SECTION I: EFFORTS TO REACH REGULATORY GOALS ....................................... 2

SECTION II: MODEL DISABILITY PROGRAM ............................................................ 2

A. PLAN TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT & COMPETENT STAFFING FOR DISABILITY PROGRAM ............................................................... 3

B. PLAN TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR THE DISABILITY PROGRAM .................................................................................... 4

SECTION III: PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES IN THE DISABILITY PROGRAM ................ 4

SECTION IV: PLAN TO RECRUIT AND HIRE INDIVIDUALS 

WITH DISABILITIES ..................................................................................................... 4 

A. PLAN TO IDENTIFY JOB APPLICANTS WITH DISABILITIES .................................................................................................................. ... 4

B. PLAN TO ESTABLISH CONTACTS WITH DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATIONS........................................................5

C. PROGRESSION TOWARDS GOALS (RECRUITMENT AND HIRING) .................................................................................................... 5

SECTION V: PLAN TO ENSURE ADVANCEMENT 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES ........................................ 7 

A. ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM PLAN .........................................................................................................................................7

B. CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................................................................... 7

C.AWARDS .................................................................................................................................................................................8

D. PROMOTIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................9

SECTION VI: PLAN TO IMPROVE RETENTION OF PERSONS 

WITH DISABILITIES ...................................................................................................14

A. VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATIONS ..............................................................................................................14

B. ACCESSIBILITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITIES ......................................................................................................................... 15

C. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................15

D. PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKPLACE ...................................... 16

SECTION VII: EEO COMPLAINT AND FINDINGS DATA ..........................................16

A. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING HARASSMENT ...........................................................................................................16

B. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION ............................................................................17

SECTION VIII: IDENTIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF BARRIERS .............................17

National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

Affirmative Action Plan 

for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and 

Retention of Persons with Disabilities 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

2

Affirmative Action Plan

for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and

Retention of Persons with Disabilities

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

persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD), EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e))

and MD-715 require agencies to describe how their affirmative action plan will improve

the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with

disabilities.

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals

EEOC regulations (29 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.

1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger

involving PWD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If "yes",

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Answer: No

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

21% of NASA employees at grades GS-10 and below are PWD. However, only 9%

those in grades GS-11 to SES are PWD.

* For GS employees, please use two clusters: GS-1 to GS-10 and GS-11 to SES,

as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7). For all other pay plans, please use the

approximate grade clusters that are above or below GS-11 Step 1 in the

Washington, DC metropolitan region.

2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger

involving PWTD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If "yes",

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) Answer: No

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

5% of NASA employees at grades GS-10 and below are PWTD; but only 1% of those

in grades GS-11 to SES are PWTD.

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

managers and/or recruiters.

The Agency’s EEO personnel has communicated the new numerical goals in various

forums, including briefings for managers and supervisors; individual meetings with

hiring managers and recruitment managers; All-Hands meetings for supervisors; and

the distribution of information sheets to management with workforce goals. 

Section II: Model Disability Program
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

3

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

DISABILITY PROGRAM

Disability Program Task

# of FTE Staff by

Employment Status Responsible Official

(Name, Title, Office, Email)

Full Time Part Time Collateral Duty

Processing applications

from PWD and PWTD

10 0 0 All ten NASA Centers each

have designated Human

Capital personnel responsible

for processing applications,

including those from PWD.

Processing reasonable

accommodation requests

from applicants and

employees

10 0 0 All ten NASA Centers each

have designated DPMs who

are responsible for processing

accommodation requests.

Special Emphasis Program 10 0 0 NASA has DPMs at each of

for PWD and PWTD the ten Centers responsible

for managing SEP programs

and activities across the

agency.

1. Has the agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its

disability program during the reporting period? If “no”, describe the agency’s

plan to improve the staffing for the upcoming year.

Answer: Yes

The Agency has a designated Agency Disability Program Manager (DPM) in the

Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. Additionally, the ten NASA Centers each

have a designated DPM to manage the operational functions associated with the

program.

2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the agency’s disability

employment program by the office, staff employment status, and responsible

official.

3. Has the agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry

out their responsibilities during the reporting period? If “yes”, describe the

training(s) that disability program staff have received. If “no”, describe the

training(s) planned for the upcoming year.

Answer: Yes

In FY 2017, the Agency’s DPMs were trained on the Agency’s Reasonable

Accommodation Procedures. These procedures are currently being updated to align

with the new disability regulations, and the DPMs will be trained on the revisions in

late FY 2018/early FY 2019. Additionally, the DPMs are provided with ongoing

technical assistance and training from the Agency’s DPM during monthly meetings

and on an ad hoc basis.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

5

B. PLAN TO ESTABLISH CONTACTS WITH DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT

ORGANIZATIONS

C. PROGRESSION TOWARDS GOALS (RECRUITMENT AND HIRING)

 • Marshall Space Flight Center continued existing partnerships with the Alabama

and Tennessee Departments of Vocational Rehabilitation and the Alabama School for

the Deaf and Blind.

 • Kennedy Space Center staff participated in the Bender Virtual Career Fair for

People Living with Disabilities.

NASA Headquarters staff attended the Operation Warfighter Outreach Event at the

USO Warrior and Family Center Fort Belvoir, VA, which included many participating

agencies and a high volume of recovering service members seeking internships.

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

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

and PWTD for positions in the permanent workforce.

NASA is in the process of gathering this information and will update this section when

it is received.

3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes

disability into account (e.g., Schedule A), explain how the agency (1)

determines if the individual is eligible for appointment under such authority and

(2) forwards the individual's application to the relevant hiring officials with an

explanation of how and when the individual may be appointed.

NASA is in the process of gathering this information and will update this section when

it is received.

4. Has the agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring

authorities that take disability into account (e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe

the type(s) of training and frequency. If “no”, describe the agency’s plan to

provide this training.

Answer: No

NASA plans to provide training on Schedule A to EEO and Human Capital personnel

by the end of FY 2018.

Describe the agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist

PWD, including PWTD, in securing and maintaining employment.

Stennis Space Center established partnerships with external disability organizations,

including the Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation, the Gulf Coast Ability Works

Business Council, and disability service departments at several local colleges and

universities. Marshall Space Flight Center continued existing partnerships with the

Alabama and Tennessee Departments of Vocational Rehabilitation and the Alabama

School for the Deaf and Blind.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

6

1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do

triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the new hires in the permanent

workforce? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below.

a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Answer: No

b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Answer: Yes

NASA meets the goals for PWD, but is below the goals for PWTD. Of the 73 new hires

in grades GS-10 and below, 31.5% have a disability and 4.1% have a targeted

disability. Of the 533 new hires at GS-11 and above, 12.4% are PWD and 0.6% are

PWTD.

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) Answer: No

b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Answer: No

A trigger exists for new hires in Astronomy and Space Science (1330), where PWDs

accounted for 6% of new hires but none were PWTDs. (There were no triggers in the

data on new hires for General Engineers, 0801; Electrical Engineers, 0850; Computer

Engineers, 0854; Electronics Engineers, 0855; Aerospace Engineers, 0861; Physical

Scientists (1301); and Contract Specialists (1102) - PWDs accounted for 15% or more

and PWTDs accounted for 4% or more of all new hires in these MCOs.) Note that

currently, NASA’s report for Table B7 does not include data by occupation, so data on

the qualified applicant pool for MCOs are not available. NASA is working with the

Office of Human Capital Management (OHCM) to update its data reports for FY 18.

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) Answer: Yes

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Answer: Yes

For 2 of the 3 mission critical occupational categories (Engineering and Contracting),

the representation of PWD was greater in the relevant applicant pool than among

applicants found to be qualified (“referred applicants”): 

 • For engineering positions (0801, 0850, 0854, 0855, and 0860), PWD accounted

for 15.4% of the relevant applicant pool, and 5.1% of the applications received.

 • For contracting positions (1102), PWD accounted for 17.4% of the relevant

applicant pool, and 6.7% of the applications received.

 • There were no internal competitive promotions of Physical Scientists in FY 2017.

PWTD may be underrepresented in applications for both engineering and contracting

positions, compared to the relevant applicant pool. PWTD accounted for 0.7% of

applications, though accounted for 1.9% of the relevant applicant pool; there were no

applications from PWTD for contracting positions, though they made up 3.7% of the

relevant applicant pool.

NASA cautions that estimates of the relevant applicant pool are rough approximations.

For ease of analysis, time-in-grade is measured at the beginning of
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

7

the fiscal year; this excludes some employees who reached 12 months or more in

grade later in the year. Further, the analysis presented here includes individuals in the

broader occupational category (e.g., all engineering positions) for specific OPM

occupations (e.g., aerospace engineering). For example, the analysis assumes that all

individuals in engineering positions would be eligible for aerospace engineering jobs;

however, this assumption excludes individuals in other positions who possess the

required knowledge, skills, and abilities for aerospace engineering positions, but are

not currently in engineering positions.

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) Answer: Yes

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Answer: No

A trigger exists for selections of PWD in engineering and contracting, compared to the

qualified applicant pool. Although PWD were found to be qualified (2.4% and 11.5% of

applicants for engineering and contracting positions, respectively), no PWD were

selected for engineering positions and PWD accounted for 3.4% of those selected for

contracting. No PWTD were found to be qualified or selected for either occupational

category.

Section V: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for

Employees with Disabilities

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

advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities. Such activities might include

specialized training and mentoring programs, career development opportunities, awards

programs, promotions, and similar programs that address advancement. In this section,

agencies should identify, and provide data on programs designed to ensure advancement

opportunities for employees with disabilities.

A. ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM PLAN

B. CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Describe the agency's plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for

advancement.

The Agency’s EEO and Human Capital communities have developed multiple

strategies to track and monitor the professional development and advancement of

employees with disabilities. First, the Agency continually reviews the participation data

for this population to ensure continued participation in key training and development

opportunities across the Agency. Secondly, the Agency continually monitors

participation data for this population by grade level and professional category, and

develops corrective action plans as appropriate and necessary. Finally, the Agency

uses assistive technology to ensure that professional development opportunities are

made available to PWD and PWTD.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

8

C. AWARDS

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides

to its employees.

NASA conducts Agency-wide, competitive developmental programs for employees,

including: NASA Foundations of Influence, Relationships, Success, and Teamwork

(NASA FIRST) for grades GS-11 and GS-12; the Mid-Level Leadership Program

(MLLP) for grades GS-13 through GS-15; and NASA’s Leveraging Agency

Supervisory Excellence and Resilience (LASER) program (the Agency’s leadership

development program for first-line supervisors with at least two years of supervisory

experience at NASA). Although there were no new classes for these programs in

2017, both the MLLP and LASER program classes, selected in FY 2016, completed

their program in FY 2017.

2. 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 applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If "yes",

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWD) Answer: Yes

b. Selections (PWD) Answer: No

A trigger exists for applicants, given that PWD make up 7.4% of the relevant applicant

pool, but only 2.7% of those who applied to the MLLP. There is no trigger for

selections; 2.5% of selectees are PWD.

3. 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) Answer: No

b. Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

There are no triggers for PWTD applicants or selectees for the MLLP. PWTD account

for 1.1% of the relevant applicant pool; no PWTD applied to the program.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

9

D. PROMOTIONS

1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger

involving PWD and/or PWTD for any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or

other incentives? If "yes", please describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

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

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Answer: No

There are no triggers. The inclusion rates for PWD and PWTD (at all grade-levels) are

9.2% and 1.3%, respectively. Both PWD and PWTD received time-off awards and

cash awards in similar proportions to the inclusion rate.

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger

involving PWD and/or PWTD for quality step increases or performance-based

pay increases? If "yes", please describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Answer: Yes

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Answer: No

 There may be a trigger for PWD but not for PWTD with regard to quality step

increases (QSIs). PWD accounted for 4.1% of those receiving QSIs (compared to

their conclusion rate of 9.2%); PWTD accounted for 0.2% of those receiving QSIs

(compared to the inclusion rate of 1.3%).

3. If the agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are PWD

and/or PWTD recognized disproportionately less than employees without

disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is the inclusion rate.) If "yes",

describe the employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box.

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

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

NASA data reports do not currently contain this information. NASA is working to

address this need.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

10

1. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal

applicants and/or selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The

appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal

applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay

plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If "yes", describe the

trigger(s) in the text box.

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer: No

b. Grade GS-15

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer: No

c. Grade GS-14

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer: No

d. Grade GS-13

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer: Yes

A trigger exists for internal selections for promotions to GS-13, but not for promotions

to grades GS-14 and GS-15 (data are unavailable for SES positions). PWD account

for 13.4% of the qualified internal applicants for promotions to GS-13, but account for

only 9.2% of individuals selected. There are no triggers for qualified internal applicants

at the senior grade levels.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

11

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.

a. SES

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

b. Grade GS-15

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

c. Grade GS-14

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

d. Grade GS-13

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

There are no triggers for qualified internal applicants or selectees at the senior grade

levels.

3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a

trigger involving PWD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For

non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If "yes",

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Answer: No

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Answer: No

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Answer: No

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Answer: No

Currently, NASA’s applicant flow data reports do not include data on new hires by

grade level, so data on the qualified applicant pool by grade are not available. NASA

is working to update its data reports for FY 18. Notably, PWD accounted for a higher

percentage of new hires at grades GS-13 and above (11.4%), than the existing

workforce at the beginning of FY 17 (6.4%).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

12

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a

trigger involving PWTD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For

non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If "yes",

describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Answer: No

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Answer: No

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) Answer: No

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Answer: No

NASA’s applicant flow data reports currently do not include data by grade level. Hiring

data for FY 2017 shows that no PWTDs were hired at grades GS-13 and above.

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.

a. Executives

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer: No

b. Managers

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer: No

c. Supervisors

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Answer: No

Currently, NASA’s applicant flow data reports do not include data separated for

executives, managers, and supervisors, so data on the qualified applicant pool for by

these categories are not available. NASA is working to update its data reports for FY

18. Notably, the percentage of PWD in the relevant applicant pool (6.5%) is the same

as the percentage of PWD in supervisory positions in FY 2017.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

13

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) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

b. Managers

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

c. Supervisors

i.Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Answer: No

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Answer: No

Although NASA’s applicant flow data reports do not include data separated for

executives, managers, and supervisors, analyses show that the percentage of PWTD

in the relevant applicant pool (1.0%) is similar to the percentage of PWTD in

supervisory positions in FY 2017 (0.7%).

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) Answer: No

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Answer: No

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Answer: No

Currently, NASA’s applicant flow data reports do not include data separated for

executives, managers, and supervisors, so data on the qualified applicant pool for by

these categories are not available. NASA is working to update its data reports for FY

18. Notably, the percentage of PWD among new hires to supervisory positions

(10.5%) is greater than the PWD in supervisory positions in FY 2017 (8.4%).

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) Answer: No

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Answer: No

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Answer: No

NASA’s applicant flow data reports currently do not include data separated for

executives, managers, and supervisors. Hiring data for FY 2017 shows that no
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

14

PWTDs were hired in supervisory positions in FY 2017.

Section VI: 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.

Answer: N/A

Currently, NASA does not track Schedule A conversions at the Agency level.

Beginning in FY 2018, NASA will track all new Schedule A appointments to determine

when and if they are converted into the competitive service, and, for those not

converted, reasons why.

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among

voluntary and involuntary separations exceed that of persons without

disabilities? If "yes", describe the trigger below.

a. Voluntary Separations (PWD) Answer: No

b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Answer: No

The number of separations is low for NASA overall (191 voluntary and 18 involuntary

separations), rendering comparisons to the overall inclusion rate less meaningful. Of

those who voluntarily separated from NASA, 24 were PWD (12.6%), which is higher

than their overall representation at NASA (9.2% of the workforce). Of the 18

involuntary separations, 5 were PWD (27.8%).

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among

voluntary and involuntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted

disabilities? If "yes", describe the trigger below.

a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Answer: No

b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Answer: No

There is no trigger among voluntary and involuntary separations of PWTD. Notably,

only 5 PWTD voluntarily separated and there were no PWTD among involuntary

separations.

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.

NASA does not currently conduct exit interviews. 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

15

B. ACCESSIBILITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITIES

C. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform job 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.

Website: https://www.nasa.gov/accessibility/section508/sec508_overview.html

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.

This information isn’t currently available on NASA’s website. The NASA Office of

Diversity and Equal Opportunity Office is in the process of updating its website and

this information will be added.

3. Describe any programs, policies, or practices that the agency has undertaken,

or plans on undertaking over the next fiscal year, designed to improve

accessibility of agency facilities and/or technology.

In regard to improving the accessibility of facility, NASA maintains an annual plan that

identifies the facility accessibility needs of each NASA Center and their multi-year

implementation plan. Agency leadership routinely reviews this plan and assesses

status.

In regard to improving the accessibility of technology, the Agency has codified

expectations in this arena in written policy in NPR 2800.2 – “Electronic and

Information Technology Accessibility.” Additionally, the Agency’s 508 Compliance

Officer maintains an annual plan that is designed to strategically address any

identified barriers in this arena. This FY, the focus is on updating the Agency’s 508

website and linking it to the new 508 toolkit and other relevant resources. Additionally,

the Agency also has an informal 508 Compliance ERG that is comprised of volunteer

employees from various professional disciplines across the Agency who meet monthly

and assess any gaps and challenges in this arena experienced by the user

community and communicates them to the Agency’s DPM and 508 Compliance

Officer.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

16

D. PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO

PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKPLACE

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

make available to all job applicants and employees, reasonable accommodation procedures.

1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for

reasonable accommodations during the reporting period. (Please do not

include previously approved requests with repetitive accommodations, such as

interpreting services.)

The average processing time for processing NASA RA requests is currently 45

calendar days.

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.

Some examples of the effectiveness of NASA’s RA program are: (1) Over 3,000

managers and supervisors have been trained on their roles/responsibilities in the RA

arena; (2) RA awareness briefings across the agency are routinely provided to new

employees; new supervisors; and to summer interns; and (3) All ten NASA Centers

have designated DPMs to process RA requests and to provide technical assistance to

employees, interns, managers and supervisors.

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,

timely providing approved services, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and

monitoring PAS requests for trends.

NASA began providing PAS in January 2018, as required by EEOC’s new disability

regulations. Therefore, NASA does not currently have any effective program practices

to report to date in this arena.

Section VII: EEO Complaint and Findings Data

A. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING HARASSMENT
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

17

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 harassment, as compared to the government-wide average?

Answer: Yes

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on

disability status result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Answer: No

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment

based on disability status during the last fiscal year, please describe the

corrective measures taken by the agency.

N/A – there were no findings. In FY 2017, 39% of complaints filed (13 of 33) alleged

harassment of a PWD (compared to 14.2% Government-wide).

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

complaint alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, as

compared to the government-wide average?

Answer: Yes

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide

reasonable accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement

agreement?

Answer: No

3. 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.

N/A – there were no findings. In FY 2017, 27% of complaints filed (9 of 33) alleged

failure to provide a reasonable accommodation (compared to 9.7% Governmentwide).

Section VIII: Identification and Removal of Barriers

Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests

that a policy, procedure, or practice may be impeding the employment opportunities of a

protected EEO group.

1. Has the agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices)

that affect employment opportunities for PWD and/or PWTD?

Answer: No

2. Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD

and/or PWTD?

Answer: N/A

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.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

18

Trigger 1

Although NASA exceeds the representation goals for PWD and PWTD in grades

GS-10 and below, it does not meet the goals for higher grades. Among NASA

employees at grades GS-10 and below, 15% are individuals with disabilities and 4%

have targeted disabilities. However, at grades GS-11 and above, only 8% are IWD

and just 1% have targeted disabilities. Among new hires, 8% were IWD and 0.3%

were IWTD. Of the 70 new hires in grades GS-10 and below, 20% have a disability

and 1.4% have a targeted disability. Of the 529 new hires at GS-11 and above, 6%

are IWD and 0.2% are IWTD.

Barrier(s)

Objective(s)

NASA must obtain additional data and conduct further analyses to determine

causes of differences observed in the data categories described above and the

causes for such differences. NASA is committed to having a better understanding of

EEO in the NASA work environment and is committed to enhancing its data

analytical capabilities to clearly identify barriers to EEO and root causes of such

barriers. NASA will continue its use of best practices, including Special Emphasis

Programs, to address areas that indicate opportunity for improving EEO. With

additional data, NASA will be better able to identify specific opportunities and

develop data-driven solutions.

Responsible Official(s)

Performance Standards Address

the Plan?

(Yes or No)

AA for Diversity and Equal Opportunity No

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

Yes No

Sources of Data

Sources

Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes

Grievance Data (Trends) Yes

Findings from Decisions (e.g.,

EEO, Grievance, MSPB, AntiHarassment Processes) No

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g.,

FEVS) Yes

Exit Interview Data No

Focus Groups No

Interviews No

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC,

MSPB, GAO, OPM) Yes

Other (Please Describe) No
National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2017

19

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

any of the planned activities.

N/A These are new activities for FY 2018.

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

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

N/A These are new activities for FY 2018.

6. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please

describe how the agency intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year.

N/A These are new activities for FY 2018.

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient

Staffing &

Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion

Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

09/28/2018 NASA will update and improve its

standard data reports to ensure that

the necessary data are available for

conducting barrier analyses related to

the disability program.

Yes

09/28/2018 The NASA Office of Diversity and

Equal Opportunity (ODEO) will

partner with other NASA

organizations to strengthen its data

analytics capabilities to enable

ODEO to conduct in-depth barrier

analyses.

Yes

09/30/2020 ODEO will leverage current NASA

systems and develop additional data

tools, including: the Federal

Employee Viewpoint Survey, NASA

Human Capital Management

Workforce Analysis Business

Intelligence Tools, climate surveys,

pulse surveys, and potential new

database systems. These additional

tools will enhance ODEO’s ability to

analyze programs and practices at

more granular levels.

Yes

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

2017 NASA established an Agency-level Disability Working Group comprised of