Alaska Native

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-2: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY
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%

18 17 1 0 0 13 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 0% 100% 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% 0% 0%

13 13 0 0 0 9 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 8 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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%

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 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%

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

WG-12

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

Indian or Races

Islander Alaska Native

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A5-2: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Temp)

Year = FY 2017

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

463 341 122 13 3 248 72 46 27 21 17 1 0 7 2 5 1

 100% 73.65% 26.35% 2.81% 0.65% 53.56% 15.55% 9.94% 5.83% 4.54% 3.67% 0.22% 0% 1.51% 0.43% 1.08% 0.22%

66.80% 33.20% 3.10% 1.60% 50.40% 24.70% 4.30% 3.50% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 7.40% 2.90% 0.70% 0.20%

358 126 232 6 7 81 135 30 76 7 10 0 0 0 1 2 3

 100% 35.20% 64.80% 1.68% 1.96% 22.63% 37.71% 8.38% 21.23% 1.96% 2.79% 0% 0% 0% 0.28% 0.56% 0.84%

47.00% 53.00% 2.90% 3.20% 39.80% 42.70% 2.50% 4.70% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 1.00% 1.30% 0.20% 0.40%

333 299 34 20 2 247 25 12 5 7 1 1 0 12 1 0 0

 100% 89.79% 10.21% 6.01% 0.60% 74.17% 7.51% 3.60% 1.50% 2.10% 0.30% 0.30% 0% 3.60% 0.30% 0% 0%

52.90% 47.10% 4.20% 3.50% 41.30% 34.10% 4.50% 6.90% 0.10% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 1.70% 1.40% 0.30% 0.30%

289 228 61 11 1 183 33 19 23 5 1 2 1 7 0 1 2

 100% 78.89% 21.11% 3.81% 0.35% 63.32% 11.42% 6.57% 7.96% 1.73% 0.35% 0.69% 0.35% 2.42% 0% 0.35% 0.69%

43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 2.60% 2.30% 0.30% 0.40%

162 134 28 8 1 109 20 8 2 5 2 0 0 3 2 1 1

 100% 82.72% 17.28% 4.94% 0.62% 67.28% 12.35% 4.94% 1.23% 3.09% 1.23% 0% 0% 1.85% 1.23% 0.62% 0.62%

50.10% 49.90% 1.90% 2.20% 42.00% 40.40% 2.40% 3.80% 0.10% 0.00% 0.60% 0.50% 2.00% 2.10% 0.90% 0.50%

154 144 10 12 0 120 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

 100% 93.51% 6.49% 7.79% 0% 77.92% 6.49% 5.19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.60% 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%

132 47 85 6 1 39 61 1 19 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 35.61% 64.39% 4.55% 0.76% 29.55% 46.21% 0.76% 14.39% 0.76% 2.27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.76%

26.70% 73.30% 1.90% 5.50% 20.80% 58.10% 2.20% 6.30% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.50% 1.10% 1.80% 0.30% 0.50%

Occupational CLF

0963 - LEGAL INSTRUMENTS EXAMINING

Occupational CLF

Occupational CLF

0080 - SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Occupational CLF

0132 - INTELLIGENCE

Occupational CLF

2150 - TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS

1801 - GENERAL INSPECTION, 

INVESTIGATION and COMPLIANCE

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or

2210 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

MANAGEMENT

Occupational CLF

1102 - CONTRACTING

Occupational CLF

American Two or More

Races

Islander Alaska Native

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Perm)

Year = FY 2017 Occ Ser = 0080- SECUR ADM or 0132- INTELLIGENCE or 0963- LEGAL INSTRUMENTS EXAMINING or 1102- CONTRACTING or 1801- GEN. INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION

Major Occupations

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

4 3 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0% 0% 50.00% 0% 25.00% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 2.60% 2.30% 0.30% 0.40%

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%

50.10% 49.90% 1.90% 2.20% 42.00% 40.40% 2.40% 3.80% 0.10% 0.00% 0.60% 0.50% 2.00% 2.10% 0.90% 0.50%

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%

47.00% 53.00% 2.90% 3.20% 39.80% 42.70% 2.50% 4.70% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 1.00% 1.30% 0.20% 0.40%

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%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Occupational CLF

2150 - TRANSPORTATION 

OPERATIONS

Occupational CLF

0080 - SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Occupational CLF

0132 - INTELLIGENCE

Occupational CLF

1102 - CONTRACTING

Islander Alaska Native

Major Occupations

TOTAL

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

or

White

Black or African

Asian

RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (Temp)

Year = FY 2017 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
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Received # 4475

# 3579 2370 1209 267 139 1280 455 632 557 77 21 9 2 65 10 40 25

% 100% 66.22% 33.78% 7.46% 3.88% 35.76% 12.71% 17.66% 15.56% 2.15% .59% .25% .06% 1.82% .28% 1.12% .70%

# 2133 1396 737 151 77 788 284 354 352 44 6 7 0 31 5 21 13

% 100% 65.45% 34.55% 7.08% 3.61% 36.94% 13.31% 16.60% 16.50% 2.06% .28% .33% .00% 1.45% .23% .98% .61%

# 19 13 6 0 0 11 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0

% 100% 68.42% 31.58% .00% .00% 57.89% 15.79% .00% 10.53% .00% 5.26% .00% .00% 10.53% .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 # 2598

# 2021 1599 422 280 58 979 234 195 92 102 21 5 0 26 8 12 9

% 100% 79.12% 20.88% 13.85% 2.87% 48.44% 11.58% 9.65% 4.55% 5.05% 1.04% .25% .00% 1.29% .40% .59% .45%

# 1458 1123 335 194 39 706 193 134 72 66 19 1 0 14 5 8 7

% 100% 77.02% 22.98% 13.31% 2.67% 48.42% 13.24% 9.19% 4.94% 4.53% 1.30% .07% .00% .96% .34% .55% .48%

# 20 12 8 3 0 9 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 15.00% .00% 45.00% 30.00% .00% .00% .00% 10.00% .00% .00% .00% .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 # 685

# 567 254 313 41 41 158 199 32 50 18 13 2 1 3 3 0 6

% 100% 44.80% 55.20% 7.23% 7.23% 27.87% 35.10% 5.64% 8.82% 3.17% 2.29% .35% .18% .53% .53% .00% 1.06%

# 389 155 234 37 38 88 153 21 33 5 3 1 1 1 1 2 5

% 100% 39.85% 60.15% 9.51% 9.77% 22.62% 39.33% 5.40% 8.48% 1.29% .77% .26% .26% .26% .26% .51% 1.29%

# 18 9 9 2 1 6 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 11.11% 5.56% 33.33% 38.89% 5.56% 5.56% .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%

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Job Title/Series: 0963 Legal Instruments Examiner

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those Identified

Selected of those Identified

CLF

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

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

Run Date: Oct 11, 2017 12:43 PM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
Total Received # 7504

# 5996 3058 2938 436 341 1441 1122 781 1252 295 143 11 2 34 26 60 52

% 100% 51.00% 49.00% 7.27% 5.69% 24.03% 18.71% 13.03% 20.88% 4.92% 2.38% .18% .03% .57% .43% 1.00% .87%

# 2463 1281 1182 235 175 597 464 279 460 126 47 6 0 13 15 25 21

% 100% 52.01% 47.99% 9.54% 7.11% 24.24% 18.84% 11.33% 18.68% 5.12% 1.91% .24% .00% .53% .61% 1.02% .85%

# 64 22 42 1 2 12 27 6 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2

% 100% 34.38% 65.63% 1.56% 3.13% 18.75% 42.19% 9.38% 17.19% 1.56% .00% 1.56% .00% .00% .00% 1.56% 3.13%

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 # 1641

# 1311 1147 164 159 23 780 97 115 36 54 3 2 0 26 4 11 1

% 100% 87.49% 12.51% 12.13% 1.75% 59.50% 7.40% 8.77% 2.75% 4.12% .23% .15% .00% 1.98% .31% .84% .08%

# 934 800 134 120 18 513 72 105 34 37 3 2 1 15 4 8 2

% 100% 85.65% 14.35% 12.85% 1.93% 54.93% 7.71% 11.24% 3.64% 3.96% .32% .21% .11% 1.61% .43% .86% .21%

# 17 13 4 4 0 9 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 76.47% 23.53% 23.53% .00% 52.94% 17.65% .00% 5.88% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .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 # 412

# 330 285 45 29 10 220 25 26 7 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 1

% 100% 86.36% 13.64% 8.79% 3.03% 66.67% 7.58% 7.88% 2.12% 1.52% .30% .00% .00% 1.52% .30% .00% .30%

# 226 197 29 20 7 150 17 21 3 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 1

% 100% 87.17% 12.83% 8.85% 3.10% 66.37% 7.52% 9.29% 1.33% 1.33% .00% .00% .00% 1.33% .44% .00% .44%

# 13 11 2 1 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 84.62% 15.38% 7.69% .00% 76.92% 15.38% .00% .00% .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 # 2696

# 2075 1609 466 213 41 779 168 410 199 171 42 4 0 20 6 12 10

% 100% 77.54% 22.46% 10.27% 1.98% 37.54% 8.10% 19.76% 9.59% 8.24% 2.02% .19% .00% .96% .29% .58% .48%

# 1554 1199 355 164 32 539 121 327 158 143 29 4 0 10 5 12 10

% 100% 77.16% 22.84% 10.55% 2.06% 34.68% 7.79% 21.04% 10.17% 9.20% 1.87% .26% .00% .64% .32% .77% .64%

# 24 21 3 3 0 13 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 87.50% 12.50% 12.50% .00% 54.17% 8.33% 12.50% 4.17% 8.33% .00% .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%

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Selected of those Identified

CLF

Job Title/Series: 2210 Information Technology Specialist

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those 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

Qualified of those Identified

Job Title/Series: 1102 Contracting

Voluntarily Identified

Run Date: Oct 11, 2017 12:43 PM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

837 525 312 42 14 363 167 80 106 22 18 2 1 8 3 8 3

 100% 62.72% 37.28% 5.02% 1.67% 43.37% 19.95% 9.56% 12.66% 2.63% 2.15% 0.24% 0.12% 0.96% 0.36% 0.96% 0.36%

122 78 44 0 3 59 26 17 14 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

 100% 63.93% 36.07% 0% 2.46% 48.36% 21.31% 13.93% 11.48% 1.64% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.82% 0% 0%

NON- 383 121 262 24 37 58 147 15 32 12 11 2 7 2 1 8 27

APPROPRIATED 100% 31.59% 68.41% 6.27% 9.66% 15.14% 38.38% 3.92% 8.36% 3.13% 2.87% 0.52% 1.83% 0.52% 0.26% 2.09% 7.05%

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%

PERMANENT

TEMPORARY

CLF (2010)

Latino American

TYPE OF APPOINTMENT

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

Native Hawaiian American

or Other Pacific Indian or Races

Islander Alaska Native

White

Black or African

Asian

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A8: New Hires By Type of Appointment - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

or Two or More
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Applications Received # 6 5 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 4 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2.70% 0.73% 0.05% 0.00% 2.16% 0.39% 0.22% 0.27% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.11% 0.04%

Total Applications Received # 11 4 7 0 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 5 3 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 4 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1.49% 2.71% 0.06% 0.04% 1.00% 1.68% 0.35% 0.97% 0.08% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.09%

Total Applications Received # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 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% 0.00%

3.50% 0.40% 0.11% 0.00% 2.99% 0.30% 0.13% 0.06% 0.07% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.13% 0.01%

Total Applications Received # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 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%

# 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%

1.70% 0.12% 0.04% 0.00% 1.42% 0.12% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00%

Total Applications Received # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# 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%

# 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%

Relevant Applicant Pool % 4.00% 1.43% 0.02% 0.01% 2.88% 0.84% 0.54% 0.32% 0.23% 0.16% 0.01% 0.00% 0.23% 0.23% 0.12% 0.47%

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Job Series of Vacancy: 2150 Transportation Operation

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Job Series of Vacancy: 2210 Information Technology Specialist

Job Series of Vacancy: 0080 Security Administration

Qualified

Selected

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Job Series of Vacancy: 1801 Marine Investigator

Qualified

Relevant Applicant Pool %

Job Series of Vacancy: 1102 Contracting

Qualified

Selected

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

Run Date: Oct 18, 2017 10:50 AM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
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% 53.41% 46.59% 3.58% 2.15% 35.48% 25.09% 10.75% 16.13% 2.51% 1.43% 0% 0.36% 0.72% 0.72% 0.36% 0.72%

37 26 11 1 0 22 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 70.27% 29.73% 2.70% 0% 59.46% 16.22% 8.11% 10.81% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.70%

16 8 8 0 0 8 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 50.00% 50.00% 0% 0% 50.00% 25.00% 0% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

24 14 10 2 0 6 8 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 58.33% 41.67% 8.33% 0% 25.00% 33.33% 16.67% 8.33% 8.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2

Time in grade in excess of minimum

1 - 12 months

13 - 24 months

99 70 30 45 1 2 2

TOTAL WORKFORCE

25+ months

279 149 130 10 6 7 4 0

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A10: NON-COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS - TIME IN GRADE - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

TYPE OF APPOINTMENT

RACE/ETHNICITY

Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

Latino

Islander Alaska Native
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

# 8 7 1 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 87.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 4 3 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 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% 0.00%

14.73% 5.47% 0.30% 0.10% 11.37% 3.33% 1.23% 1.32% 0.52% 0.26% 0.07% 0.02% 0.08% 0.01% 0.56% 0.23%

# 19 10 9 0 3 8 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

% 100% 52.63% 47.37% 0.00% 15.79% 42.11% 15.79% 5.26% 10.53% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26%

# 7 4 3 0 1 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 57.14% 42.86% 0.00% 14.29% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

13.00% 5.22% 0.12% 0.05% 9.66% 3.07% 1.16% 1.45% 0.55% 0.25% 0.07% 0.01% 0.07% 0.05% 0.35% 0.20%

# 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%

# 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%

# 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%

6.48% 2.56% 0.05% 0.01% 5.17% 1.50% 0.53% 0.74% 0.19% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.25% 0.06%

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 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%

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 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%

# 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%

2.12% 0.68% 0.04% 0.00% 1.86% 0.41% 0.19% 0.16% 0.05% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.07% 0.02%

Total Applications Received

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

15

Total Applications Received

Qualified

Selected

Relevant Applicant Pool %

SES

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

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

Run Date: Oct 18, 2017 10:47 AM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Slots 23

96 61 35 3 0 49 19 4 12 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 2

100.00% 63.54% 36.46% 3.13% 0.00% 51.04% 19.80% 4.17% 12.50% 4.17% 1.04% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 1.04% 0.00% 2.08%

22 11 11 0 0 10 5 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45.45% 22.72% 4.55% 13.63% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 4.55%

Slots 2

5 4 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 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% 0.00%

Slots

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% 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% 0.00%

Applied

Participants

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 15 and SES:

Applied

Career Development Programs for GS 13 - 14:

Career Development Programs for GS 5-12:

Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian American Two or More

WORKFORCE

Islander

Hispanic

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A12: Participation in Career Development - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

TYPE OF APPOINTMENT

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

Alaska Native

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Time-Off 619 474 145 21 6 345 94 88 40 8 3 4 0 7 1 1 1

Awards Given 100% 76.58% 23.42% 3.39% 0.97% 55.74% 15.19% 14.22% 6.46% 1.29% 0.48% 0.65% 0% 1.13% 0.16% 0.16% 0.16%

Total Hours 4214 3170 1044 145 38 2327 682 551 284 59 24 32 0 50 8 6 8

Average Hours 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 8 8 0 7 8 6 8

Total Time-Off 2830 1920 910 106 45 1543 605 161 187 51 39 13 7 40 11 6 16

Awards Given 100% 67.84% 32.16% 3.75% 1.59% 54.52% 21.38% 5.69% 6.61% 1.80% 1.38% 0.46% 0.25% 1.41% 0.39% 0.21% 0.57%

Total Hours 95993 64901 31092 3634 1554 51914 20705 5651 6244 1695 1412 425 232 1366 406 216 539

Average Hours 34 34 34 34 35 34 34 35 33 33 36 33 33 34 37 36 34

Total Cash Awards 2994 2136 858 89 49 1655 487 278 250 49 45 10 4 37 14 18 9

Given 100% 71.34% 28.66% 2.97% 1.64% 55.28% 16.27% 9.29% 8.35% 1.64% 1.50% 0.33% 0.13% 1.24% 0.47% 0.60% 0.30%

Total Amount 968036 680066 287970 27943 16500 520633 156405 96040 92115 15100 13950 2950 1000 11900 4750 5500 3250

Average Amount 323 318 336 314 337 315 321 345 368 308 310 295 250 322 339 306 361

Total Cash Awards 4824 3475 1349 194 70 2708 792 341 381 121 70 17 5 73 16 21 15

Given 100% 72.04% 27.96% 4.02% 1.45% 56.14% 16.42% 7.07% 7.90% 2.51% 1.45% 0.35% 0.10% 1.51% 0.33% 0.44% 0.31%

Total Amount 9043475 6435459 2608016 375085 141501 5015474 1508915 573509 752039 250684 135393 26800 10952 142867 30313 51040 28903

Average Amount 1875 1852 1933 1933 2021 1852 1905 1682 1974 2072 1934 1576 2190 1957 1895 2430 1927

249 171 78 9 4 138 57 14 14 4 2 2 1 3 0 1 0

 100% 68.67% 31.33% 3.61% 1.61% 55.42% 22.89% 5.62% 5.62% 1.61% 0.80% 0.80% 0.40% 1.20% 0% 0.40% 0%

Total Benefit 543064 385225 157839 14538 7500 315365 118419 32502 25712 9089 5029 4972 1179 6668 0 2091 0

Average Benefit 2181 2253 2024 1615 1875 2285 2078 2322 1837 2272 2515 2486 1179 2223 0 2091 0

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

American Two or More

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or Races

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A13: Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017

Type of Award

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

WORKFORCE Hispanic Non-Hispanic or Latino

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian
All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

549 351 198 21 13 267 128 37 47 15 3 1 1 5 6 5 0

 100% 63.93% 36.07% 3.83% 2.37% 48.63% 23.32% 6.74% 8.56% 2.73% 0.55% 0.18% 0.18% 0.91% 1.09% 0.91% 0%

34 24 10 4 0 13 5 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 70.59% 29.41% 11.76% 0% 38.24% 14.71% 20.59% 11.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.94%

583 375 208 25 13 280 133 44 51 15 3 1 1 5 6 5 1

 100% 64.32% 35.68% 4.29% 2.23% 48.03% 22.81% 7.55% 8.75% 2.57% 0.51% 0.17% 0.17% 0.86% 1.03% 0.86% 0.17%

8364 5871 2493 361 137 4496 1466 650 690 186 113 31 12 114 34 33 41

 100% 70.19% 29.81% 4.32% 1.64% 53.75% 17.53% 7.77% 8.25% 2.22% 1.35% 0.37% 0.14% 1.36% 0.41% 0.39% 0.49%

TOTAL WORKFORCE

Islander

TYPE OF SEPARATION

TOTAL RACE/ETHNICITY

Races

VOLUNTARY

INVOLUNTARY

TOTAL SEPARATIONS 

Alaska Native

Non-Hispanic or Latino

American Two or More

WORKFORCE Hispanic

Latino American or Other Pacific Indian or

or

White

Black or African

Asian

Native Hawaiian

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table A14: Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

Year = FY 2017
8345 6343 429 1573 148 0 0 24 4 3 15 44 1 10 3 40 4

 100% 76.01% 5.14% 18.85% 1.77% 0% 0% 0.29% 0.05% 0.04% 0.18% 0.53% 0.01% 0.12% 0.04% 0.48% 0.05%

8548 6475 465 1608 339 0 1 183 25 4 18 48 0 12 2 42 4

 100% 75.75% 5.44% 18.81% 3.97% 0% 0.01% 2.14% 0.29% 0.05% 0.21% 0.56% 0% 0.14% 0.02% 0.49% 0.05%

2.00%

Difference 203 132 36 35 191 0 1 159 21 1 3 4 -1 2 -1 2 0

Ratio Change 0% -0.26% 0.30% -0.04% 2.19% 0% 0.01% 1.85% 0.24% 0.01% 0.03% 0.03% -0.01% 0.02% -0.01% 0.01% 0%

Net Change 2.43% 2.08% 8.39% 2.23% 129.05% 0% 100% 662.50% 525.00% 33.33% 20.00% 9.09% -100% 20.00% -33.33% 5.00% 0%

8173 6190 425 1558 148 0 0 24 4 3 15 44 1 10 3 40 4

 100% 75.74% 5.20% 19.06% 1.81% 0% 0% 0.29% 0.05% 0.04% 0.18% 0.54% 0.01% 0.12% 0.04% 0.49% 0.05%

8364 6318 461 1585 335 0 1 181 25 4 18 47 0 12 2 41 4

 100% 75.54% 5.51% 18.95% 4.01% 0% 0.01% 2.16% 0.30% 0.05% 0.22% 0.56% 0% 0.14% 0.02% 0.49% 0.05%

Difference 191 128 36 27 187 0 1 157 21 1 3 3 -1 2 -1 1 0

Ratio Change 0% -0.20% 0.31% -0.11% 2.19% 0% 0.01% 1.87% 0.25% 0.01% 0.03% 0.02% -0.01% 0.02% -0.01% 0% 0%

Net Change 2.34% 2.07% 8.47% 1.73% 126.35% 0% 100% 654.17% 525.00% 33.33% 20.00% 6.82% -100% 20.00% -33.33% 2.50% 0%

172 153 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 88.95% 2.33% 8.72% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

184 157 4 23 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 85.33% 2.17% 12.50% 2.17% 0% 0% 1.09% 0% 0% 0% 0.54% 0% 0% 0% 0.54% 0%

Difference 12 4 0 8 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Ratio Change 0% -3.63% -0.15% 3.78% 2.17% 0% 0% 1.09% 0% 0% 0% 0.54% 0% 0% 0% 0.54% 0%

Net Change 6.98% 2.61% 0% 53.33% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 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%

1,420 1,372 19 29 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100% 96.62% 1.34% 2.04% 0.21% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Difference 45 45 5 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ratio Change 0% 0% 0% 0% -0.01% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Net Change 3.27% 3.39% 35.71% -14.71% 0.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Current FY

Current FY

TEMPORARY

Prior FY

Current FY

NON-APPROPRIATED

Prior FY

Prior FY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B1: Total Workforce - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes]

Year = FY 2017

EMPLOYMENT 

TENURE

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

Prior FY

Current FY

EEOC Federal Goal 

PERMANENT

Developmental 

Disability [02]

All Dwarfism 

[92]

Targeted 

Disability

Disability 

[06-99]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

No 

Disability 

[05]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25]

Missing 

Extremities 

[27-29/31-

38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]
8364 6318 461 1585 335 0 1 181 25 4 18 47 0 12 2 41 4

 100% 75.54% 5.51% 18.95% 4.01% 0% 0.01% 2.16% 0.30% 0.05% 0.22% 0.56% 0% 0.14% 0.02% 0.49% 0.05%

2.00%

1115 832 56 227 44 0 0 21 5 0 2 8 0 2 1 4 1

 100% 74.62% 5.02% 20.36% 3.95% 0% 0% 1.88% 0.45% 0% 0.18% 0.72% 0% 0.18% 0.09% 0.36% 0.09%

315 252 24 39 15 0 0 7 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 0

 100% 80.00% 7.62% 12.38% 4.76% 0% 0% 2.22% 0.32% 0% 0.63% 0.63% 0% 0.32% 0% 0.63% 0%

5133 3873 284 976 201 0 1 116 14 3 8 30 0 6 0 20 3

 100% 75.45% 5.53% 19.01% 3.92% 0% 0.02% 2.26% 0.27% 0.06% 0.16% 0.58% 0% 0.12% 0% 0.39% 0.06%

868 666 47 155 38 0 0 20 3 1 3 3 0 0 1 7 0

 100% 76.73% 5.41% 17.86% 4.38% 0% 0% 2.30% 0.35% 0.12% 0.35% 0.35% 0% 0% 0.12% 0.81% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

447 309 31 107 21 0 0 11 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 0

 100% 69.13% 6.94% 23.94% 4.70% 0% 0% 2.46% 0.22% 0% 0.22% 0.22% 0% 0.45% 0% 1.12% 0%

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

484 385 19 80 16 0 0 6 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 3 0

 100% 79.55% 3.93% 16.53% 3.31% 0% 0% 1.24% 0.21% 0% 0.41% 0.62% 0% 0.21% 0% 0.62% 0%

DEPUTY COMDT FOR OPERATIONS 

(CG-DCO)

9TH CG DISTRICT, CLEVELAND, 

OH

PACIFIC AREA (PACAREA)

SHORE INFRASTRUCTURE 

LOGISTICS CENTER

ASST COMDT FOR RESOURCESCFO (CG-8)/ DEPUTY CMDT (CG8D)

DEP COMDT FOR MISSION 

SUPPORT

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B2: Total Workforce By Component - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes]

Year = FY 2017

ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

Total

EEOC Federal Goal 

ATLANTIC AREA (LANTAREA)

COMMANDANT (CG-00)

All No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25

]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

29/31-38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]
No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental 

Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25]

Extremitie

s

Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

Executive/Senior Level 231 175 14 42 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Grades 15 and Above) 100% 75.76% 6.06% 18.18% 2.16% 0% 0% 2.16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

- Mid-Level 510 395 26 89 22 0 0 15 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1

(Grades 13-14) 100% 77.45% 5.10% 17.45% 4.31% 0% 0% 2.94% 0.39% 0% 0.39% 0.20% 0% 0% 0% 0.20% 0.20%

- First Level 327 253 18 56 9 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

(Grades 12 and Below) 100% 77.37% 5.50% 17.13% 2.75% 0% 0% 1.83% 0.31% 0% 0% 0.31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.31%

2,866 2063 193 610 121 0 1 77 5 1 4 13 0 5 1 12 2

 100% 71.98% 6.73% 21.28% 4.22% 0% 0.03% 2.69% 0.17% 0.03% 0.14% 0.45% 0% 0.17% 0.03% 0.42% 0.07%

Officials and Managers 3934 2886 251 797 157 0 1 103 8 1 6 15 0 5 1 13 4

Total 100% 73.36% 6.38% 20.26% 3.99% 0% 0.03% 2.62% 0.20% 0.03% 0.15% 0.38% 0% 0.13% 0.03% 0.33% 0.10%

1697 1291 91 315 74 0 0 26 8 2 7 15 0 3 1 12 0

 100% 76.08% 5.36% 18.56% 4.36% 0% 0% 1.53% 0.47% 0.12% 0.41% 0.88% 0% 0.18% 0.06% 0.71% 0%

227 154 14 59 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 67.84% 6.17% 25.99% 2.20% 0% 0% 1.76% 0% 0% 0% 0.44% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5. Administrative Support 1113 807 63 243 61 0 0 19 7 0 4 14 0 4 0 13 0

Workers 100% 72.51% 5.66% 21.83% 5.48% 0% 0% 1.71% 0.63% 0% 0.36% 1.26% 0% 0.36% 0% 1.17% 0%

1028 859 29 140 32 0 0 26 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 83.56% 2.82% 13.62% 3.11% 0% 0% 2.53% 0.19% 0% 0.10% 0.10% 0% 0% 0% 0.19% 0%

175 156 5 14 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 89.14% 2.86% 8.00% 1.71% 0% 0% 0.57% 0% 0.57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.57% 0%

21 19 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 90.48% 4.76% 4.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

164 141 7 16 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 85.98% 4.27% 9.76% 1.83% 0% 0% 1.22% 0% 0% 0% 0.61% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6. Craft Workers

7. Operatives

8. Laborers and Helpers

9. Service Workers

4. Sales Workers

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B3-1: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes]

Year = FY 2017

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All

1. Officials and Managers

- Other Officials and 

Managers 

2. Professionals

3. Technicians
No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental 

Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25]

Extremitie

s

Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

Executive/Senior Level 231 175 14 42 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(Grades 15 and Above) 2.76% 2.77% 3.04% 2.65% 1.49% 0% 0% 2.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Mid-Level 510 395 26 89 22 0 0 15 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1

(Grades 13-14) 6.10% 6.25% 5.64% 5.62% 6.57% 0% 0% 8.29% 8.00% 0% 0% 2.13% 0% 0% 0% 2.44% 25.00%

First Level 327 253 18 56 9 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

(Grades 12 and Below) 3.91% 4.00% 3.90% 3.53% 2.69% 0% 0% 3.31% 4.00% 0% 0% 2.13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25.00%

2,866 2063 193 610 121 0 1 77 5 1 4 13 0 5 1 12 2

 34.27% 32.65% 41.87% 38.49% 36.12% 0% 100% 20.00% 25.00% 22.22% 27.66% 0% 41.67% 50.00% 29.27% 50.00%

Officials and Managers 3934 2886 251 797 157 0 1 103 8 1 6 15 0 5 1 13 4

Total 47.03% 45.68% 54.45% 50.28% 46.87% 0% 100% 56.91% 32.00% 25.00% 33.33% 31.91% 0% 41.67% 50.00% 31.71% 100%

1697 1291 91 315 74 0 0 26 8 2 7 15 0 3 1 12 0

 20.29% 20.43% 19.74% 19.87% 22.09% 0% 0% 14.36% 32.00% 50.00% 38.89% 31.91% 0% 25.00% 50.00% 29.27% 0%

227 154 14 59 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 2.71% 2.44% 3.04% 3.72% 1.49% 0% 0% 2.21% 0% 0% 0% 2.13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.01% 0.02% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5. Administrative Support 1113 807 63 243 61 0 0 19 7 0 4 14 0 4 0 13 0

Workers 13.31% 12.77% 13.67% 15.33% 18.21% 0% 0% 10.50% 28.00% 0% 22.22% 29.79% 0% 33.33% 0% 31.71% 0%

1028 859 29 140 32 0 0 26 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0

 12.29% 13.60% 6.29% 8.83% 9.55% 0% 0% 14.36% 8.00% 0% 5.56% 2.13% 0% 0% 0% 4.88% 0%

175 156 5 14 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 2.09% 2.47% 1.08% 0.88% 0.90% 0% 0% 0.55% 0% 25.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.44% 0%

21 19 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.25% 0.30% 0.22% 0.06% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

164 141 7 16 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 0.25% 0.30% 0.22% 0.06% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8364 6318 461 1585 335 0 1 181 25 4 18 47 0 12 2 41 4

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

1. Officials and Managers

Other Officials and 

Managers 

2. Professionals

3. Technicians

4. Sales Workers

6. Craft Workers

7. Operatives

8. Laborers and Helpers

9. Service Workers

TOTAL

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B3-2: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes]

Year = FY 2017

OCCUPATIONAL 

CATEGORIES

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All
GS/GM,SES

and

Related 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%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 80.00% 20.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 13 3 5 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 61.90% 14.29% 23.81% 9.52% 0% 0% 4.76% 4.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

159 109 7 43 12 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 0

 100% 68.55% 4.40% 27.04% 7.55% 0% 0% 2.52% 0% 0% 0.63% 1.89% 0% 0.63% 0% 1.89% 0%

211 147 14 50 13 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 0

 100% 69.67% 6.64% 23.70% 6.16% 0% 0% 0.95% 1.42% 0% 0% 2.37% 0% 0.47% 0% 0.95% 0%

627 449 36 142 34 0 0 12 3 0 3 6 0 2 0 8 0

 100% 71.61% 5.74% 22.65% 5.42% 0% 0.00% 1.91% 0.48% 0% 0.48% 0.96% 0% 0.32% 0% 1.28% 0%

164 126 6 32 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 76.83% 3.66% 19.51% 2.44% 0% 0% 1.22% 0.61% 0% 0% 0.61% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

591 433 41 117 18 0 1 12 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 73.27% 6.94% 19.80% 3.05% 0% 0.17% 2.03% 0.17% 0.17% 0.17% 0.17% 0% 0% 0% 0.17% 0%

20 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 95.00% 0% 5.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

936 673 51 212 48 0 0 24 1 0 1 6 0 6 1 9 0

 100% 71.90% 5.45% 22.65% 5.13% 0% 0% 2.56% 0.11% 0% 0.11% 0.64% 0% 0.64% 0.11% 0.96% 0%

1687 1241 106 340 64 0 0 39 4 1 0 13 0 1 0 5 1

 100% 73.56% 6.28% 20.15% 3.79% 0% 0% 2.31% 0.24% 0.06% 0% 0.77% 0% 0.06% 0% 0.30% 0.06%

1544 1178 87 279 62 0 0 29 4 0 10 9 0 1 1 7 1

 100% 76.30% 5.63% 18.07% 4.02% 0% 0% 1.88% 0.26% 0% 0.65% 0.58% 0% 0.06% 0.06% 0.45% 0.06%

742 552 52 138 33 0 0 21 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 1

 100% 74.39% 7.01% 18.60% 4.45% 0% 0% 2.83% 0.54% 0.13% 0.13% 0.27% 0% 0% 0% 0.40% 0.13%

229 173 17 39 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 75.55% 7.42% 17.03% 2.18% 0% 0% 2.18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 15 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 71.43% 0% 28.57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6957 5132 421 1404 295 0 1 151 22 3 17 46 0 12 2 38 3

 100% 73.77% 6.05% 20.18% 4.24% 0% 0.01% 2.17% 0.32% 0.04% 0.24% 0.66% 0% 0.17% 0.03% 0.55% 0.04%

All

TOTAL

GS-12

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

All Other

SES

GS-11

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

GS-06

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule(GS) Grades by Disability (Perm)

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

29/31-38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]
GS/GM,SES

and

Related 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%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.07% 0.08% 0.24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 13 3 5 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.30% 0.25% 0.71% 0.36% 0.68% 0% 0% 0.66% 4.55% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

159 109 7 43 12 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 3 0

 1.57% 2.12% 1.66% 3.06% 4.07% 0% 0% 2.65% 0% 0% 5.88% 6.52% 0% 8.33% 0% 7.89% 0%

211 147 14 50 13 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 0

 2.11% 2.86% 3.33% 3.56% 4.41% 0% 0% 1.32% 13.64% 0% 0% 10.87% 0% 8.33% 0% 5.26% 0%

627 449 36 142 34 0 0 12 3 0 3 6 0 2 0 8 0

 9.01% 8.75% 8.55% 10.11% 11.53% 0% 0% 7.95% 13.64% 0% 17.65% 13.04% 0% 16.67% 0% 21.05% 0%

164 126 6 32 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 2.36% 2.46% 1.43% 2.28% 1.36% 0% 0% 1.32% 4.55% 0% 0% 2.17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

591 433 41 117 18 0 1 12 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

 8.50% 8.44% 9.74% 8.33% 6.10% 0% 100% 7.95% 4.55% 33.33% 5.88% 2.17% 0% 0% 0% 2.63% 0%

20 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.29% 0.37% 0% 0.07% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

936 673 51 212 48 0 0 24 1 0 1 6 0 6 1 9 0

 13.45% 13.11% 12.11% 15.10% 16.27% 0% 0% 15.89% 4.55% 0% 5.88% 13.04% 0% 50.00% 50.00% 23.68% 0%

1687 1241 106 340 64 0 0 39 4 1 0 13 0 1 0 5 1

 24.25% 24.18% 25.18% 24.22% 21.69% 0% 0% 25.83% 18.18% 33.33% 0% 28.26% 0% 8.33% 0% 13.16% 33.33%

1544 1178 87 279 62 0 0 29 4 0 10 9 0 1 1 7 1

 22.19% 22.95% 20.67% 19.87% 21.02% 0% 0% 19.21% 18.18% 0% 58.82% 19.57% 0% 8.33% 50.00% 18.42% 33.33%

742 552 52 138 33 0 0 21 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 1

 10.67% 10.76% 12.35% 9.83% 11.19% 0% 0% 13.91% 18.18% 33.33% 5.88% 4.35% 0% 0% 0% 7.89% 33.33%

229 173 17 39 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 3.29% 3.37% 4.04% 2.78% 1.69% 0% 0% 3.31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 15 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.30% 0.29% 0% 0.43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6957 5132 421 1404 295 0 1 151 22 3 17 46 0 12 2 38 3

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

All

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

GS-12

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

All Other

SES

GS-11

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

GS-06

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule(GS) Grades by Disability (Perm)

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

Dwarfism 

[92]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]
GS/GM,SES

and

Related 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%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1.39% 1.75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4.17% 5.26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

12 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 13.89% 17.54% 0% 16.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 1.39% 1.75% 0% 8.33% 50.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

13 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 18.06% 19.30% 0% 16.67% 0% 0% 0% 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 0 0

 1.39% 1.75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4.17% 3.51% 0% 8.33% 0% 0% 0% 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 0 0

 1.39% 1.75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 13.89% 10.53% 66.67% 16.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 18.06% 17.54% 33.33% 16.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

 9.72% 8.77% 0% 16.67% 50.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 8.33%% 10.53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

72 57 3 12 2 0 0 0 0 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%

All

TOTAL

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

GS-12

GS-13

GS-14

GS-15

All Other

SES

GS-11

GS-01

GS-02

GS-03

GS-04

GS-05

GS-06

GS-07

GS-08

GS-09

GS-10

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule(GS) Grades by Disability (Temp)

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/2

5]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

Dwarfism 

[92]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 57.14% 14.29% 28.57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 18 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 85.71% 0% 14.29% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

66 50 5 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 75.76% 7.58% 16.67% 1.52% 0% 0% 1.52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

63 52 2 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 82.54% 3.17% 14.29% 3.17% 0% 0% 1.59% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.59% 0%

44 38 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 86.36% 0% 13.64% 2.27% 0% 0.00% 2.27% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

164 138 4 22 9 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 84.15% 2.44% 13.41% 5.49% 0% 0% 3.05% 0.61% 0% 0% 0.61% 0% 0% 0% 1.22% 0%

157 136 5 16 6 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

 100% 86.62% 3.18% 10.19% 3.82% 0% 0% 2.55% 0.64% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.64%

627 536 14 77 16 0 0 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 85.49% 2.23% 12.28% 2.55% 0% 0% 2.23% 0% 0.16% 0.16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

162 130 6 26 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 80.25% 3.70% 16.05% 3.09% 0% 0% 2.47% 0.62% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

27 21 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 77.78% 7.41% 14.81% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 83.33% 0% 16.67% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 77.78% 0% 22.22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SES

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-12

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

All Other

WG-05

WD/WG,WL/WS, 

and Other Wage 

Grades

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grades Disability (Perm)

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

All No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

29/31-38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

18 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 94.44% 0% 5.56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 87.50% 0% 12.50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

WG-12

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

All Other

WG-10

WG-11

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-o5

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grades Disability (Temp)

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

WD/WG, WL/WS, 

and Other Wage 

Grades

All No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25

]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

29/31-38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.51% 0.35% 2.56% 1.12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

21 18 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1.54% 1.57% 0% 1.68% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.22% 0.26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

66 50 5 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 3.66% 4.36% 12.82% 6.15% 2.50% 0% 0% 3.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

63 52 2 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 3.81% 4.53% 5.13% 5.03% 5.00% 0% 0% 3.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33.33% 0%

44 38 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 3.22% 3.31% 0% 3.35% 2.50% 0% 0% 3.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

164 138 4 22 9 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0

 12.01% 12.02% 10.26% 12.29% 22.50% 0% 0% 16.67% 33.33% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 66.67% 0%

157 136 5 16 6 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

 11.49% 11.85% 12.82% 8.94% 15.00% 0% 0% 13.33% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

627 536 14 77 16 0 0 14 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 45.90% 46.69% 35.90% 43.02% 8.94% 0% 0% 46.67% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

162 130 6 26 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 11.86% 11.32% 15.38% 14.53% 12.50% 0% 0% 13.33% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

27 21 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1.98% 1.83% 5.13% 2.23% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.44% 0.44% 0% 0.56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.44%% 0.52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

9 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.66% 0.61% 0% 1.12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0.29% 0.35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1366 1148 39 179 40 0 0 30 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1

 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

WD/WG,WL/WS

, and Other 

Wage Grades

WG-12

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

All Other

TOTAL

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B5-2: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Disability (Perm)

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25]

Missing 

Extremities 

[27-29/31-

38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

18 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 40.00% 40.48% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 28.89% 30.95% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4.44% 4.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 17.78% 16.67% 0% 33.33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 4.44% 4.76% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 0 0

 2.22% 2.38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 2.22% 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% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 42 0 3 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%

NOTE: Percentages computed down columns and NOT across rows

WD/WG,WL/WS, 

and Other Wage 

Grades

WG-12

WG-13

WG-14

WG-15

All Other

TOTAL

WG-06

WG-07

WG-08

WG-09

WG-10

WG-11

WG-01

WG-02

WG-03

WG-04

WG-05

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B5-2: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Disability (Temp)

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/2

5]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

29/31-38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Dwarfis

m [92]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]
289 197 27 65 9 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0

 100% 68.17% 9.34% 22.49% 3.11% 0.00% 0.35% 1.73% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.35% 0% 0.69% 0%

162 114 10 38 6 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 70.37% 6.17% 23.46% 3.70% 0.00% 0% 1.85% 0% 0% 1.85% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

132 114 3 15 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 86.36% 2.27% 11.36% 3.03% 0.00% 0% 0.76% 0% 0% 0.76% 0.76% 0% 0% 0% 0.76% 0%

358 291 17 50 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 81.28% 4.75% 13.97% 1.96% 0.00% 0% 1.40% 0% 0% 0% 0.56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

333 242 23 68 11 0 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 72.67% 6.91% 20.42% 3.30% 0.00% 0% 2.40% 0% 0% 0% 0.90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

154 129 3 22 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 83.77% 1.95% 14.29% 3.90% 0.00% 0% 1.95% 0% 0% 0% 0.65% 0% 0% 0% 1.30% 0%

463 333 23 107 24 0 0 9 4 0 1 5 0 2 0 3 0

 100% 71.92% 4.97% 23.11% 5.18% 0.00% 0% 1.94% 0.86% 0% 0.22% 1.08% 0% 0.43% 0% 0.65% 0%

2210 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

MANAGEMENT

0080 - SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

0132 - INTELLIGENCE

0963 - LEGAL INSTRUMENTS EXAMINING

1102 - CONTRACTING

1801 - GENERAL INSPECTION, 

INVESTIGATION and COMPLIANCE

2150 - TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS

SERIES/JOB TITLE

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes] (Perm)

Year = FY 2017 Occ Ser = 0080- SECUR ADM or 0132- INTELLIGENCE or 0963- LEGAL INSTRUMENTS EXAMINING or 1102- CONTRACTING or 1801- GEN. INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION

All No 

Disability 

[05]

Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06-99]

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability [02]

Traumatic 

Brain 

Injury[03]

Hearing 

[16-19]

Vision 

[20/23/24/25]

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Psychiatric 

Disability 

[91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Missing 

Extremitie

s [27-

29/31-38]

Significant 

Mobility 

Impairment 

[40]

Partial 

Paralysis 

[60-68] 

Complete 

Paralysis 

[71-78]

Epilepsy 

[82]
No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental 

Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25]

Extremitie

s

Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 0 0

 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0080 - SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

0132 - INTELLIGENCE

1102 - CONTRACTING

2150 - 

TRANSPORTATION 

OPERATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B6: Participation Rates for Major Occupations - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes] (Temp)

Year = FY 2017 Occ Ser = 0080- SECUR ADM or 0132- INTELLIGENCE or 0963- LEGAL INSTRUMENTS EXAMINING or 1102- CONTRACTING or 1801- GEN. INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION

SERIES/JOB TITLE

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All
 No 

Disability 

[05]

 Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06 - 98] 

Targeted 

Disability

Developm

ental 

Disability 

[02]

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]

# 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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% 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% 0.00%

# 19926 11777 6893 1256 508 16 83 69 69 10 54 33 29 5 201 0 8

% 100.00% 59.10% 34.59% 6.30% 2.55% 0.08% 0.42% 0.35% 0.35% 0.05% 0.27% 0.17% 0.15% 0.03% 1.01% 0.00% 0.04%

# 218 113 98 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100.00% 51.83% 44.95% 3.21% 0.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.46% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Received # 4810

# 4464 2664 1527 273 113 0 34 13 5 3 2 12 6 0 50 0 2

% 100.00% 59.68% 34.21% 6.12% 2.53% 0.00% 0.76% 0.29% 0.11% 0.07% 0.04% 0.27% 0.13% 0.00% 1.12% 0.00% 0.04%

# 2768 1591 1045 132 52 0 0 6 2 2 1 4 3 0 15 0 3

% 100.00% 57.48% 37.75% 4.77% 1.88% 0.00% 0.76% 0.22% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% 0.14% 0.11% 0.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.11%

# 32 16 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 50.00% 46.88% 3.13% 0.00% 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 # 2984

# 2566 1441 988 137 59 2 14 10 8 1 2 3 7 3 19 0 0

% 100.00% 56.16% 38.50% 5.34% 2.30% 0.08% 0.55% 0.39% 0.31% 0.04% 0.08% 0.12% 0.27% 0.12% 0.74% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1940 1036 816 88 41 0 0 8 4 1 1 4 7 0 15 0 0

% 100.00% 53.40% 42.06% 4.54% 2.11% 0.00% 0.31% 0.41% 0.21% 0.05% 0.05% 0.21% 0.36% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.00%

# 23 10 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 43.48% 47.83% 8.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected of those 

Identified

Qualified of those 

Identified

Applications

Hires

Voluntarily Identified (Outside of Schedule A Applicants)

Applications

Hires

Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0080

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those 

Identified

Selected of those 

Identified

Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0132

Voluntarily Identified

Schedule A

Table B7: APPLICATIONS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Disability (Permanent)

Total Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

Run Date: Oct 18, 2017 10:55 AM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
Total Received # 766

# 685 414 215 56 24 1 2 9 1 0 2 2 3 0 7 0 1

% 100.00% 60.44% 31.39% 8.18% 3.50% 0.15% 0.29% 1.31% 0.15% 0.00% 0.29% 0.29% 0.44% 0.00% 1.02% 0.00% 0.15%

# 482 297 156 29 13 2 0.00415 6 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 0

% 100.00% 61.62% 32.37% 6.02% 2.70% 0.41% 0.21% 1.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 0.41% 0.41% 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% 0.00%

# 26 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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%

Total Received # 7969

# 7504 4454 2495 555 216 9 21 22 48 5 34 13 10 2 78 0 2

% 100.00% 59.36% 33.25% 7.40% 2.88% 0.12% 0.28% 0.29% 0.64% 0.07% 0.45% 0.17% 0.13% 0.03% 1.04% 0.00% 0.03%

# 3196 1774 1211 211 92 5 0.00156 14 20 2 11 9 2 1 28 0 2

% 100.00% 55.51% 37.89% 6.60% 2.88% 0.16% 0.25% 0.44% 0.63% 0.06% 0.34% 0.28% 0.06% 0.03% 0.88% 0.00% 0.06%

# 89 44 41 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 49.44% 46.07% 4.49% 0.00% 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 # 1953

# 1641 1056 515 70 26 0 3 7 0 1 2 0 1 0 14 0 1

% 100.00% 64.35% 31.38% 4.27% 1.58% 0.00% 0.18% 0.43% 0.00% 0.06% 0.12% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.85% 0.00% 0.06%

# 1226 778 413 35 12 0 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 0 4 0 0

% 100.00% 63.46% 33.69% 2.85% 0.98% 0.00% 0.16% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 0.08% 0.08% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00%

# 27 15 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100.00% 55.56% 40.74% 3.70% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Received # 416

# 412 268 129 15 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0

% 100.00% 65.05% 31.31% 3.64% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 0.00%

# 285 186 90 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

% 100.00% 65.26% 31.58% 3.16% 0.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.00% 0.00%

# 18 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 61.11% 38.89% 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% 0.00%

Total Received # 2855

# 2661 1480 1024 157 65 4 9 7 7 0 11 3 2 0 30 0 2

% 100.00% 55.62% 38.48% 5.90% 2.44% 0.15% 0.34% 0.26% 0.26% 0.00% 0.41% 0.11% 0.08% 0.00% 1.13% 0.00% 0.08%

# 2027 1104 814 109 40 2 0.00099 2 5 0 8 3 1 0 19 0 1

% 100.00% 54.46% 40.16% 5.38% 1.97% 0.10% 0.25% 0.10% 0.25% 0.00% 0.39% 0.15% 0.05% 0.00% 0.94% 0.00% 0.05%

# 35 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 42.86% 57.14% 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% 0.00%

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those 

Identified

Selected of those 

Identified

Selected of those 

Identified

Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 2150

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those 

Identified

Selected of those 

Identified

Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 2210

Qualified of those 

Identified

Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0963

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those 

Identified

Selected of those 

Identified

Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 1102

Voluntarily Identified

Qualified of those 

Identified

Selected of those 

Identified

Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 1801

Voluntarily Identified

Run Date: Oct 18, 2017 10:55 AM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
TYPE

OF

APPOINTMENT No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25] Extremitie

s

Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

837 625 67 145 17 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 6 0

 100% 74.67% 8.00% 17.32% 2.03% 0% 0.12% 0.60% 0% 0% 0.24% 0% 0% 0.36% 0% 0.72% 0%

122 95 4 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0

 100% 77.87% 3.28% 18.85% 3.28% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.82% 0% 0% 0% 2.46% 0%

383 380 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100% 99.22% 0.52% 0.26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

959 720 71 168 21 0 1 5 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 9 0

 100% 75.08% 7.40% 17.52% 2.19% 0% 0.10% 0.52% 0% 0% 0.21% 0.10% 0% 0.31% 0% 0.94% 0%

773 579 65 129 22 0 0 10 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 6 0

 100% 74.90% 8.41% 16.69% 2.85% 0% 0% 1.29% 0.26% 0% 0.26% 0.13% 0% 0.13% 0% 0.78% 0%

TOTAL PRIOR YEAR

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B8: New Hires By Type of Appointment - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes]

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All

PERMANENT

TEMPORARY

NON-APPROPRIATED

TOTAL CURRENT YEAR
No 

Disability 

[05] 

Not 

Identified 

[01] 

Disability 

[06-98] 

Targeted 

Disability

Developmental 

Disability 

[02] 

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 

Disorder 

[82] 

Severe 

Intellectual 

Disability 

[90]

Significant 

Psychiatric 

Disorder [91]

Dwarfism 

[92]

Significant 

Disfigurement [93]

# 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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%

# 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant 

Pool %

% 2.35% 0.32% 0.48% 0.11% 0.00% 0.01% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00%

# 11 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 81.82% 9.09% 9.09% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 5 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 60.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 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

% 100.00% 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%

Relevant Applicant 

Pool %

% 3.42% 0.20% 0.33% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 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% 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% 0.00%

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant 

Pool %

% 2.83% 0.27% 0.40% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%

# 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant 

Pool %

% 1.52% 0.04% 0.14% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00%

# 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

# 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 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% 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% 0.00%

Relevant Applicant 

Pool %

% 3.90% 0.29% 0.62% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.05% 0.00% 0.01% 0.06% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00%

Selected

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Selected

Series: 2210 Information Technology Specialist

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Series: 2150 Transportation Operation

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Selected

Series: 1102 Contracting

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Selected

Series: 1801 Marine Investigator

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Selected

Series: 0080 Security Administration

Table B9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS for Major Occupations by Disability

Total Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

Run Date: Oct 18, 2017 10:56 AM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25] Extremitie

s

Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

Total Employees

Eligible for Career

Ladder Promotions 100% 75.63% 6.81% 17.56% 4.30% 0% 0% 1.43% 0% 0% 0.72% 0.72% 0% 1.08% 0% 0.36% 0%

37 31 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

 100% 83.78% 8.11% 8.11% 2.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.70% 0%

16 13 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 81.25% 6.25% 12.50% 6.25% 0% 0% 6.25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

24 18 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 100% 75.00% 4.17% 20.83% 4.17% 0% 0% 4.17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

13 - 24 months

25+ months

0 3 0 1 0

1 - 12 months

279 211 19 49 12 0 0 4 0 0 2 2

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B10: Non-Competitive Promotions - Time in Grade - Distribution by Disability

Year = FY 2017
 No 

Disability 

[05]

 Not 

Identified 

[01]

Disability 

[06 - 98] 

Targeted 

Disability

Developm

ental 

Disability 

[02]

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]

Relevant 

Applicant Pool %

%

# 16 3 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 18.75% 81.25% 0.00% 0.00% 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 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 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% 0.00% 0.00%

# 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 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 %

%

# 32 9 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 28.13% 65.63% 6.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

# 17 3 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 17.65% 76.47% 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%

# 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 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 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 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 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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% 0.00%

Relevant 

Applicant Pool %

%

# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% 100.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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

% 100.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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% 0.00%

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Selected

Selected

Grade: 15

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Selected

Grade: SES

Qualified

Total Total by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

Grade: 13

Total Applications 

Received

Qualified

Selected

Grade: 14

Total Applications 

Received

Run Date: Oct 18, 2017 10:53 AM Start Date: Oct 1, 2016 End Date: Sep 30, 2017
No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25] Extremities Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

Slots 23

96 82 4 10 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 85.41% 4.17% 10.42% 2.08% 0.00% 0.00% 2.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

22 16 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 72.73% 9.09% 18.18% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Slots 2

5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00% 60.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 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

100.00% 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%

Slots 0

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% 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% 0.00%

Relevant Pool

Applied

Participants

"Relevant Applicant Pool" = all employees in the next lower pay grade and in all series that qualify them for the position announced.

Relevant Pool

Applied

Participants

Career Development Programs for GS 15 and SES:

Career Development Programs for GS 13 - 14:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B12: Participation in Career Development - Distribution by Disability

Year = FY 2017

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All

Career Development Programs for GS 5-12:

Relevant Pool

Applied

Participants
No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental 

Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25] Extremities Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

Total Time-Off 619 509 25 85 10 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

Awards Given 100% 82.23% 4.04% 13.73% 1.62% 0% 0% 0.81% 0.16% 0% 0% 0.32% 0% 0% 0% 0.32% 0%

Total Hours 4214 3435 176 603 70 0 0 34 8 0 0 12 0 0 0 16 0

Average Hours 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 7 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0

Total Time-Off 2830 2035 195 600 83 0 0 26 3 2 8 20 0 4 1 17 2

Awards Given 100% 71.91% 6.89% 21.20% 2.93% 0% 0% 0.92% 0.11% 0.07% 0.28% 0.71% 0% 0.14% 0.04% 0.60% 0.07%

Total Hours 95993 69186 6596 20211 2810 0 0 763 120 54 295 671 0 139 40 648 80

Average Hours 34 34 34 34 34 0 0 29 40 27 37 34 0 35 40 38 40

Total Cash Awards 2994 2310 146 538 81 0 0 33 4 0 5 22 0 1 1 15 0

Given 100% 77.15% 4.88% 17.97% 2.71% 0% 0% 1.10% 0.13% 0% 0.17% 0.73% 0% 0.03% 0.03% 0.50% 0%

Total Amount 968036 746645 47830 173561 27500 0 0 11550 1150 0 1650 7700 0 250 250 4950 0

Average Amount 323 323 328 323 340 0 0 350 288 0 330 350 0 250 250 330 0

Total Cash Awards 4824 3793 205 826 109 0 0 52 6 1 11 17 1 4 1 13 3

Given 100% 78.63% 4.25% 17.12% 2.26% 0% 0% 1.08% 0.12% 0.02% 0.23% 0.35% 0.02% 0.08% 0.02% 0.27% 0.06%

Total Amount 9043475 7053878 392854 1596743 211996 0 0 103559 12482 1358 24564 30389 1755 6085 2475 24156 5173

Average Amount 1875 1860 1916 1933 1945 0 0 1992 2080 1358 2233 1788 1755 1521 2475 1858 1724

249 190 16 43 13 0 0 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0

 100% 76.31% 6.43% 17.27% 5.22% 0% 0% 3.61% 0.40% 0% 0% 0.40% 0% 0.40% 0.40% 0% 0%

Total Benefit 543064 410280 36279 96505 26493 0 0 18825 2486 0 0 952 0 2486 1744 0 0

Average Benefit 2181 2159 2267 2244 2038 0 0 2092 2486 0 0 952 0 2486 1744 0 0

Total QSI's

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B13: Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Disability

Year = FY 2017

RECOGNITION OR 

AWARD

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

All

TIME-OFF AWARDS - 1-9 HOURS

TIME-OFF AWARDS - 9+ HOURS

CASH AWARDS - $100 - $500

CASH AWARDS - $500+ 

QUALITY STEP INCREASES (QSI)
TYPE

OF

SEPARATION No Not Disability Targeted Develop Traumatic Hearing Vision Missing Significant Partial Complete Epilepsy Severe Psychiatric Dwarfism

Disability Identified [06-99] Disability Mental 

Disability Brain [16-19] [20/23/24/25] Extremities Mobility Paralysis Paralysis [82] Intellectual Disability [92]

[05] [01] [02] Injury[03] [27-29/ Impairment [60-68] [71-78] Disability [91]

31-38] [40] [90]

549 407 22 120 14 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 1 1 4 0

 100% 74.13% 4.01% 21.86% 2.55% 0% 0% 0.36% 0% 0% 0.36% 0.73% 0% 0.18% 0.18% 0.73% 0%

34 28 2 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0

 100% 82.35% 5.88% 11.76% 8.82% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.94% 0% 0% 0% 5.88% 0%

583 435 24 124 17 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 1 1 6 0

 100% 74.61% 4.12% 21.27% 2.92% 0% 0% 0.34% 0% 0% 0.34% 0.86% 0% 0.17% 0.17% 1.03% 0%

8364 6318 461 1585 335 0 1 181 25 4 18 47 0 12 2 41 4

 100% 75.54% 5.51% 18.95% 4.01% 0% 0.01% 2.16% 0.30% 0.05% 0.22% 0.56% 0% 0.14% 0.02% 0.49% 0.05%

All

VOLUNTARY

INVOLUNTARY

TOTAL 

SEPARATIONS 

TOTAL WORKFORCE

ALL Employees TARGETED DISABILITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Table B14: Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Disability [OPM Form 256 Self-Identification Codes]

Year = FY 2017