NASA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY STRATEGIC	PLAN:

FY 2017-19

FY 2018 ANNUAL REPORT AND UPDATE FOR FY 2019 

 Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity 
Cover photo credit: The Earth’s Moon over Newfoundland, Canada, taken from the 

International Space Station, April 30, 2018, NASA, accessed at: 

<https://moon.nasa.gov/>. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NASA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN: FY 2017-19 

FY 2018 ANNUAL REPORT AND UPDATE FOR FY 2019 

(FY 2018 MD-715 REPORT) 

Table of Contents 

Parts A-D: Agency Information .......................................................................................1 

Part E: Executive Summary.............................................................................................3 

Section I. Mission of the Agency and Leadership ....................................................3 

Section II. The Six Essential Elements of a Model EEO Agency.................................3 

Demonstrated Commitment of Agency Leadership .........................................4 

Integration of EEO into the Agency’s Strategic Mission....................................4 

Management and Program Accountability.......................................................5 

Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination.............................................5 

Efficiency.........................................................................................................6 

Responsiveness and Legal Compliance ............................................................6 

Section III. Workforce Analyses...............................................................................7 

Section IV. FY 2018 Model EEO Agency Plan Accomplishments...............................8 

Section V. FY 2019 Planned Activities .....................................................................9 

Part F: Certification of Establishment of Continuing EEO Programs..............................11 

Part G: Agency Self-Assessment Checklist - FY 2018 .....................................................13 

Part H: Essential Element Deficiencies and Planned Activities......................................27 

Part I: Barrier Analysis and Planned Activities...............................................................33 

Part J: Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention 

of Persons with Disabilities ..........................................................................................37 

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals.........................................................37 

Section II: Model Disability Program.....................................................................38 

A. Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program 

......................................................................................................................38 

B. Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program .....................39 

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities...........................39 

A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities.........................................39 

B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations........40 

C. Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) ................................41 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with 

Disabilities............................................................................................................42 

A. Advancement Program Plan ......................................................................42 

B. Career Development Opportunities...........................................................42 

C. Awards......................................................................................................43 

D. Promotions ...............................................................................................44 

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities........................47 

A. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations......................................................47 

B. Accessibility of Technology and Facilities...................................................48 

C. Reasonable Accommodation Program.......................................................48 

D. Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the 

Workplace.....................................................................................................49 

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data .......................................................49 

A. EEO Complaint Data Involving Harassment................................................49 

B. EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation (RA) ..............49 

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers...............................................50 

Appendix A: FY 2018 Special Emphasis Program, Employee Resource Group, and 

Affinity Group Activities...............................................................................................53 

African American Special Emphasis Program ........................................................53 

American Indian and Alaska Native Special Emphasis Program.............................54 

Asian American and Pacific Islander Special Emphasis Program............................54 

Hispanic Special Emphasis Program......................................................................55 

Federal Women’s Program...................................................................................55 

LGBTQ+ Special Emphasis Program.......................................................................56 

Individuals with Disabilities Special Emphasis Program.........................................56 

Appendix B: Data Analyses...........................................................................................58 

Workforce Summary ............................................................................................58 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Results..............................................59 

Occupational Categories.......................................................................................61 

Promotions...........................................................................................................63 

Individuals with Disabilities ..................................................................................64 

Appendix C: Complaints Processing..............................................................................65 

Appendix D: Documents Required by EEOC..................................................................71 

Appendix E: List of Frequently Used Acronyms.............................................................72 

ii 
PARTS A-D: AGENCY INFORMATION 

EEOC MD-715 

PART A - D 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

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

PART A 

Department 

or Agency 

Identifying 

Information 

Agency National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Address 300 E Street, SW 

City, State, Zip Code Washington, DC 20546 

CPDF Code NN00 

FIPS code(s) 01, 06, 11, 12, 22, 24, 28, 39, 48, 51 

PART B 

Total 

Employment 

Permanent Workforce 17,459 

Temporary Workforce 92 

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 17,551 

PART C1 Leadership Name Title 

Head of 

Agency and 

Head of 

Agency 

Designee 

Head of Agency James F. Bridenstine Administrator 

Head of Agency Designee 

PART C2 

Agency 

Official(s) 

Responsible 

for Oversight 

of EEO 

Programs 

EEO Program Staff Name/Title 

Occupational 

Series/ Pay 

Plan and 

Grade 

Phone 

Number Email Address 

Principal EEO 

Director/Official 

Stephen T. Shih, Associate 

Administrator, Office of 

Diversity and Equal 

Opportunity (ODEO) 

0260/SES (202) 358-

2167 

stephen.t.shih 

@nasa.gov 

Affirmative Employment 

Program Manager 

Janet Sellars, Director, 

Diversity and Data/ 

Analytics Division, ODEO 

0301/SES (202) 358-

0730 

janet.e.sellars 

@nasa.gov 

Complaint Processing 

Program Manager 

Richard N. Reback, 

Director, Complaints and 

Programs Division, ODEO 

0260/SES (202) 358-

1597 

richard.n.reback 

@nasa.gov 

Diversity & Inclusion 

Officer 

Barbara Spotts, Equal 

Employment Manager 

0260/GS-15 (202) 358-

0946 

barbara.l.spotts 

@nasa.gov 

Hispanic Program 

Manager (SEPM) 

Nicole Lassiter, Equal 

Opportunity Specialist 

0260/GS-14 (202) 358-

1932 

nicole.e.lassiter 

@nasa.gov 

Women's Program 

Manager (SEPM) 

Nicole Lassiter, Equal 

Opportunity Specialist 

0260/GS-14 (202) 358-

1932 

nicole.e.lassiter 

@nasa.gov 

Disability Program 

Manager (SEPM) 

Nicole Lassiter, Equal 

Opportunity Specialist 

0260/GS-14 (202) 358-

1932 

nicole.e.lassiter 

@nasa.gov 

1 
Selective Placement 

Program Coordinator 

(Individuals 

w/Disabilities) 

Joan Davidson, Human 

Resources Specialist 

0201/GS-14 (202) 358-

1033 

joan.b.davidson 

@nasa.gov 

Reasonable 

Accommodation Program 

Manager 

Veronica Hill, Equal 

Employment Manager 

0260/GS-15 (202) 358-

5147 

veronica.r.hill 

@nasa.gov 

David Chambers, Equal 

Opportunity Compliance 

Manager 

0360/GS-15 (202) 358-

3158 

david.r.chamber 

s@nasa.gov 

Anti-Harassment 

Program Manager 

ADR Program Manager Vacant 

Judy Caniban, Equal 

Employment Manager 

0260/GS-15 (202) 358-

0726 

judymarie.d.cani 

ban@nasa.gov Compliance Manager 

Principal MD-715 

Preparer 

Rebecca Kraus, Civil 

Rights Analyst 

0160/GS-15 (202) 358-

2303 

rebecca.s.kraus 

@nasa.gov 

Vincent Patterson, Equal 

Employment Manager 

0260/GS-15 (202) 358-

0952 

vincent.e.patters Other EEO Staff on@nasa.gov 

PART D-1 

List of 

Subordinate 

Components

Covered in 

This Report 

Subordinate Component and Location 

(City/State) 

CPDF and FIPS codes 

Ames Research Center (ARC), Moffett Field/CA NN21 06001, 06003, 06005, 06013, 06085, 

06087 

Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC), NN24 06029, 06037 

Edwards/CA 

Glenn Research Center (GRC), Cleveland/OH NN22 39035, 39055, 39143, 39153, 39085, 

39093 

Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt/MD NN51 24033, 24031, 24027, 24003, 11001, 

51001 

Headquarters (HQ), Washington/DC NN10 11001, 24033, 24031, 51013, 51059, 

51107 

Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston/TX NN72 48157, 48167, 48291, 48473, 48071 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC), KSC/FL NN76 12009, 12095 

Langley Research Center (LaRC), Hampton/VA NN23 51115, 51650, 51700 

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville/AL NN62 01089 

NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC), Stennis/MS NN10 28045, 28047, 28059 

Stennis Space Center (SSC), Stennis/MS NN64 28045, 28047, 28059 

PART D-2 

Mandatory 

and Optional

Documents 

for this 

Report 

Please refer to Appendix C. 

2 
 

 

 

PART E: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

EEOC MD-715 

PART E 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration For period covering October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Section I. Mission of the Agency and Leadership 

The mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is to “lead an innovative 

and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partnersto enable human 

expansion acrossthe solarsystem and bring new knowledge and opportunities back to Earth,support 

growth of the Nation’s economy in space and aeronautics, increase understanding of the universe 

and our place in it, work with industry to improve America’s aerospace technologies, and advance 

American leadership” (NASA 2018 Strategic Plan). The work of NASA benefits Americans and all 

humanity. NASA inspires the world with exploration of new frontiers, discovery of new knowledge, 

and development of new technology. 

With top-level support from the NASA Administrator and NASA’s leadership team, the NASA Office 

of Diversity and Equal Opportunity (ODEO) and Center equal employment opportunity (EEO) offices 

engaged inmany activitiesin FY 2018 to advance EEOin the NASA workforce. In 2018, forthe seventh 

yearin a row, NASA wasranked the best place to work in the Federal Government by the Partnership 

for Public Service. NASA ranked the highest among large agencies in all categories, including fairness 

in leadership and support for diversity. The Agency’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) 

results for 2018 also show that NASA ranked highest among large agencies on the Engagement Index 

(82 percent positive responses), the Global Satisfaction Index (80 percent positive responses), and 

the New Inclusion Quotient (New IQ) Index (78 percent positive responses) (see Appendix B, Figures 

1 and 2). The FEVS is just one measure of NASA’s achievements in EEO and diversity and inclusion 

(D&I). NASA also measures the success of its EEO program against the six Essential Elements of a 

Model EEO Agency, as outlined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 

Management Directive 715 (MD-715). FY 2018 accomplishments and EEO successes are identified 

and discussed below. 

Section II. The Six Essential Elements of a Model EEO Agency 

NASA carefully examined our current EEO program status and compared itto the Model EEO Program 

Self-Assessment measures (Part G). NASA identified five deficiencies within its EEO program 

reflecting a compliance rate of 97 percent (150 of 155). Utilizing the results of the self-assessment, 

3 
 

 

the Agency developed plans to address program deficiencies (Part H) and workforce triggers 

regarding participation rates for certain groups (Parts I and J). 

Demonstrated Commitment of Agency Leadership 

Throughout 2018, NASA leadership affirmed EEO policies, communicated EEO messages, and 

modeled positive behaviors in the workplace to demonstrate EEO commitment to all employees. In 

particular, NASA kicked off an Agency-wide Anti-Harassment Campaign with a video, featuring 

NASA’sthen-Acting Administrator highlighting his commitmentto a harassment-free workplace. This 

comprehensive initiative encompassed outreach and education at every level of the Agency, from 

top senior leadership to non-supervisory employees. Additionally, NASA Center leaders are heavily 

involved in supporting EEO activities. For example, the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Director chairs 

the Diversity Council, which is comprised of Employee Resource Group (ERG) chairs and executive 

champions. At Langley Research Center (LaRC), the Director of the Research Directorate serves on 

the Virginia Space Grant Consortium Advisory Committee. This provides the opportunity for LaRC 

senior leadership to engage with students regarding the NASA Internships and Fellowships (NIF) 

program and the Pathways program to enhance diversity in the applicant pipeline and provide 

relevant work experiences for students interested in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) careers. 

Integration of EEO into the Agency’s Strategic Mission 

NASA is committed to attracting, selecting, developing, deploying, and retaining competitive talent. 

Specifically, Strategic Objective 4.4 of the 2018 Strategic Plan is to: “Cultivate a diverse and 

innovative workforce with the right balance of skills and experience to provide an inclusive work 

environment in which employees that possess varying perspectives, education levels, life 

experiences, and backgrounds can work together and remain fully engaged in our mission.” The 

Strategic Plan further identifies strategies relating to equal employment opportunity, diversity, and 

inclusion for the NASA workforce, including: proactive efforts to ensure EEO and prevent 

discrimination in the workplace; regular assessment of the FEVS New IQ Index; measurement of 

increases in participation rates of employee groups through comparison with the relevant civilian 

labor force (RCLF); targeted outreach and recruitment efforts to increase diversity in the Agency’s 

internship, fellowship, and early career hiring programs; and greater access to career opportunities 

through mentoring and other forms of formal and informal education and awareness (such as 

networking and shadowing) for both managers and employees. 

The Associate Administrator (AA) for Diversity and Equal Opportunity is a full and active member of 

NASA’s senior leadership team as evidenced by regular participation on various decision-making 

bodies, boards, panels, and councils, such as: 

• Strategic Management Council (SMC). The AA, ODEO, is part of the Agency’s senior 

decision-making body for strategic direction and planning. The SMC is led by the NASA 

Administrator; its purpose is to determine NASA strategic direction, assess Agency 

4 
progress toward achieving its vision, and serve as a forum for review and discussion of 

issues affecting Agency management. 

• Mission Support Council (MSC). The AA, ODEO, serves on the MSC, which is the Agency's 

senior decision-making body regarding the integrated Agency mission support portfolio. 

The council members are advisors to the Deputy Associate Administrator. The MSC 

assesses and determines mission support requirements to enable the successful 

accomplishment of the Agency's mission. 

• Performance Review Board (PRB). As a member of the PRB, the AA, ODEO, participates in 

annual performance reviews of NASA’s Senior Executive Service (SES) members. 

• Executive Resources Board (ERB). The AA, ODEO, is on the ERB, which provides advice, 

counsel, and recommendations for consideration by the Administrator relating to 

management of executive human resources in NASA, inclusive of personnel policy, 

planning, and development. 

Management and Program Accountability 

NASA managers and supervisors are held accountable for advancing EEO in the workplace. NASA 

ODEO reports quarterly on EEO and D&I performance outcomes at the Baseline Performance Review 

(BPR) meeting, which is chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator and attended by Officials-inCharge. 

In FY 2018, NASA focused primarily on enhancing its effortsto address and resolve harassment in the 

workplace with itsinaugural Anti-Harassment Campaign. The Agency’s No FEAR Act training module 

included an anti-harassment component where virtually 100 percent of managers and supervisors 

were trained. Further, the AA for ODEO conducted anti-harassment training at eight of ten NASA 

Centers that was made available to employees, supervisors, and senior leadership. The Agency 

sponsored an Anti-Harassment Forum in May 2018 and established a shared Intranet site for AntiHarassment Program (AHP) practitioners to post key program materials such as policies, guidelines, 

and promising practices from internal and external sources. For FY 2019, NASA intends to update 

guidance for practitioners, develop a fully automated reporting system to better capture program 

data, and create a highly interactive, engaging, and “gamified” online training module for the 

workforce. 

Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination 

NASA advocates EEO in hiring, promotions, leadership and employee development, and awards, 

which increases diverse perspectives leading to top performance. In FY 2018, NASA engaged in 

various efforts focused on advancing EEO in NASA processes. For example, Agency Special Emphasis 

Programs (SEPs) and employee resource and affinity groups provide training, mentoring, and 

informational programs acrossthe enterprise. In addition, NASA conducts a variety of education and 

outreach activities particularly aimed at groups that are underrepresented in the workforce and in 

STEM occupations. A few initiatives are discussed below: 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): In FY 2018, NASA established a cadre of mediators 

composed of employees across the Agency that could be deployed quickly to conduct ADR. 

This in-house cadre of mediators are a cost savings to the Agency and due to their affiliation 

with NASA, quickly gain the trust of ADR participants. Additionally, the Agency expanded the 

availability of ADR beyond the traditional EEO complaint process to other workplace disputes. 

These non-EEO mediations were conducted for both co-worker conflicts and supervisoremployee issues. 

• Anti-Harassment Program (AHP): NASA embarked on an aggressive Anti-Harassment 

Campaign to increase the focus on NASA’s AHP as an avenue to address workplace conflict. 

As a result of this awareness initiative, during FY 2018 NASA experienced a dramatic increase 

in reported harassment allegations. In particular, 95 allegations were raised compared to an 

average of 55 per year for the previous eight years. NASA considers the higher rate of 

reported allegations as evidence of greater willingness on the part of employees to come 

forward with concerns based on leadership support of the Anti-Harassment Campaign. 

• Special Emphasis Program Managers(SEPMs) and Employee Resource Groups(ERGs): NASA 

SEPMs help develop programs and activities designed to attract and retain talent in the 

workforce, advance EEO within the Agency, and prevent unlawful discrimination. NASA has 

SEPs for the following groups: American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIAN); Asian Americans 

and Pacific Islanders (AAPI); Black or African Americans; Hispanics or Latinos; Women; 

Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, and Queer and/or Questioning (LGBTQ+) employees; 

and Individuals with Disabilities (IWD). In FY 2018, NASA Center EEO offices, SEPMs, and ERGs 

coordinated a number of activities focused on EEO education and proactive prevention of 

discrimination (see Appendix C for a detailed list of activities by Center). 

Efficiency 

NASA continually seeks to improve EEO delivery through more efficient systems and processes 

designed to address EEO matters in a timely and effective manner. In FY 2018, ODEO continued to 

strengthen its community of practice among EEO and D&I practitioners across NASA Centers. 

Leveraging the NASA Engineering Network, a NASA Intranet site designed to bring together 

communities of practice, NASA ODEO created Web sites for several communities of practice, 

including D&I, SEPMs, MD-715 and data analytics, and the NASA AHP. 

Responsiveness and Legal Compliance 

In FY 2018, NASA posted timely No FEAR Act data and met established deadlines for submitting the 

FY 2017 MD-715 report and annual statistical report of discrimination complaints (Form 462) to 

EEOC. NASA also developed “draft” guidance on gendertransitioning in the workplace. The guidance 

is designed to be a resource tool to assist NASA managers, supervisors, and employees to work 

effectively with an employee who is undergoing a gendertransition. NASA anticipatesformal release 

of the guidance in FY 2019. Other initiatives included utilizing a variety of sources for assistance in 

providing efficient and timely reasonable accommodations, including: the Computer Accessibility 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program; Job Accommodation Network; Lighthouse for the Blind; Vista Center for the Blind; and the 

Department of Rehabilitation. 

Section III. Workforce Analyses 

In order to attract and retain a diverse workforce, NASA works to ensure equal opportunity in all 

aspects of its human capital management, including recruitment, hiring, promotions, awards, etc. 

Moreover, NASA monitors workforce data to determine if discrepancies exist with regard to 

participation in the workforce by any demographic group.1 FY 2018 workforce data revealed the 

following triggers (see Appendix B, Table 1): 

• Hispanics and Women are employed at NASA in lower percentages than their 

representation in the National Civilian Labor Force (NCLF).2 Hispanics make up 7.6 percent 

of NASA employees and 10 percent of the NCLF. Women make up 34 percent of NASA 

employees, but are 48.2 percent of the NCLF. 

• Some groups are underrepresented in the higher grades and leadership positions: 

• NASA Senior Executive Service (SES) members: AAPI, Hispanics, Women, and IWD 

account for a lower percentage of the SES compared to their overall representation 

in the NASA workforce. For example, Hispanics and AAPI each make up 8 percent of 

the workforce, yet account for 4 and 5 percent, respectively, of the SES. 

• Senior Level (SL) and Senior Scientific and Professional (ST) employees: Blacks, 

Hispanics, Women, and IWD are employed in lower percentages in ST and SL 

positions than their overall representation in the workforce. In particular, Blacks 

make up 12 percent of the NASA workforce, yet are only 2 percent of ST and SL 

employees. 

• GS-14 and GS-15: Among GS-14 and GS-15 employees, Blacks account for 9 percent, 

women account for 29 percent, and IWD account for 7 percent, although they 

represent 12 percent, 34 percent, and 9 percent of the NASA workforce, respectively. 

Triggers also exist with regard to specific occupations when compared to the RCLF, particularly for 

AAPI. The RCLF is those jobs in the civilian labor force equivalent to occupations in the Federal 

Government (see Appendix B, Tables 2-4). AAPI, for example, account for 12 percent of engineers in 

the RCLF but only 9 percent of NASA engineers. AAPI also represent 14 percent of physical science 

positions in the RCLF, yet account for 10 percent of NASA physical scientists. Women also represent 

1 A “snapshot” of the NASA workforce can reveal “triggers” for various groups at certain grade levels and in leadership 

positions when compared to: their total representation at NASA; the Federal STEM workforce; and the U.S. civilian labor force 

(see Appendix B, Table 1). As defined by EEOC, a trigger is a situation that alerts the Agency to the possible existence of a barrier 

to EEO. For example, low participation (or representation) of a group in certain occupations, or among employees receiving 

promotions, awards, etc., may indicate that there is an Agency policy or practice that limits the full participation of that group. 

A trigger does not by itself demonstrate a barrier to equal opportunity; it indicates an area to be monitored or further analyzed. 2 The NCLF includes all non-institutionalized civilians age 16 and over who are either employed or unemployed. U.S. Census 

Bureau, “Labor Force: Glossary,” accessed at <https://www.census.gov/topics/employment/labor-force/about/ 

glossary.html>. The EEOC requires the use of the NCLF as a benchmark. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a smaller percentage of physical scientists at NASA than in the RCLF: Women make up 37 percent of 

physical scientists in the RCLF, but are only 27 percent of NASA physical scientists. 

NASA data show that AAPI, Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and IWD represent a greater proportion of 

those occupying professional administrative (PA) positions when compared to the RCLF. For 

example, Hispanics account for 11 percent of Program Analysts at NASA, compared to 5 percent in 

the RCLF. AAPI employees are 12 percent of NASA accountants, but only 9 percent of accountants 

in the RCLF. Further, Blacks and IWD are employed in much greater percentages in several PA 

occupations at NASA than in the RCLF. For example, IWD are 21 percent of NASA human resources 

(HR) specialists, but occupy only 4 percent of comparable positions in the RCLF. Blacks account for 

20 percent or more of NASA employees in HR, accounting, contracting, and program analysis 

positions, yet account for 10 percent of the individuals in those fields in the RCLF. 

NASA is working toward attaining goals for the employment of IWD and individuals with targeted 

disabilities (IWTD), as established by EEOC. The goals forIWD are: 12 percent of employees in grades 

GS-10 and below and 12 percent of employees in grades GS-11 and above. The goals for IWTD are 2 

percent of employees in each grade category. While NASA meets the goals for the employment of 

IWD and IWTD in grades GS-10 and below (22.2 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively), it does not 

meet the goals for GS-11 and above (10.0 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively). (See Appendix B, 

Figure 5.) Nonetheless, in grades GS-11 and above the percentage of IWD increased from 8.8 percent 

in FY 2017 (an increase of 186 individuals) and the percentage of IWTD increased from 1.0 percent 

in FY 2017 (an increase of 64 individuals). 

As noted in Parts (I) and (J) of this report, NASA has not completed its barrier analysis. The Agency 

plans to obtain additional data and conduct further analyses to determine the causes for any 

differences observed in the trends described above, as well as trends in recruitment, hiring, 

promotion, and employee retention. 

Section IV. FY 2018 Model EEO Agency Plan Accomplishments 

NASA’s Equal Employment Opportunity Strategic Plan for FY 2017-19 focuses on five areas 

identified using the Agency Self-Assessment Checklist (see Part G of this report): (1) EEO policy 

statement, (2) Reasonable Accommodation (RA) procedures, (3) timely counseling, (4) timely 

investigations, and (5) timely Final Agency Decisions (FADs) (see Parts H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4, and H-5, 

respectively). NASA achieved marked progress in all five areas in FY 2018. 

In February 2018, NASA kicked off the Agency-wide Anti-Harassment Campaign with a video by the 

then-Acting Administrator highlighting senior leadership’s commitment to a harassment-free 

workplace. This comprehensive initiative encompasses outreach and education at every level of the 

Agency, from top senior leadership to non-supervisory employees. In support of the Campaign, the 

AA, ODEO, conducted Agency-wide briefings for NASA employees and senior leadership, emphasizing 

that harassment prevention is about ensuring the safety and success of individual NASA employees, 

as well as the Agency’s missions. In addition, the Agency sponsored an Anti-Harassment Forum in 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 2018, which was convened to train and synchronize the efforts of all NASA’s anti-harassment 

community of practice members across the Agency. The NASA Administrator also issued a policy 

letter regarding anti-harassment in organizations receiving NASA funding. 

NASA completed a draft of its updated RA proceduresin FY 2018, which addresses new requirements 

for the provision of Personal Assistance Services (PAS) for IWD. The draft was reviewed by NASA 

stakeholders and EEOC. NASA expects to finalize and publish the procedures in FY 2019. 

In FY 2018, NASA timely completed investigations in 94 percent of cases, compared to 86 percent in 

FY 2017 and the Government-wide average of 73 percent. NASA has experienced a consistent and 

significant progress in this area. This improvement was due to training and mentoring of those 

responsible for reviewing cases and drafting of acceptance notices, regular tracking and reminders 

to responsible staff to ensure timely processing, establishing more streamlined and standardized 

processes, engaging the services of new vendors with qualified and skilled investigators, guidance to 

responsible offices for timely response to document requests from investigators, and soliciting 

feedback from stakeholders (Center EEO staff and Agency legal staff) and external customers 

(complainants) to improve the quality of investigations. 

NASA continues to collect and review data in order to improve its barrier analysis process (see Part 

I). The EEO and human capital (HC) offices strengthened their partnership to address data needs, to 

identify systems updates to accommodate the new MD-715 tables, obtain more-detailed applicant 

flow data, and share data analyses. In addition, NASA established an EEO/D&I Data Analytics 

Working Group to create and identify standard data reports to be used across all NASA Centers. 

Section V. FY 2019 Planned Activities 

In FY 2019, NASA will execute the following planned activities to address the program deficiencies 

and triggers identified in Parts (H) and (I) of this report: 

• Objective: Issue an FY 2019 EEO policy statement signed by the Administrator (Part H-1). 

• NASA ODEO will finalize draft policy statements related to EEO, D&I, and antiharassment and put them in the review cycle for the Administrator’s signature. 

• Objective: Revise NASA RA policy to include procedures for the provision of PAS to ensure 

alignment with requirements of revised EEOC regulations pursuant to Section 501 of the 

Rehabilitation Act (29 CFR § 1614.203) (Part H-2). 

• NASA will finalize and publish the RA policy with updated PAS procedures and post them 

on its Web site in FY 2019. 

• Objective: Ensure all counseling is completed timely within 30 or 90 calendar days, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108 (Part H-3). 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• NASA will provide training in informal complaints processing, counseling techniques, and 

writing counselor’s reports and utilize the Agency’s cadre of counselors to improve the 

timeliness of counseling. 

• Objective: Ensure all investigations are completed timely within 180 or 270 calendar days, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108 (Part H-4). 

• Provide training on formal complaints processing, i.e., drafting and framing claims, 

sufficiency reviews of investigative reports, etc. 

• Objective: Ensure all FADs are issued within 60 calendar days, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.110(b) (Part H-5). 

• NASA will engage contractors who are experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable in 

Federal EEO complaints processing from informal processing to FADs and will hold staff, 

including contractors, responsible for timely and quality processing of complaints. 

• Objective: NASA will (1) strengthen its data analytics capabilities and conduct in-depth 

barrier analyses to be better able to identify specific opportunities and develop data-driven 

solutions (Parts I and J), and (2) assess female and AAPI participation in Physical Scientists 

occupational category (Part I). 

• NASA will develop new and enhance existing data reports to be used Agency wide in 

assessing EEO concerns and progress by May 2019. 

• ODEO will continue to partner with OCHCO and other stakeholders to leverage existing 

tools to collect and analyze workforce trends. 

• NASA will begin reviewing indicators regarding the employment of women and AAPI as 

physical scientists at NASA, tracking applicant flow data by gender for Physical Scientist 

positions (to be completed in FY 2020). 

To achieve the above objectives related to complaints processing, NASA also will conduct quarterly 

discussions with responsible staff to address processing challenges and share/implement necessary 

changes. NASA also will review monthly complaint processing data by Center (for informal 

complaints) and Agency wide (formal processing) to track regulatory compliance and address any 

process timeliness and quality issues. 

NASA seeks to maintain a highly trained, multi-talented, diverse workforce to achieve its mission and 

goals. Initiatives outlined in this report reflect the Agency’s commitment to establishing a Model 

EEO Program and elimination of workplace barriers that limit the participation of any group of NASA 

employeesto contribute to the success of the Agency. The way ahead includes involvement of NASA 

leaders at all levels to facilitate a continued positive climate for cultivating a workplace that is free 

from all forms of discrimination. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART F: CERTIFICATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTINUING EEO PROGRAMS 

EEOC MD-715 

PART F 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

CERTIFICATION of ESTABLISHMENT of CONTINUING EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS 

I, 

Stephen T. Shih, Associate Administrator for 

Diversity and Equal Opportunity/0260/SES 

am the 

Principal EEO Director/Official (Insert name, official title/series/grade above) 

for: National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(Insert Agency/Component Name) 

The Agency has conducted an annual self-assessment of Section 717 and Section 501 programs 

against the essential elements as prescribed by EEO MD 715. If an essential element was not 

fully compliant with the standards of EEO MD 715, a further evaluation was conducted and, as 

appropriate, EEO Plans for Attaining the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program are 

included with this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report. 

The Agency has also analyzed its workforce profiles and conducted barrier analyses aimed at 

detecting whether any management or personnel policy, procedure, or practice is operating to 

disadvantage any group based on race, national origin, gender, or disability. EEO Plans to 

Eliminate Identified Barriers, as appropriate, are included with this Federal Agency Annual EEO 

Program Status Report. 

I certify that proper documentation of this assessment is in place and is being maintained for 

EEOC review upon request. 

/signed by Stephen T. Shih/ 5/15/2019 

Signature of Principal EEO Director/Official 

Certifies that this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report is in 

compliance with EEO MD 715. 

Date 

/signed by Jim Bridenstine/ 5/15/2019 

Signature of Agency Head or Agency Head Designee Date 

11 
12 
 

 

 

PART G: AGENCY SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST - FY 2018 

EEOC MD-715 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

Essential Element A: DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT FROM AGENCY LEADERSHIP 

This element requires the agency head to communicate a commitment to equal employment 

opportunity and a discrimination-free workplace. 

Indicator 

Measures 

A.1 – The agency issues an effective, up-todate EEO policy statement. Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

EEO policy statement on agency letterhead that 

clearly communicates the agency’s commitment to 

EEO for all employees and applicants? If “yes,” 

please provide the annual issuance date in the 

comments column. [see MD-715, II(A)] 

No 

NASA’s Administrator 

was sworn in 4/23/18; 

we are currently in the 

process of developing a 

policy statement for his 

signature 

A.1.b Does the EEO policy statement address all protected 

bases (age, color, disability, sex (including 

pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity), 

genetic information, national origin, race, religion, 

and reprisal) contained in the laws EEOC enforces? 

[see 29 CFR § 1614.101(a)] 

Yes 

Pending Administrator’s 

signature as noted in 

A.1.a. 

Indicator 

Measures 

A.2 – The agency has communicated EEO 

policies and procedures to all employees. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

A.2.a Does the agency disseminate the following policies 

and procedures to all employees: 

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

A.2.a.2 Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 

C.F.R § 1614.203(d)(3)] Yes 

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

information throughout the workplace and on its 

public website: 

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

Counselors, EEO Officers, Special Emphasis Program 

Managers, and EEO Director? [see 29 C.F.R § 

1614.102(b)(7)] 

Yes 

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

laws, policy statements, and the operation of the 

EEO complaint process? [see 29 C.F.R § 

1614.102(b)(5)] 

Yes 

A.2.b.3 Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 

C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3)(i)] If so, please provide 

the internet address in the comments column. 

www.nasa.gov/offices/od 

eo/policy-andpublications OR 

www.nasa.gov/sites/def 

ault/files/atoms/files/n_ 

pr_3713_001b_.pdf 

Yes3 

A.2.c Does the agency inform its employees about the 

following topics: 

3 NASA is in the process of revising its policy, which has been reviewed by EEOC and is in final Agency review. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.2.c.1 EEO complaint process? [see 29 CFR §§ 

1614.102(a)(12) and 1614.102(b)(5)] If “yes,” 

please provide how often. 

Yes At least annually 

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

how often. Yes At least annually 

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

1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If “yes,” please provide how 

often. 

Yes At least annually 

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

Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for 

Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § 

V.C.1] If “yes,” please provide how often. 

Yes At least annually 

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

and could result in disciplinary action? [5 CFR § 

2635.101(b)] If “yes,” how often. 

Yes At least annually 

Indicator 

Measures 

A.3 – The agency assesses and ensures EEO 

principles are part of its culture. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

supervisors, managers, and units demonstrating 

superior accomplishment in equal employment 

opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a) (9)] If 

“yes,” provide one or two examples in the 

comments section. 

Yes 

• Agency Honor Awards 

– EEO Medal 

• Annual Robert H. 

Goddard Awards – 

Diversity/EEO award 

• Ames EEO/Diversity 

Excellence Award 

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

Viewpoint Survey or other climate assessment tools 

to monitor the perception of EEO principles within 

the workforce? [see 5 CFR Part 250] 

Yes 

Essential Element B: INTEGRATION OF EEO INTO THE AGENCY’S STRATEGIC MISSION 

This element requires that the agency’s EEO programs are structured to maintain a workplace that 

is free from discrimination and support the agency’s strategic mission. 

Indicator 

Measures 

B.1 - The reporting structure for the EEO 

program provides the principal EEO official 

with appropriate authority and resources to 

effectively carry out a successful EEO program. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

B.1.a Is the agency head the immediate supervisor of the 

person (“EEO Director”) who has day-to-day control 

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

Yes 

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

head, does the EEO Director report to the same 

agency head designee as the mission-related 

programmatic offices? If “yes,” please provide the 

title of the agency head designee in the comments. 

N/A 

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

the reporting structure for the EEO office? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(b)(4)] 

Yes 

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

means of ad-vising the agency head and other 

senior management officials of the effectiveness, 

efficiency and legal compliance of agency’s EEO 

program? [29 CFR §1614.102(c)(1); MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

Yes 

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

present to the head of the agency, and other senior 

management officials, the "State of the agency" 

Yes 

Presented at the 

Baseline Performance 

Review on 3/22/2018 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

briefing covering the six essential elements of the 

model EEO program and the status of the barrier 

analysis process? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I)] 

If “yes,” please provide the date of the briefing in 

the comments column. 

B.1.d Does the EEO Director regularly participate in 

senior-level staff meetings concerning personnel, 

budget, technology, and other workforce issues? 

[see MD-715, II(B)] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

B.2 – The EEO Director controls all aspects of 

the EEO program. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

B.2.a Is the EEO Director responsible for the 

implementation of a continuing affirmative 

employment program to promote EEO and to 

identify and eliminate discriminatory policies, 

procedures, and practices? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(III)(A); 29 CFR §1614.102(c)] 

Yes 

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

completion of EEO counseling [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(4)] 

Yes 

B.2.c Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the 

fair and thorough investigation of EEO complaints? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may 

not be applicable for certain subordinate level 

components.] 

Yes 

B.2.d Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the 

timely issuance of final agency decisions? [see 29 

CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may not be 

applicable for subordinate level components.] 

Yes 

B.2.e Is the EEO Director responsible for ensuring 

compliance with EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR §§ 

1614.102(e); 1614.502] 

Yes 

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

evaluating the entire EEO program and providing 

recommendations for improvement to the agency 

head? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] 

Yes 

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

does the EEO Director provide effective guidance 

and coordination for the components? [see 29 CFR 

§§ 1614.102(c)(2) and (c)(3)] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

B.3 - The EEO Director and other EEO 

professional staff are involved in, and 

consulted on, management/personnel actions. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

meetings regarding workforce changes that might 

impact EEO issues, including strategic planning, 

recruitment strategies, vacancy projections, 

succession planning, and selections for 

training/career development opportunities? [see MD715, II(B)] 

Yes 

B.3.b Does the agency’s current strategic plan reference 

EEO / diversity and inclusion principles? [see MD715, II(B)] If “yes,” identify the EEO principles in 

the strategic plan in the comments column. Yes 

Strategic Objective 4.4, 

Manage Human Capital, 

specifically references 

Proactive efforts to 

ensure EEO and prevent 

discrimination in the 

workplace, such as the 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anti-Harassment and 

Reasonable 

Accommodations 

Programs (NASA 2018 

Strategic Plan, p. 40) 

Indicator 

Measures 

B.4 - The agency has sufficient budget and 

staffing to support the success of its EEO 

program. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

agency allocated sufficient funding and qualified 

staffing to successfully implement the EEO program, 

for the following areas: 

B.4.a.1 to conduct a self-assessment of the agency for 

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

B.4.a.2 to enable the agency to conduct a thorough barrier 

analysis of its workforce? [see MD-715, II(B)] Yes 

B.4.a.3 to timely, thoroughly, and fairly process EEO 

complaints, including EEO counseling, investigations, 

final agency decisions, and legal sufficiency reviews? 

[see 29 CFR § 1614.102(c)(5) & 1614.105(b) – (f); 

MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D) & 5(IV); MD-715, II(E)] 

Yes 

B.4.a.4 to provide all supervisors and employees with 

training on the EEO program, including but not 

limited to retaliation, harassment, religious 

accommodations, disability accommodations, the 

EEO complaint process, and ADR? [see MD-715, 

II(B) and III(C)] If not, identify the type(s) of 

training with insufficient funding in comments. 

Yes 

B.4.a.5 to conduct thorough, accurate, and effective field 

audits of the EEO programs in components and the 

field offices, if applicable? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)] 

Yes 

B.4.a.6 to publish and distribute EEO materials (e.g. 

harassment policies, EEO posters, reasonable 

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

Yes 

B.4.a.7 to maintain accurate data collection and tracking 

systems for the following types of data: complaint 

tracking, workforce demographics, and applicant 

flow data? [see MD-715, II(E)]. If not, please 

identify the systems with insufficient funding in 

comments. 

Yes 

B.4.a.8 to effectively administer its special emphasis 

programs (such as, Federal Women’s Program, 

Hispanic Employment Program, and People with 

Disabilities Program)? [5 USC § 7201; 38 USC § 

4214; 5 CFR § 720.204; 5 CFR § 213.3102(t) and 

(u); 5 CFR § 315.709] 

Yes 

B.4.a.9 to effectively manage its anti-harassment program? 

[see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I); EEOC 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer 

Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors 

(1999), § V.C.1] 

Yes 

B.4.a.10 to effectively manage its reasonable accommodation 

program? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)(ii)] Yes 

B.4.a.11 to ensure timely and complete compliance with 

EEOC orders? [see MD-715, II(E)] Yes 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

from other offices within the agency? [see 29 CFR § 

1614.102(a)(1)] 

Yes 

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

clearly defined? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A), 2(III), 

& 6(III)] 

Yes 

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

investigators, including contractors and collateral 

duty employees, receive the required 32 hours of 

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

Yes 

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

counselors and investigators, including contractors 

and collateral duty employees, receive the required 

8 hours of annual refresher training, pursuant to Ch. 

2(II)(C) of MD-110? 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

B.5 – The agency recruits, hires, develops, and 

retains supervisors and managers who have 

effective managerial, communications, and 

interpersonal skills. 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

B.5.a Pursuant to 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5), have all 

managers and supervisors received training on their 

responsibilities under the following areas under the 

agency EEO program: 

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

B.5.a.2 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures? [see 29 

C.F.R. § 1614.102(d)(3)] Yes 

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

B.5.a.4 Supervisory, managerial, communication, and 

interpersonal skills in order to supervise most 

effectively in a workplace with diverse employees 

and avoid disputes arising from ineffective 

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

Yes 

B.5.a.5 ADR, with emphasis on the federal government’s 

interest in encouraging mutual resolution of disputes 

and the benefits associated with utilizing ADR? [see 

MD-715(II)(E)] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

B.6 – The agency involves managers in the 

implementation of its EEO program. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

of Special Emphasis Programs? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

Yes 

B.6.b Do senior managers participate in the barrier 

analysis process? [MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] Yes 

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

assist in developing agency EEO action plans (Part I, 

Part J, or the Executive Summary)? [MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

Yes 

B.6.d Do senior managers successfully implement EEO 

Action Plans and incorporate the EEO Action Plan 

Objectives into agency strategic plans? [29 CFR § 

1614.102(a)(5)] 

Yes 

17 
 

 

 

Essential Element C: MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY 

This element 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. 

Indicator 

Measures 

C.1 – The agency conducts regular internal 

audits of its component and field offices. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

C.1.a Does the agency regularly assess its component and The most recent EEO 

field offices for possible EEO program deficiencies? functional review was 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If “yes,” please provide conducted in 2016; 

the schedule for conducting audits in the comments Yes NASA ODEO annually 

section. reviews Center MD-715 

plans and 

accomplishments. 

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

field offices on their efforts to remove barriers from 

the workplace? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If “yes,” 

please provide the schedule for conducting audits in 

the comments section. 

Yes 

NASA ODEO reviews 

Center MD-715 plans 

and accomplishments 

on an annual basis. 

C.1.c Do component and field offices make reasonable 

efforts to comply with the recommendations of the Yes 

field audit? [MD-715, II(C)] 

Indicator 

Measures 

C.2 – The agency has established procedures to 

prevent all forms of EEO discrimination. 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

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

harassment policy and procedures that comply with 

EEOC’s enforcement guidance? [MD-715, II(C); 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability 

for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (Enforcement 

Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (6/18/99)] 

Yes 

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

action to prevent or eliminate conduct before it rises 

to the level of unlawful harassment? [ EEOC 

Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability 

for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § 

V.C.1] 

Yes 

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

Anti-Harassment Coordinator and the EEO Director? 

[see EEOC Report, Model EEO Program Must Have an 

Effective Anti-Harassment Program (2006)] 

Yes 

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

the EEO complaint process) to address harassment 

allegations? [see Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious 

Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by 

Supervisors, EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (6/18/99)] 

Yes 

C.2.a.4 Does the agency ensure that the EEO office informs 

the anti-harassment program of all EEO counseling 

activity alleging harassment? [see Enforcement 

Guidance, V.C.] 

Yes 

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

within 10 days of notification) of all harassment 

allegations, including those initially raised in the EEO 

complaint process? [see Complainant v. Dep’t of 

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123232 (May 

21, 2015); Complainant v. Dep’t of Defense (Defense 

Commissary Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130331 

(5/29/15)] If “no,” please provide the percentage of 

timely-processed inquiries in comments. 

Yes 

18 
C.2.a.6 Do the agency’s training materials on its anti -

harassment policy include examples of disability -based 

harassment? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(2)] 

Yes 

C.2.b Has the agency established disability reasonable 

accommodation procedures that comply with EEOC’s 

regulations and guidance? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(3)] 

Yes 

The current p olicy is 

under revision; it has 

been reviewed by EEOC 

and is in final review 

within the Agency . 

C.2.b.1 Is there a designated agency official or other 

mechanism in place to coordinate or assist with 

processing requests for disability accommodations 

throughout the agency? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(3)(D)] 

Yes 

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

Reasonable Accommodation Program Manager and the 

EEO Director? [see MD -110, Ch. 1(IV)(A)] 

Yes 

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

request and receive reasonable accommodations 

during the application and placement processes? [see 

29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(B)] 

Yes 

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

state that the agency should pr ocess the request 

within a maximum amount of time (e.g., 20 business 

days), as established by the agency in its affirmative 

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

Yes 

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

within the time frame set forth in its reasonable 

accommodation procedures? [see MD -715, II(C)] If 

“no,” please provide the percentage of timely -

processed requests in the comments column. 

Yes 

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

requests for personal assistance services that comply 

with EEOC’s regulations, enforcement guidance, and 

other applicable executive orders, guidance, and 

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

Yes 

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

requests for Personal Assistance Services on its public 

website? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(5)(v)] If “yes,” 

please provide the internet address in the comments 

column. 

No 

See Part H-2. PAS 

procedures are included 

in the revised RA 

procedures, to be 

issued in FY 2019. 

Indicator 

Measures 

C.3 - The agency evaluates managers and 

supervisors on their efforts to ensure equal 

employment opportunity. 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

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

and supervisors have an element in their performance 

appraisal that evaluates their commitment to agency 

EEO policies and principles and their participation in 

the EEO program? 

Yes 

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

performance of managers and supervisors based on 

the following: 

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

including the participation in ADR proceedings? [see 

MD-110, Ch. 3.I] 

Yes 

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

supervision with EEO officials, such as counselors and 

investigators? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(6)] 

Yes 

19 
C.3.b.3 Ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of 

discrimination, including harassment and retaliation? 

[see MD-715, II(C)] 

Yes 

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

managerial, communication, and interpersonal skills to 

supervise in a workplace with diverse employees? 

[MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

Yes 

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

accommodations do not cause an undue hardship? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(7)] 

Yes 

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

accommodations do not cause an undue hardship? 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(8)] 

Yes 

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

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

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

and correcting harassing conduct. [see Enforcement 

Guidance, V.C.2] 

Yes 

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

by the agency, EEOC, and EEO -related cases from the 

Merit Systems Protection Board, labor arbitrators, and 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority? [see MD -715, 

II(C)] 

Yes 

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

improvements or corrections, i ncluding remedial or 

disciplinary actions, for managers and supervisors who 

have failed in their EEO responsibilities? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)] 

Yes 

C.3.d When the EEO Director recommends remedial or 

disciplinary actions, are the recommendations 

regularly implemented by the agency? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

C.4 – The agency ensures effective coordination 

between its EEO programs and Human Resources 

(HR) program. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

Do the HR Director and the EEO Director meet 

C.4.a regularly to assess whether personnel programs, 

policies, and procedures conform to EEOC laws, 

instructions, and management directives? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(2)] 

Yes 

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

at regular intervals its merit promotion program, 

employee recognition awards program, employee 

development/training programs, and 

management/personnel policies, procedures, and 

practices for systemic barriers that may be imp eding 

full participation in the program by all EEO groups? 

[see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

Yes 

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

and complete data (e.g., demographic data for 

workforce, applicants, training programs, etc.) 

required to prepare the MD -715 workforce data 

tables? [see 29 CFR §1614.601(a)] 

Yes 

C.4.d Does the HR office timely provide the EEO office with 

access to other data (e.g., exit interview data, climate 

assessment surveys, and grievance data), upon 

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

Yes 

20 
C.4.e Pursuant to Section II(C) of MD -715, does the EEO 

office collaborate with the HR office to: 

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

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

II(C)] 

Yes 

C.4.e.2 Develop and/or conduct outreach and recruiting 

initiatives? [see MD-715, II(C)] Yes 

C.4.e.3 Develop and/or provide training for managers and 

employees? [see MD-715, II(C)] Yes 

C.4.e.4 Identify and remove barriers to equal opportunity in 

the workplace? [see MD-715, II(C)] Yes 

C.4.e.5 Assist in preparing the MD -715 report? [see MD-715, 

II(C)] Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

C.5 – Following a finding of discrimination, the 

agency explores whether it should take a 

disciplinary action. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

table of penalties that covers discriminatory conduct? 

[see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(6); see also Douglas v. 

Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981)] 

Yes 

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

sanction managers and employees for discriminatory 

conduct? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(6)] If “yes,” s tate 

the number of disciplined/ sanctioned individuals 

during this reporting period in the comments. 

Yes 

N/A – no individuals 

have been 

disciplined/sanctioned 

during this reporting 

period 

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

cases in which a finding was likely), does the agency 

inform managers and supervisors about the 

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

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

C.6 – The EEO office advises 

managers/supervisors on EEO matters. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

officials with regular EEO updates on at least an 

annual basis, including EEO complaints, workforce 

demographics and data summaries, legal updates, 

barrier analysis plans, and special emphasis updates ? Yes At least annually 

[see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If “yes,” please 

identify the frequency of the EEO updates in the 

comments column. 

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

and supervisors’ questions/concerns? [see MD -715 Yes 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

Indicator 

Measures 

D.1 – The agency conducts a reasonable 

assessment to monitor progress towards 

achieving equal employment opportunity 

throughout the year. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

triggers in the workplace? [see MD -715 Instructions, 

Sec. I] 

Yes 

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

information for trigger identification: workforce data; 

complaint/grievance data; exit surveys; employee 

climate surveys; focus groups; affinity groups; union; 

program evaluations; special emphasis programs; 

Yes 

Essential Element D: PROACTIVE PREVENTION 

This element requires that the agency head make early efforts to prevent discrimination and to 

identify and eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity. 

21 
reasonable accommodation program; anti-harassment 

program; and/or external special interest groups? 

[MD-715 Instruct. Sec. I] 

D.1.c Does the agency conduct exit interviews or surveys 

that include questions on how the agency could 

improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention 

and advancement of individuals with disabilities? [see 

29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(iii)(C)] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

D.2 – The agency identifies areas where barriers 

may exclude EEO groups (reasonable basis to 

act.) 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

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

identified triggers to find possible barriers? [see MD -

715, (II)(B)] 

Yes 

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

management/ personnel policies, procedures, and 

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

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)] 

Yes 

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

employees or applicants might be negatively imp 

prior to making human resource decisions, such a 

organizations and realignments? [ see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(3)] 

acted 

s re- Yes 

D.2.d Does the agency regularly review the following 

sources of information to find barriers: 

complaint/grievance data, exit surveys, employee 

climate surveys, focus groups, affinity groups, unio n, 

program evaluations, anti-harassment program, 

special emphasis programs, reasonable 

accommodation program; anti -harassment program; 

and/or external special interest groups? [see MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] If “yes,” identify data sources in 

Yes 

Complaints, climate 

surveys (FEVS), antiharassment program 

data, affinity groups, 

special emphasis 

programs. Other data 

used, as available. 

comments. 

Indicator 

Measures 

D.3 – The agency establishes appropriate action 

plans to remove identified barriers. 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

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

address the identified barriers, in particular policies, 

procedures, or practices? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(a)(3)] 

Yes 

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

the reporting period, did the agency implement a plan 

in Part I, including meeting the target dates for the 

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

Yes 

D.3.c Does the agency periodically review the effectiveness 

of the plans? [see MD -715, II(D)] Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

D.4 – The agency has an affirmative action plan 

for people with disabilities, including those with 

targeted disabilities. 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

D.4.a 

Does the agency post its affirmative action plan on its 

public website? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(4)] Please 

provide the internet address in the comments. 

Yes 

https://www.nasa.gov/ 

offices/odeo/workforcedata 

D.4.b 

Does the agency take specific steps to ensure qualified 

people with disabilities are aware of and encouraged 

to apply for job vacancies? [see 29 CFR 

1614.203(d)(1)(i)] 

Yes 

22 
D.4.c 

Does the agency ensure that disability-related 

questions from members of the public are answered 

promptly and correctly? [see 29 CFR 

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

Yes 

D.4.d 

Has the agency taken specific steps that are 

reasonably designed to increase the number of 

persons with disabilities or targeted disabilities 

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

29 CFR 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)] 

Yes 

Essential Element E: EFFICIENCY 

This element requires the agency head to ensure that there are effective systems for evaluating the 

impact and effectiveness of the agency’s EEO programs and an efficient and fair dispute resolution 

process. 

Indicator 

Measures 

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

impartial complaint resolution process. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

E.1.a Does the agency timely provide EEO counseling , 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105? No See Part H-3. 

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

and responsibilities in the EEO process during the 

initial counseling session, pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.105(b)(1)? 

Yes 

E.1.c Does the agency issue acknowledgment letters 

immediately upon receipt of a formal complaint, 

pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)? 

Yes 

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

decisions within a reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) 

after receipt of the written EEO Counselor report, 

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

the average processing time in the comments. 

Yes The average processing 

time is 58 days. 

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

with EEO counselors and EEO personnel in the EEO 

process, including granting routine access to personnel 

records related to an investigation , pursuant to 29 CFR 

§1614.102(b)(6)? 

Yes 

E.1.f Does the agency timely complete investigations, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108? No See Part H-4. 

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

does the agency notify complainants of the date by 

which the investigation will be completed and of their 

right to request a hearing or file a lawsuit, pursuant to 

29 CFR §1614.108(g)? 

Yes 

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

does the agency timely issue the final agency decision, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(b)? 

No See Part H-5. 

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

receipt of the hearing file and the administrative 

judge’s decision, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(a)? 

Yes 

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

of the EEO complaint process, does the agency hold 

them accountable for poor work product and/or 

delays? [See MD -110, Ch. 5(V)(A)] If “yes,” please 

describe how in the comments column. 

Yes 

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

of the EEO complaint process, does the age ncy hold 

them accountable for poor work product and/or delays 

during performance review? [See MD -110, Ch. 

5(V)(A)] 

Yes 

23 
E.1.l Does the agency submit complaint files and other 

documents in the proper format to EEOC through the 

Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP)? [See 29 CFR § 

1614.403(g)] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

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

Met? Comments 

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

its EEO complaint program and its defensive function? 

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

Yes 

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

office have access to sufficient legal resources 

separate from the agency representative? [see MD -

110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)] If “yes,” identify the 

source/location of the attorney who conducts the legal 

sufficiency review in the comments column. 

Yes 

E.2.c If the EEO office relies on the agency’s defensive 

function to conduct the legal sufficiency review, is 

there a firewall between the reviewing attorney and 

the agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(D)] 

Yes 

E.2.d Does the agency ensure that its agency representative 

does not intrude upon EEO counseling, investigations, 

and final agency decisions? [see MD-110, Ch. 

1(IV)(D)] 

Yes 

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

for the legal counsel’s sufficiency review for timely 

processing of complaints? [see EEOC Report, Attaining 

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

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

E.3 - The agency has established and encouraged 

the widespread use of a fair alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) program. 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

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

during both the pre -complaint and formal complaint 

stages of the EEO process? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(b)(2)] 

Yes 

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

participate in ADR once it has been offered? [see MD -

715, II(A)(1)] 

Yes 

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

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

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

settlement authority is accessible during the dispute 

resolution process? [see MD -110, Ch. 3(III)(A)(9)] 

Yes 

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

official named in the dispute from having settlement 

authority? [see MD -110, Ch. 3(I)] 

Yes 

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

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

Indicator 

Measures 

E.4 – The agency has effective and accurate data 

collection systems in place to evaluate its EEO 

program. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

collect, monitor, and analyze the following data: 

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

the complaints, the aggrieved 

individuals/complainants, and the involved 

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

Yes 

24 
E.4.a.2 The race, national origin, sex, and disability status of 

agency employees? [see 29 CFR §1614.601(a)] Yes 

E.4.a.3 Recruitment activities? [see MD -715, II(E)] Yes 

E.4.a.4 External and internal applicant flow data concerning 

the applicants’ race, national origin, sex, and disability 

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

Yes 

E.4.a.5 The processing of requests for reasonable 

accommodation? [29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)] Yes 

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

program? [see EEOC Enforcement Guidance on 

Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment 

by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.2] 

Yes 

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

the workforce on a regular basis? [ MD-715 

Instructions, Sec. I] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

E.5 – The agency identifies and disseminates 

significant trends and best practices in its EEO 

program. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

determine whether agency is meeting its obligations 

under the statutes EEOC enforces? [MD -715, II(E)] If 

“yes,” provide example in comments . 

Yes 

NASA reviews data on 

EEO complaints, antiharassment allegations, 

and workforce 

representation 

throughout the year; on 

a quarterly basis, ODEO 

reports trends in the 

data to Agency 

leadership. 

E.5.b Does the agency review other agencies’ best practices 

and adopt them, where appropriate, to improve the 

effectiveness of its EEO program? [MD-715, II(E)] If 

“yes,” provide example in comments. Yes 

NASA regularly reviews 

best practices reports 

published by EEOC and 

included in other 

agencies’ MD-715 

reports and adopts as 

them as appropriate. 

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

process to other federal agencies of similar size? [see 

MD-715, II(E)] 

Yes 

Essential Element F: RESPONSIVENESS AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE 

This element requires federal agencies to comply with EEO statutes and EEOC 

regulations, policy guidance, and other written instructions. 

Indicator 

Measures 

F.1 – The agency has processes in place to 

ensure timely and full compliance with EEOC 

Orders and settlement agreements. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

controls to ensure that its officials timely comply with 

EEOC orders/directives and final agency actions? [see 

29 CFR §1614.102(e); MD-715, II(F)] 

Yes 

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

controls to ensure the timely, accurate, and complete 

compliance with resolutions/settlement agreements? 

[see MD-715, II(F)] 

Yes 

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

predictable processing of ordered monetary relief? 

[see MD-715, II(F)] 

Yes 

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

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

25 
F.1.e When EEOC issues an order requiring compliance by 

the agency, does the agency hold its compliance 

officer(s) accountable for poor work product and/or 

delays during performance review? [see MD-110, Ch. 

9(IX)(H)] 

Yes 

Indicator 

Measures 

F.2 – The agency complies with the law, 

including EEOC regulations, management 

directives, orders, and other written 

Measure 

Met? 

Comments 

instructions. 

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

EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR §1614.502; MD-715, II(E)] Yes 

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

agency timely forward the investigative file to the 

appropriate EEOC hearing office? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.108(g)] 

Yes 

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

the subject of an appeal by t he agency, does the 

agency ensure timely compliance with the orders of 

relief? [see 29 CFR §1614.501] 

Yes 

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

timely forward the investigative file to EEOC’s Office of 

Federal Operations? [see 29 CFR §1614.403(e)] 

Yes 

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

promptly provide EEOC with the required 

documentation for completing compliance? 

Yes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 

Measures 

F.3 - The agency reports to EEOC its program 

efforts and accomplishments. 

Measure 

Met? Comments 

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

and complete No FEAR Act report? [Public Law 107-

174 (May 15, 2002), §203(a)] 

Yes 

F.3.b Does the agency timely post on its public webpage its 

quarterly No FEAR Act data? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.703(d)] 

Yes 

https://www.nasa.gov/ 

offices/odeo/no-fear-act 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART H: ESSENTIAL ELEMENT DEFICIENCIES AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES 

NASA developed the following planned actions to address program deficiencies identified above in Part 

G. (Note that EEOC substantially revised Part G for FY 2018; therefore, NASA revised some actions added 

new actions.) 

EEOC MD-715 

PART H-1 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

DESCRIPTION 

AND TYPE OF 

PROGRAM 

DEFICIENCY: 

NASA did not issue an FY 2018 EEO policy statement on agency letterhead signed by 

the Administrator (Part G, Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership, 

Measure A.1.a) 

OBJECTIVE: Finalize the draft EEO policy statement. 

RESPONSIBLE 

OFFICIAL: AA, ODEO, and NASA Administrator 

DO THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL’S PEFORMANCE STANDARDS ADDRESS THIS PLAN? (Yes or No) No. 

DATES: Date Initiated Target Completion Date Modified Date Date Completed 

2/28/2018 6/30/2019 

PLANNED ACTIONS TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: 

Target Date Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing (Y/N)? 

Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

9/28/2018 1.Draft NASA EEO policy statements. Yes 9/30/2018 

3/30/2019 2.Draft policy statement put into Agency 

review. 

Yes 

6/30/2019 3.NASA Administrator signs policy statement. Yes 

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE 

FY 2018 Progress and Accomplishments: NASA’s Administrator was sworn in April 23, 2018. In 

anticipation of his appointment, in early 2018 ODEO developed several draft policy statements 

addressing EEO, D&I, anti-harassment, and the external civil rights compliance program. In September 

2018, the Administrator signed an anti-harassment policy letter for NASA’s external compliance 

program. A complete suite of policy statements regarding EEO and D&I is currently being prepared for 

future issuance. 

Modifications to Objective: This is a new objective for FY 2019. 

27 
EEOC MD-715 

PART H-2 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

DESCRIPTION 

AND TYPE OF 

PROGRAM 

DEFICIENCY: 

NASA has not finalized its RA policy and procedures and placed them on the Agency 

Web site (Part G, Management and Program Responsibility, Measure C.2.c.1) 

OBJECTIVE: Revise NASA RA policy to include procedures for the provision of PAS to ensure 

alignment with requirements to revised EEOC regulations pursuant to Section 501 of 

the Rehabilitation Act (29 CFR § 1614.203 ) 

RESPONSIBLE 

OFFICIAL: Director of Diversity and Data/Analytics Division , and Disability Program Manager 

(DPM), ODEO 

DO THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL’S PEFORMANCE STANDARDS ADDRESS THIS PLAN? (Yes or No) No. 

DATES: Date Initiated Target Completion Date Modified Date Date Completed 

3/21/2017 2/28/2018 2/28/2021 

PLANNED ACTIONS TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

2/28/2018 1. The Agency DPM will establish an Agency -

level Disability Working Group comprised 

of individuals from Human Capital, EEO, 

Legal, and the unions, to align the 

Agency’s current disability practices and 

RA procedures (NPR 3713.1B) with the 

new regulatory requirements, including 

the requirement for the provision of PAS. 

Yes 2/28/2018 

2/28/2018 2.Develop new accommodation procedures 

for the provision of PAS and reassignment 

for IWD. 

Yes 3/29/2019 

2/28/2019 3. Post revised procedures on the NASA Web 

site; ensure the procedures are made 

available to employees, job applicants, 

and student interns . 

Yes 3/29/2019 

2/28/2019 4. Train all managers and supervisors on the 

procedures. 

Yes 3/29/2021 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing (Y/N)? 

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE 

FY 2018 Progress and Accomplishments: The NASA Disabilities Working Group completed a draft of 

the proceduresin February 2018 and placed the document into the NASA policy review process. ODEO 

28 
adjudicated all comments on the draft, which wassubsequently reviewed by EEOC and the NASA Office 

of General Counsel. A draft is currently awaiting the signature of the Administrator; NASA expects to 

finalize and publish the procedures in FY 2019. 

Modifications to Objective: This action previously was numbered H-5 in the FY 2017 report. For FY 

2019, NASA added planned activity #3 to ensure timely posting of the revised procedures to the NASA 

Web site. 

EEOC MD-715

PART H-3 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

DESCRIPTION 

AND TYPE OF 

PROGRAM 

DEFICIENCY: 

NASA does not complete counseling within the time frames established by 29 C.F.R. 

Part 1614, section 105 and EEOC regulations (Part G, Efficiency, Measure E.1.a) 

OBJECTIVE: Ensure all counseling is timely completed in accordance with all regulatory 

requirements. 

RESPONSIBLE 

OFFICIAL: Director of Complaints and Programs Division, ODEO 

DO THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL’S PEFORMANCE STANDARDS ADDRESS THIS PLAN? (Yes or No) No. 

DATES: Date Initiated Target Completion Date Modified Date Date Completed 

9/28/2018 9/30/2019 

PLANNED ACTIONS TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing 

(Y/N)? 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

9/28/2018 1. Streamline processes by eliminating 

duplicative layers of review and shortening 

the review and approval periods. 

Yes 9/28/2018 

9/30/2019 2. Provide training in informal complaints 

processing, counseling techniques, writing 

counselor’s reports, and framing claims. 

Yes 

9/30/2019 3. Conduct quarterly discussions with 

responsible staff to address processing 

challenges and share/implement changes, 

when and where needed. 

Yes 

9/30/2019 4.Utilize Agency cadre of counselors. Yes 

9/30/2019 5.Hold responsible staff, including 

contractors, responsible for timely and 

quality investigation of complaints. 

29 
9/30/2019 6. Review monthly complaint processing data 

by Center to track compliance to 

regulatory requirements, send reminders, 

and address timeliness and quality of 

processing issues as expeditiously as 

possible. 

Yes 

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE 

FY 2018 Progress and Accomplishments: In FY 2018, NASA established a cadre of counselors. The 

cadre facilitates timely and effective counseling. NASA is working towards improving its compliance 

with regulatory processing requirements for informal complaints. In FY 2018, NASA completed 75 

percent (64 of 85) of its counseling timely. Although very slightly lower when compared to FY 2017 at 

76 percent (41 of 54), it was a significant improvement compared to 66 percent in FY 2016. As listed 

above, NASA will ensure appropriate training is provided to EEO counselorsto ensure timely processing 

and quality counselor reports are issued. Monthly reviews of processing data by Center to track 

compliance to regulatory processing requirements was initiated in FY 2018 and will continue until full 

compliance is reached. 

Modifications to Objective: Thisis a new action for FY 2019; previously, Part H-5 addressed complaints 

processing in general. NASA revised that action to better conform to MD-715 requirements and more 

clearly address the specific elements of Part G. 

EEOC MD-715 

PART H-4 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

DESCRIPTION 

AND TYPE OF 

PROGRAM 

DEFICIENCY: 

NASA does not complete investigations within the time frames established by 29 C.F.R. 

Part 1614, section 108 and EEOC regulations (Part G, Efficiency, Measure E.1.f) 

OBJECTIVE: Ensure all investigations are timely completed in accordance with all regulatory 

requirements. 

RESPONSIBLE 

OFFICIAL: Director of Complaints and Programs Division, ODEO 

DO THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL’S PEFORMANCE STANDARDS ADDRESS THIS PLAN? (Yes or No) No. 

DATES: Date Initiated Target Completion Date Modified Date Date Completed 

9/28/2018 9/30/2019 

PLANNED ACTIONS TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: 

Target Date Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing (Y/N)? 

Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

9/28/2018 1. Streamline processes by eliminating 

duplicative layers of review and shortening 

the review and approval periods. 

Yes 9/28/2018 

9/30/2019 2. Provide training on formal complaints 

processing, i.e., drafting and framing 

Yes 

30 
claims, sufficiency reviews of investigative 

reports, etc. 

9/30/2019 3. Conduct quarterly discussions with 

responsible staff to address processing 

challenges and share/implement changes, 

when and where needed . 

Yes 

9/30/2019 4. Engage contractors who are experienced, 

skilled, and knowledgeable in Federal EEO 

complaints processing from informal 

processing to FADs . 

Yes 

9/30/2019 5.Hold responsible staff, including 

contractors, responsible for timely and 

quality investigation of complaints . 

Yes 

9/30/2019 6. Review monthly complaint processing data 

by Center (for informal complaints) and 

Agency wide (formal processing) to track 

compliance to regulatory requirements and 

address timeliness and quality of 

processing issues as expeditiously as 

possible when there is a need . 

Yes 

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE 

FY 2018 Progress and Accomplishments: NASA is well ahead of the Government-wide average of 73 

percent timeliness in EEO investigations. In FY 2018, NASA timely completed investigations in 94 

percent of cases, compared to 86 percent in FY 2017. NASA has experienced a consistent and significant 

progress in this area. This improvement was due to training and mentoring of those responsible for 

reviewing cases and drafting of acceptance notices, regular tracking and reminders to responsible staff 

to ensure timely processing, establishing more streamlined and standardized processes, engaging the 

services of new vendors with qualified and skilled investigators, guidance to responsible offices for 

timely response to document requests from investigators, and soliciting feedback from stakeholders 

(Center EEO staff and Agency legal staff) and external customers (complainants) to improve the quality 

of investigations. All these efforts will continue until we reach 100 percent timely processing and 

establish controls in place to ensure NASA maintains compliance with processing regulatory 

requirements. 

Modifications to Objective: This action previously was numbered H-5; NASA revised that action to 

better conform to MD-715 requirements and more clearly address the specific elements of Part G. 

EEOC MD-715 

PART H-5 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

DESCRIPTION 

AND TYPE OF 

PROGRAM 

DEFICIENCY: 

NASA does not complete FADs within the time frames established by 29 C.F.R. Part 

1614, section and 110, and EEOC regulations (Part G, Efficiency, Measure E.1.h) 

31 
OBJECTIVE: Ensure all FADs are timely completed in accordance with all Federal regulatory 

requirements. 

RESPONSIBLE 

OFFICIAL: 

Director of Complaints and Programs Division, ODEO 

DO THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL’S PEFORMANCE STANDARDS ADDRESS THIS PLAN? (Yes or No) No. 

DATES: Date Initiated Target Completion Date Modified Date Date Completed 

9/28/2018 9/30/2019 

PLANNED ACTIONS TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: 

Target Date Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing (Y/N)? 

Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

9/28/2018 1. Streamline processes by eliminating 

duplicative layers of review and shortening the 

review and approval periods . 

Yes 9/28/2018 

9/30/2019 2. Conduct quarterly discussions with responsible 

staff to address processing challenges and 

share/implement changes, when and where 

needed. 

Yes 

9/30/2019 3. Engage personnel who are experienced, skilled 

and knowledgeable in Federal EEO complaints 

processing from informal processing to FADs. 

Yes 

9/30/2019 4.Hold responsible staff, including contractors, 

responsible for timely and quality processing of 

complaints. 

Yes 

9/30/2019 5. Review monthly complaint processing data by 

Center (for informal complaints) and Agency 

wide (formal processing) to track compliance 

to regulatory requirements and address 

timeliness and quality of processing issues as 

expeditiously as possible w hen there is a need. 

Yes 

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE 

FY 2018 Progress and Accomplishments: Issuing FADs remains the most challenging area in 

complaints processing at NASA. In both FY 2017 and FY 2018, NASA was only 17 percent (1 of 6 in 

FY 2018) timely in issuing FADs. In FY 2018, NASA was able to enter into an agreement with another 

agency for two detailees with extensive experience to assist with drafting and reviewing of the FADs 

and resolve the backlog. NASA will continue to work towards improving its compliance with 

regulatory processing requirements in issuing FADs. 

Modifications to Objective: This action previously was numbered H-5; NASA revised that action to 

better conform to MD-715 requirements and more clearly address the specific elements of Part G. 

32 
PART I: BARRIER ANALYSIS AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES 

EEOC MD-715 

PART I 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

TRIGGER ANALYSIS 

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? 

Comparing FY 2018 NASA workforce data to the RCLF reveals that AAPI and women are 

underrepresented in Physical Science positions at NASA . AAPI account for 10.4 percent 

of NASA Physical Scientists, but are 14.4 percent of the RCLF . Women occupy 27 percent 

of Physical Science positions at NASA, compared to 37 percent in the RCLF . 

 

SOURCE OF 

TRIGGER: 

NASA workforce data: Underrepresentation as compared to the national benchmark 

(RCLF) 

MD-715 

WORKFORCE 

DATA TABLE: 

Table A6 

EEO GROUP(S) 

AFFECTED BY 

TRIGGER: 

Check all that apply: 

All Men Asian Males X 

All Women X Asian Females X 

Hispanic or Latino Males Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males X 

Hispanic or Latino Females Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

Females 

X 

White Males American Indian or Alaska Native Males 

White Females American Indian or Alaska Native Females 

Black or African American Males Two or More Races Males 

Black or African American Females Two or More Races Females 

BARRIER ANALYSIS PROCESS 

SOURCES OF 

DATA: 

Sources Source Reviewed 

(Y/N)? 

Identify Information 

Collected 

Workforce Data Tables Yes Table A6 

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes 

Grievance Data (Trends) Yes 

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, Anti -Harassment 

Processes) 

Yes Findings from EEO 

complaints and Anti -

Harassment allegations 

Climate Survey (e.g., FEVS) Yes FEVS questions 22 and 33 

Exit Interview Data No 

Focus Groups No 

33 
Interviews No 

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, MSPB, 

GAO, OPM) 

No 

Other (Please Describe) N/A 

STATUS OF Barrier analysis process completed? (Y/N) No 

BARRIER 

ANALYSIS Barrier(s) identified? (Y/N) Not completed 

PROCESS: 

STATEMENT OF 

IDENTIFIED 

BARRIER(S): 

(Description of 

Policy, Procedure, 

or Practice) 

Pending completion of barrier analysis . 

EEO PLAN TO ELIMINATE IDENTIFIED BARRIER(S) 

OBJECTIVE(S): 

Objective Date 

Initiated 

Target 

Date 

Sufficient 

Funding/

Staffing 

Modified 

Date 

Date 

Completed

NASA will strengthen its 

data analytics capabilities 

and conduct in-depth 

barrier analyses to identify 

specific opportunities and 

develop data-driven 

solutions. 

1/2/2018 9/30/2020 Yes 

Assess female and AAPI 

participation rate in Physical 

Scientists occupational 

category. 

1/28/19 9/30/2020 Yes 

RESPONSIBLE 

OFFICIAL(S): Title Name Performance Standards Address Plan? (Y/N) 

AA, ODEO Stephen T. Shih No 

PLANNED ACTIONS TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: 

Target Date Planned Activities Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

9/28/2018 1.ODEO will partner with other NASA organizations , including 9/28/2018 

OCHCO and the Science Mission Directorate, to strengthen 

its data analytics capabilities to enable ODEO to conduct in -

depth barrier analyses. 

9/30/2018 2.NASA will update and improve its standard data reports to 5/15/2019 

ensure that the necessary data are available for conducting 

barrier analyses related to EEO . 

9/30/2020 3.ODEO will leverage current NASA systems and develop 

additional data tools such as: FEVS, NASA Human Capital 

34 
Management Workforce Analysis Business Intelligence Tools,

climate surveys, pulse surveys, and potential new database 

systems, to enhance our ability to analyze programs and 

practices at more granular levels. 

9/30/2020 4.ODEO will review relevant data sources such as EEO 

complaints, grievances, surveys, exit interviews, and reports 

for any indicators of barriers regarding employment of 

women and AAPI as physical scientists. 

9/30/2020 5.NASA will track applicant flow data by race and gender for 

Physical Scientist positions in FYs 2019 and 2020. 

REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE 

FY 2018 Progress: The EEO and HR offices strengthened their partnership to address data needs. The two 

offices worked togetherto identify systems updatesto accommodate the new MD-715 tables, obtain moredetailed applicant flow data, and share data analyses. In addition, the NASA EEO/D&I Data Analytics 

Working Group identified standard data reports to be used across all NASA Centers. 

Modifications to Objective: For FY 2019, NASA has expanded the objective to include formally assess 

female and AAPI participation rate in Physical Scientists occupational category, based on the trigger 

analysis. 

35 
36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART J: SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, ADVANCEMENT, AND 

RETENTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 

EEOC MD-715 

PART J 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

To capture agencies’ affirmative action plan for IWD and IWTD, 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. 

1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving IWD 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 (IWD) Yes No X 

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (IWD) Yes X No 

22.2% of employees at grades GS-10 and below are IWD; 1.4% those in grades GS-11 to SES are IWD. 

2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving IWTD 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 (IWTD) Yes No X 

b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (IWTD) Yes X No 

4.6% of NASA employees at grades GS-10 and below are IWTD; 1.4% of those in grades GS-11 to SES are 

IWTD. 

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

recruiters. 

EEO personnel continue to communicate new numerical goals in various forums, including briefings for 

managers and supervisors; individual meetings with hiring managers and recruitment managers, allhands meetings for supervisors, and the distribution of information sheets to management, highlighting 

workforce goals. 

37 
38

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

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. Yes X No 

NASA has a designated Agency Disability Program Manager (DPM) in ODEO and at each of the ten NASA 

Centers.

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

office, staff employment status, and responsible official.

Disability Program Task

# of FTE Staff by 

Employment Status Responsible Official

Full (Name, Title, Office, Email)

Time

Part 

Time

Collateral

Duty

Processing applications 

from IWD and IWTD 10 All ten NASA Centers have designated Human Capital personnel responsible for processing 

applications, including those from IWD. 

Answering questions 

from the public about 

hiring authorities that 

take disability into 

account

10 Each NASA Center has a designated Selective 

Placement Coordinator in the Human Capital 

Office who is responsible for responding to 

questions related to the Agency’s hiring 

practices related to disability.

Processing reasonable 

accommodation 

requests from applicants 

and employees

10 All ten NASA Centers each have designated 

DPMs who are responsible for processing 

accommodation requests.

Section 508 Compliance 11 The NASA Headquarters (HQ) Section 508 

Compliance Officer manages the Agency’s policy 

and practices in this arena. Additionally, each 

NASA Center has a designated Section 508 

Compliance Officer who is responsible for 

ensuring compliance at the operational level. 

Architectural Barriers Act

Compliance

11 NASA has a designated Program Manager in the 

HQ Facilities Engineering Division who manages 

the Agency’s strategic plan to ensure 

compliance in this arena. Additionally, all ten 

NASA Centers have designated Facilities 
Engineers who are responsible for ensuring 

compliance at the operational level. 

Special Emphasis 

Program for IWD

IWTD 

and 

10 NASA has DPMs at each of the ten Centers 

responsible for managing SEP programs and 

activities. 

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

responsibilities during the reporting period? If “yes,” describe the training that disability program

staff have received. If “no,” describe the training planned for the upcoming year.

Yes X No 

In FY 2017, the Agency’s DPMs were trained on the RA procedures. These procedures are currently 

being updated to align with the revised disability regulations, and the DPMs will be trained on the 

new requirements in FY 2019. Additionally, Center-level DPMs are provided with ongoing technical 

assistance and training from the Agency’s DPM during monthly meetings and on an ad hoc basis. 

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 

Adequate resources are provided for agency-wide implementation of the Disability Program. 

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 IWD and IWTD. 

A. Plan t o Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities

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

including individuals with targeted disabilities. 

NASA’s efforts to identify job applicants with disabilities include: (1) participating in targeted job fairs 

and outreach events and engaging in social networking platforms that support the employment of 

IWDs (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter); (2) building, sustaining, and strengthening partnerships 

with local and Federal disability organizations, state and local rehabilitation and employment agencies, 

and local colleges and universities; (3) leveraging disability ERGs and SEPMs to communicate and 

encourage participation in job opportunities within the IWD population; and (4) utilizing the NASA 

Pathways Program to convert interns to career-conditional or term appointments. 

Specific examples for FY 2018: (1) Ames Research Center (ARC) partnered with various colleges and 

universities to reach students who are disabled veterans; (2) ARC also held learning sessions on 

navigating USAJobs and special hiring authorities for veterans with disabilities; and (3) KSC’s Disability 

Awareness and Action Working Group sponsored a Disability Mentoring Day for students and 

39 
 

 

 

jobseekers. At the event, KSC staff paired students with disabilities with a volunteer mentor for an upclose look at KSC operations. 

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 IWD and IWTD for positions in the permanent 

workforce. 

NASA Center selective placement coordinators work with managers and promote recruitment utilizing 

special hiring authorities (i.e., Schedule A and 30 percent or more disabled veterans) to increase 

opportunities to hire IWD and IWTD. 

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. 

When applicants apply to NASA announcements open to individuals eligible under the Schedule A 

hiring authority, they are provided information about the hiring authority and are asked if they are 

eligible. This enables human resources specialists to identify and refer these individuals to hiring 

officials and provide information and guidance to hiring officials on using the authority. If selected 

under the Schedule A authority, the individual is asked to provide proof of eligibility before 

appointment. 

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. Yes No X N/A 

NASA will develop a plan to provide training on Schedule A and other hiring authorities to all hiring 

managers by the end of FY 2019 in conjunction with the issuance of new RA procedures. 

B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations 

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

including IWTD, in securing and maintaining employment. 

In FY 2018, NASA disability program managers worked with a variety of partner organizations to recruit 

IWD. Stennis Space Center (SSC) and the NASA Share Services Center (NSSC) worked with partners in 

disability organizations such as the Gulf Coast Ability Works Business Council, the Mississippi 

Department of Rehabilitation, and disability services offices at local colleges and universities. Marshall 

Space Flight Center (MSFC) continued existing partnerships with the Alabama and Tennessee 

Departments of Vocational Rehabilitation and the Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. In addition, 

MSFC staff attended the 1st Annual Alabama Governor’s Job Fair for People with Disabilities to 

promote NASA as an inclusive workplace and provide information about the Agency and its 

commitment to EEO to attendees at the job fair. NASA HQ staff attended an Operation Warfighter 

recruitment event in Virginia. Operation Warfighter is a Department of Defense internship program 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that matches qualified wounded, ill, and injured Service members with non-funded Federal internships 

in order for them to gain valuable work experience during their recovery and rehabilitation. 

C. Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) 

1. Using the goals of 12% for IWD and 2% for IWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for IWD 

and/or IWTD among the new hires in the permanent workforce? If “yes,” please describe the 

triggers below. 

a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (IWD) Yes No X 

b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (IWTD) Yes X No 

NASA meets or exceeds the goals for new hires: 13% of all new hires were IWDs; 1.4% of all new hires 

were IWTDs. 

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for IWD and/or IWTD among 

the new hires for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes,” please describe the 

triggers below. 

a. New Hires for MCO (IWD) Yes No X 

b. New Hires for MCO (IWTD) Yes No X 

There are no triggers for new hires to mission-critical occupations. 

3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for IWD and/or IWTD among 

the qualified internal applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes,” please 

describe the triggers below. 

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (IWD) Yes No data not available 

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

This data is not available; NASA does not track internal and external applicants separately. 

4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for IWD and/or IWTD among 

employees promoted to any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes,” please describe the 

triggers below. 

a. Promotions for MCO (IWD) Yes X No 

b. Promotions for MCO (IWTD) Yes X No 

More IWD are qualified than are selected for promotions in the following MCOs: General Engineering 

(8.3% qualified, 1.9% selected); Electrical Engineering (20% v. 0%); Electronics Engineering (4.7% v. 

2.8%); and Aerospace Engineering (6% v. 2.5%). For Contracting Specialists, IWTD accounted for 2.8% 

of those qualified, but none were selected. NASA notes that for the 4 promotion opportunities to GS14 and GS-15 in Astronomy and Space Science, no IWD applied; no IWTD applied for the 11 

promotions to GS-15 in series 1301, Physical Science. 

41 
 

 

 

 

Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities 

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

opportunities for employees with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and 

mentoring programs, career development opportunities, awards programs, promotions, and similar 

programs that address advancement. In this section, agencies should identify, and provide data on 

programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities. 

A. Advancement Program Plan 

Describe the agency’s plan to ensure IWD, including IWTD, 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 participation data for this population in key training and development 

opportunities across the Agency. Second, the Agency monitors participation data for this population 

by grade level and occupational category, and develops corrective action plans when triggers are 

identified. Finally, the Agency uses assistive technology to ensure professional development 

opportunities are made available to IWD and IWTD. 

B. Career Development Opportunities 

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

The NASA HR function underwent a reorganization in FY 2018; thus, information for these programs 

was not readily available. NASA will provide this information once it has been compiled. 

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

competition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate. 

Career Development 

Opportunities 

Total Participants (#) IWD (%) IWTD (%) 

Applicants Selectees Applicants Selectees Applicants Selectees 

Internship Programs 

Fellowship Programs 

Mentoring Programs 

Coaching Programs 

Training Programs 

Detail Programs 

Other Career Development 

Programs 

3. Do triggers exist for IWD 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 (IWD) Yes No data not currently available 

b. Selections (IWD) Yes No data not currently available 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data are currently unavailable. The NASA HR function underwent a reorganization in FY 2018; thus, 

we were unable to obtain this information for the report. NASA will provide this information once it 

has been compiled. 

4. Do triggers exist for IWTD 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 (IWTD) Yes No data not currently available 

b. Selections (IWTD) Yes No data not currently available 

Data are currently unavailable. The NASA HR function underwent a reorganization in FY 2018; thus, 

we were unable to obtain this information for the report. NASA will provide this information once it 

has been compiled. 

C. Awards 

1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving IWD and/or 

IWTD 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 (IWD) Yes X No 

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (IWTD) Yes No X 

In FY 2018, the inclusion rates for IWD and IWTD (at all grade-levels) were 10.4% and 1.5%, 

respectively. IWD account for only 8% of both those receiving cash awards of more than $500. Awards 

for IWTD reflect the inclusion rate. 

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving IWD and/or 

IWTD for quality step increases or performance-based pay increases? If “yes,” please describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Pay Increases (IWD) Yes X No 

b. Pay Increases (IWTD) Yes No X 

IWD did not receive Quality Step Increases (QSIs) at the same rate as their representation in the NASA 

workforce. Among IWD, 7.6% received QSIs. 

3. If the agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are IWD and/or IWTD 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 (IWD) Yes X No N/A 

b. Other Types of Recognition (IWTD) Yes No X N/A 

IWD received 7.2% of Space Act and Honor Awards and 7.9% of Special Act Awards. 

43 
D. Promotions 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Does your agency have a trigger involving IWD 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 

box. 

a. SES 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWD) Yes No data not available 

b. Grade GS-15 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (IWD) Yes No X 

c. Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (IWD) Yes X No 

d. Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (IWD) Yes X No 

For promotions to grades GS-13 and GS-14, the percentage selectees who are IWD is lower than the 

percentage of qualified internal applicants who are IWD (10.2% compared to 16.0% for GS-13 and 3.9% 

compared to 8.1% for GS-14). NASA does not track internal and external applicants separately for SES 

positions. 

2. Does your agency have a trigger involving IWTD 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 box. 

a. SES 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

b. Grade GS-15 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWTD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (IWTD) Yes No X 

c. Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWTD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (IWTD) Yes No X 

d. Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWTD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (IWTD) Yes X No 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For promotions to grade GS-13, the percentage selectees who are IWTD is lower than the percentage of 

qualified internal applicants who are IWTD (0.8% compared to 3.0%). NASA does not track internal and 

external applicants separately for SES positions. 

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

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 (IWD) Yes No data not currently available 

b. New Hires to GS-15 (IWD) Yes No data not currently available 

c. New Hires to GS-14 (IWD) Yes No data not currently available 

d. New Hires to GS-13 (IWD) Yes No data not currently available 

This data is currently unavailable. NASA continues to upgrade the MD-715 tables to meet the new 

requirements for FY 2019. 

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

IWTD 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 (IWTD) Yes No data not currently available 

b. New Hires to GS-15 (IWTD) Yes No data not currently available 

c. New Hires to GS-14 (IWTD) Yes No data not currently available 

d. New Hires to GS-13 (IWTD) Yes No data not currently available 

This data is currently unavailable. NASA continues to upgrade the MD-715 tables to meet the new 

requirements for FY 2019. 

5. Does your agency have a trigger involving IWD 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 (IWD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWD) Yes No data not available 

b. Managers 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWD) Yes No data not available 

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWD) Yes No data not available 

NASA does not track applicants for managerial or supervisory positions – this information is only found in 

the text of the job announcement and is not recorded/measured in the applicant flow data. Information 

on Executives would be similar to the information above for SES; however, NASA’s SES announcements 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

are open to all sources and, thus, we do not track internal and external applicants separately for those 

announcements. 

6. Does your agency have a trigger involving IWTD 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 (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

b. Managers 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

ii. Internal Selections (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

NASA does not track applicants for managerial or supervisory positions – this information is only found in 

the text of the job announcement and is not recorded/measured in the applicant flow data. Information 

on Executives would be similar to the information above for SES; however, NASA’s SES announcements 

are open to all sources and, thus, we do not track internal and external applicants separately for those 

announcements. 

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

among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes,” describe the trigger(s) in text 

box. 

a. New Hires for Executives (IWD) Yes No data not available 

b. New Hires for Managers (IWD) Yes No data not available 

c. New Hires for Supervisors (IWD) Yes No data not available 

NASA does not track applicants for managerial or supervisory positions – this information is only found in 

the text of the job announcement and is not recorded/measured in the applicant flow data. Information 

on Executives would be similar to the information above for SES. 

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

IWTD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes,” describe the trigger(s) in 

text box. 

a. New Hires for Executives (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

b. New Hires for Managers (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

c. New Hires for Supervisors (IWTD) Yes No data not available 

NASA does not track applicants for managerial or supervisory positions – this information is only found in 

the text of the job announcement and is not recorded/measured in the applicant flow data. Information 

on Executives would be similar to the information above for SES. 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 No N/A ? 

Currently, NASA does not track Schedule A conversions at the Agency level. OCHCO is in the process of 

determining the best way to provide this information. 

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of IWD among voluntary and 

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without disabilities? If “yes,” describe the trigger 

below. 

a. Voluntary Separations (IWD) Yes X No 

b. Involuntary Separations (IWD) Yes X No 

In FY 2018, IWD accounted for 12% of the 841 voluntary separations and 47% the 17 involuntary 

separations. (The inclusion rate for IWD is 10%.) (Note that the number of separations is low for NASA 

overall and, thus, further analyses is required to determine if this number represents a concern to the 

Agency.) 

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of IWTD among voluntary and 

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes,” describe the 

trigger below. 

a. Voluntary Separations (IWTD) Yes No X 

b. Involuntary Separations (IWTD) Yes No X 

In FY 2018, IWTD represented 1.4% of those who voluntarily separated and 11.8% of those who 

involuntarily separated. However, only 2 IWTD were involuntary separated. 

4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of IWD and/or IWTD, please explain why they left the 

agency using exit interview results and other data sources. 

NASA conducts exit interviews, but with limited questions regarding issues related to disability. ODEO is 

currently working with OCHCO to improve exit interview questions to better indicate if triggers exist. 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 (ABA), including a description of 

how to file a complaint. 

NASA’s Web site currently does not include information on the ABA complaint process. 

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. 

• NASA continues to maintain an Agency-wide plan that identifies the facility accessibility needs of 

each NASA Center as well as a multi-year implementation plan. Agency leadership routinely reviews 

this plan and assesses status. 

• The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is updating internal Agency policy, NPR 2800.2, 

Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility, to incorporate the recently updated 508 

technical standards. These changes will be reflected in the Agency OCIO Program Management 

Office’s implementation of the IT Program/Project Lifecycle (NPR 7120.7, NASA Information 

Technology Program and Project Management Requirements) reviews, specifically the Critical Design 

Review and the Test Readiness Review. In addition, NASA’s recently established Application Program 

(https://www.nasa.gov/content/applications-division) has begun to enforce the new technical 

standards through the governance of the Agency Application Office and Web Services Office. 

• The Agency Section 508 Program Manager continues to host monthly meetings for NASA’s 508 

Coordinators to stay abreast of current updates and events related to accessibility. 

C. Reasonable Accommodation Program 

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

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

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

accommodations during the reporting period. (Please do not include previously approved requests 

with repetitive accommodations, such as interpreting services.) 

The average processing time for processing RA requests is 39 days. 

48 
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 700 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 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. 

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. 

NASA began providing PAS in January 2018. NASA will initiate an Agency-wide Blanket Purchasing 

Agreement in FY 2019 for greater ease in providing PAS across the Agency. 

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data 

A. EEO Complaint Data I nvolving Harassment 

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

harassment, as compared to the government-wide average? 

Yes X No N/A 

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 No X N/A 

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 2018, 21.3% of complaints filed (13 of 61) alleged harassment of an 

IWD (compared to 14.2% Government-wide). 

B. EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation (RA)

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

failure to provide an RA, as compared to the government-wide average? 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes No X N/A 

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

discrimination or a settlement agreement? 

Yes No X N/A 

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide RA during 

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

N/A – there were no findings. In FY 2018, 9.8% of complaints filed (6 of 61) alleged failure to provide 

an RA (compared to 9.7% Government-wide). 

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 IWD and/or IWTD? Yes No X 

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

Yes No N/A X 

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. 

Triggers 

The preceding analyses revealed several triggers. For example, among employees in 

grades GS-11 through SES, only 9 percent of employees are IWD, which is below the 

Government-wide goal of 12%. (Part J, Section I, #1). Further, more IWD are qualified 

than are selected for internal competitive promotions in the following MCOs: 0801, 

0850, 0855, and 0861. More IWTD are qualified than are selected in series 1102. 

Further, no IWD applied for the 4 promotion opportunities to GS-14 and GS-15 in series 

1330 and no IWTD applied for the 11 promotions to GS-15 in series 1301 (Part J, III, C, 

#4). NASA does not systematically track data by race, ethnicity, gender, or disability for 

all of its career development programs (Part J, IV, B, #2-4). With regard to awards and 

recognition, IWD account for only 7 to 8% of those who received: cash awards of more 

than $500, QSIs, Space Act, Honor Awards, and Special Act Awards (Part J, IV, C, #1-3). 

IWD account for a slightly higher percentage of those who voluntary separated from the 

Agency than their representation rate (12% compared to 10%). In addition, IWD 

accounted for nearly half of the 17 individuals who were involuntarily separated (Part J, 

V, A, #2-3). NASA’s exit interviews have limited questions regarding issues related to 

disability (Part J, V, A, #4), due to legal considerations. 

50 
1. 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. 

2. NASA must: (a) develop improved systems for collecting demographic data 

pertaining to career development programs; (b) better track Schedule A hiring and 

conversions; and (c) revise its exit interviews to obtain additional data related to 

individuals with disabilities. 

3. NASA will conduct additional research on the triggers above as data become 

available. 

Objective(s) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsible Official(s) 

Performance Standards Address the Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Director, Diversity and Data/Analytics Division, ODEO No – these specific steps are not in the 

plan; EEO matters in general are addressed. 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yy) 

Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding (Y/N) 

Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

9/28/2018 NASA ODEO will partner with OCHCO to 

strengthen its data analytics capabilities 

to enable ODEO to conduct in-depth 

barrier analyses. 

Yes 9/28/2018 

9/28/2018 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 3/15/2019 

9/29/2019 Place information regarding the 

Architectural Barriers Act and how to file 

a related complaint on the NASA Web 

site. 

Yes 

9/30/2020 ODEO will leverage current NASA 

systems and develop additional data 

tools, including: the FEVS, 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 

9/30/2021 Investigate reasons for differences 

between the IWD inclusion rates and 

Yes 

51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hiring and promotion rates of IWD and 

IWTD in mission critical occupations. 

Fiscal Year Accomplishments 

FY 2018 ODEO and OCHCO continued to work together to address data and systems-related 

issues with regard to the new EEOC regulations and changes made to the Office of 

Personnel Management’s Standard Form 256, “Self-Identification of Disability.” NASA 

continues to strengthen its efforts with regard to usage of special hiring authorities for 

individuals with disabilities such as Schedule A. 

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

activities. 

The reorganization of OCHCO delayed the creation and updating of some data tables. 

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

toward eliminating the barrier(s). 

Enhanced relationships with OCHCO personnel have led to greater collaboration and a better 

understanding of data systems and data needs. 

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 

52 
 

 

 

APPENDIX A: FY 2018 SPECIAL EMPHASIS PROGRAM, EMPLOYEE RESOURCE 

GROUP, AND AFFINITY GROUP ACTIVITIES 

The activities discussed below represent only a few of the many organized by NASA Center EEO 

office SEPMs and members of ERGs and affinity groups in FY 2018. 

African American Special Emphasis Program 

In observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Black History Month, several NASA Center EEO 

offices engaged in various events and activities, including: 

• For Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) organized a 

commemorative event, which featured Col. B. Alvin Drew, Jr., a retired Air Force colonel and 

former NASA astronaut. 

• In observance of Dr. King’s birthday and as a lead up to Black History Month, LARC aired Dr. 

King’s inspiring speech, "I Have a Dream," in the Pearl Young Theater. The purpose of the 

activity was to inspire passion and raise awareness within the Center’s workforce for the fair 

treatment of all human beings. Throughout the month of February, LaRC showed the miniseries “The Book of Negroes” in six installments during an employee lunch and learn series.4 

The movie helped to further the Agency and the Center’s goals of employee engagement as 

well as provide continuous education and awareness in the D&I arena. 

• For Black History Month, NASA HQ coordinated the performance of "Harriet Tubman - The 

Chosen One,” a one-woman show celebrating the Tubman’slife and accomplishments. NASA 

live-streamed the performance to the entire enterprise. 

• Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) collaborated with Navy partners for its Black History Month 

event. The keynote speaker was Col. Terrence Adams, Director of Communications and Chief 

Information Officer for Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. Col. Adams encouraged Center staff to 

“have courageous conversations, be curious, and have a caring heart.” 

• In celebration of Black History Month, Johnson Space Center (JSC) hosted Dr. Ruth Simmons, 

president of Prairie View A&M University, an Historically Black College or University (HBCU). 

Dr. Simmons is the first woman to serve as president of the university; her presentation 

covered her tenets of leadership, life lessons, and keys to success. 

• In February, KSC organized a panel discussion titled "Leading Through Uncertain Times." 

Panelistsshared how their diverse backgrounds and unique experiences helped prepare them 

for various levels of leadership at NASA. 

• To address the Black History Month theme of “African Americans in Times of War,” MSFC 

hosted Lt. Gen. Stayce D. Harris, Inspector General of the Air Force and the firstfemale African 

4 During the American Revolution, the British promised the slaves that King George would grant them freedom 

if they assisted the British with their war effort. Over 3,000 loyalists and enslaved people made it to the British lines. 

The British kept their word by recording all of the names and descriptions in a book that they named “The Book of 

Negroes.” Those listed in the book were settled in Nova Scotia, the West Indies, and London, giving them freedom. 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American 3-star general in the Air Force. Lt. Gen. Harris spoke about her history, challenges, 

and lessons learned in climbing the ranks of the military ladder. 

• NSSC and SSC jointly hosted a program featuring guest speaker Ronald Randolph, Director of 

Payroll Servicesforthe St. Tammany Parish School Board in Covington, Louisiana. He detailed 

how the participation of African Americans at times of war has affected his journey. 

• Glenn Research Centers’ (GRC) AfricanHeritage Advisory Group coordinated the Black History 

Month observance event following this year’stheme of “African-Americansin Times of War.” 

The group explored stories and honored the invaluable contributions of African-Americans 

who have served our great country. The keynote address was by Chaplain Willie J. Springer, 

a Vietnam War Veteran and the Veterans Outreach Coordinator for the City of Berea, Ohio. 

American Indian and Alaska Native Special Emphasis Program 

In observance of Native American Heritage Month, several Center EEO offices engaged in various 

events and activities, including: 

• ARC held a “lunch and learn” event titled, “Comics with a Conscience: Stereotypes vs. 

Empowerment,” which discussed the impact of Native American popular art, addressed 

indigenous issues through graphic novels, and explored the fine line between stereotypes 

and empowerment. 

• KSC hosted guest speaker Dr. John Herrington, a retired U.S. Navy Commander and a former 

astronaut who flew aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour. Dr. Herrington was the first 

enrolled member of a Native American tribe to fly in space and currently serves as an 

Ambassador for the Chickasaw Nation. 

• SSC held a walk-through exhibit to showcase artifacts found during the construction of the 

Center. The event featured members of the Vancleve Live Oak Choctaw Indian Tribe, who 

brought handmade artifacts and engaged the workforce with information about their tribe’s 

history. 

• MSFC hosted Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient and Apollo 13 Mission Operations 

Team member Jerry “High Eagle” Elliott, a former NASA Physicist and member of the 

Cherokee Tribe. One of the first Native Americans hired at JSC, Mr. Elliott is known for his 

role in the historic Apollo 13 mission. 

Asian American and Pacific Islander Special Emphasis Program 

In observance of Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month, several Center EEO offices 

engaged in various events and activities, including: 

• GSFC hosted the keynote presentation, “Unite Our Vision by Working Together,” by Stephen 

Shih, the NASA Associate Administrator for Diversity and Equal Opportunity. Mr. Shih also 

met with members of JSC’s nine ERGs and shared his personal journey with respect to the 

value of D&I. He encouraged the ERG members to be strategic and connect their value to the 

mission. 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• KSC invited Dr. Maile Kane, a native Hawaiian, to speak to Center staff. Dr. Kane came to 

Brevard County as a family physician and then opened her own successful business in Satellite 

Beach, Florida. 

• Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) hosted an Asian American and Pacific Islander 

Cultural Expo with Edwards Air Force Base. 

• At GRC, Dr. Denise Su, Curator and Director of Partnerships and Programs of the Cleveland 

Museum of Natural History, spoke about her life’s journey and education. 

• In May, NASA HQ held two events, a traditional Urasenke tea ceremony demonstrating 

Chado, the Japanese “Way of Tea,” and a tai chi and qi gong workshop. 

Hispanic Special Emphasis Program 

For Hispanic Heritage Month, several Center EEO offices engaged in events and activities, such 

as: 

• At KSC, the Center Director of Human Resources shared her life experiences and the 

strategies that she employed to help her become successful. In addition, the Hispanic ERG 

hosted a “lunch and learn” focused on the experiences of KSC employees who volunteered in 

Puerto Rico with the Federal Emergency Management Administration to support Hurricane 

Maria relief efforts. 

• NSSC and SSC displayed an exhibit dedicated to remembering Puerto Rico following the 

devastation of Hurricane Maria. Additionally, the Centers held a “lunch and learn” featuring 

a video interview of NASA Astronaut José Hernandez in which he detailed his journey from 

working the fields in California to becoming a NASA astronaut. 

• GRC hosted Ms. Veronica Villalobos, the Principal Deputy Associate Director for Employee 

Services at the Office of Personnel Management. Ms. Villalobos gave the keynote address 

and answered questions regarding Hispanics in the Federal workforce, to include 

recruitment, hiring, retention, leadership development, and accountability. 

Federal Women’s Program 

Center EEO offices engaged in various events and activities in observance of Women’s History 

Month, Women’s Equality Day, and other events, including: 

• JSC’s women’s ERG and the Employee Assistance Program staff hosted a “#MeToo Movement 

Dialog.” Women and men, including the JSC’s Center Anti-Harassment Coordinator, 

discussed creating a world that is safe for female friends, coworkers, spouses, and children, 

and addressed recent sexual harassment issues that have surfaced in society and through the 

NASA Anti-Harassment Campaign. 

• In observance of Women’s History Month and to raise awareness of the tremendous 

contributions made by women that led to the Allies victory of World War II, award winning 

journalist and bestselling author Liza Mundy spoke to LaRC about her book, CODE GIRLS: The 

Untold Story of the American Women Code Breakers of World War II. 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• MSFC’s Women’s History Month Program, called “Dream, Girls,” reflected the theme of equity, 

inclusion, engagement, and innovation. MSFC invited students from Girls’ Inc., Mae Jemison 

High School, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama A&M, and Oakwood University. 

The program focused on outreach efforts at schools and national non-profit organizations such 

as Girl’s Inc., the Boys and Girls Club, and the Girl Scouts with the goals of: (1) encouraging 

students to pursue careers in STEM; (2) building partnerships in the community to enhance the 

educational experience of the students; and (3) introducing students to the requirements of 

professions and helping them prepare to join the workforce. The event provided informal 

mentoring and career enhancement tools to the participants. 

LGBTQ+ Special Emphasis Program 

In order to promote the inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community in NASA’s workforce, several Center 

EEO offices engaged in various events and activities, including: 

• GSFC hosted a panel discussion on “Coming Out, Being Out” in which five panelists shared 

their experiences with coming out at work and discussed why is it important to be out at 

work, the role of allies in the workplace, and advice for employees who have not yet come 

out at work. 

• A panel discussion at JSC addressed “Managing as an Ally.” Three SES members discussed 

the advantages of being an ally as it relates to the professional development of a diverse 

workforce. Employees were able to ask questions of the panelists and receive candid career 

development advice. 

• NASA HQ held an open house to gauge interest in forming an LGBTQ+ ERG; the event drew 

approximately 50 employees from across all HQ organizations as well as a number of senior 

leaders. On June 28, 2018, the LGBTQ+ ERG was officially chartered as the NASA 

Headquarters Pride Alliance. The group’s mission is to promote a safe workplace 

environment that is fully inclusive and free of discrimination and harassment based on sexual 

orientation or gender identity. 

Individuals with Disabilities Special Emphasis Program 

In order to ensure that managers are appropriately trained and employees are made aware of 

NASA’s commitment to an environment that supports workplace accommodations and 

accessible tools and technology, several Center EEO offices engaged in various events and 

activities, including: 

• During May’s Mental Health Awareness Month, JSC provided a presentation entitled “Mental 

Health Primer: Prevalence, Causes, Management and Assistance,” which included 

information on the NASA reasonable accommodations process and the Job Accommodation 

Network’s workplace accommodation ideas for employees with mental health impairments. 

• For National Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Awareness Day, JSC hosted a presentation 

from the Houston Veteran’s Affairs Office promoting public awareness and understanding of 

PTSD. 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Several NASA Centers held events in October 2017 for National Disability Employment 

Awareness Month: 

o KSC invited Dr. Temple Grandin, co-author of “The Autistic Brain,” to discuss her work 

experiences and challenges in her life. 

o JSC held a “Situational Awareness of Life as a Person with Disability” event with a series 

of presentations on disability etiquette and reasonable accommodations by panelists 

from Texas Workforce Solutions, Communication Axess Ability Group, and the City of 

Houston Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities. 

o The NSSC and SSC jointly hosted a speaker with a targeted disability who spoke about 

accessibility, accommodations, and disabilities driving innovation. The intent was to 

highlight the EEOC’s employment goals for IWTDs and to demonstrate that IWTD can do 

jobs with accommodations. 

o MSFC hosted 4-time Olympic gold medalist and WNBA most valuable player Tamika 

Catchings, who spoke about overcoming adversity and eventually achieving her lifelong 

goal of playing in the WNBA. Students from the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind 

and Oakwood Adventist Academy attended the event. 

o GRC held an event focused on service animals in the workplace for individuals with 

disabilities. Canine Companions for Independence, a not-for-profit organization, 

conducted a presentation about service dogs, discussed the various types of service dogs, 

the training they undergo, and how to obtain a service animal through their organization 

at no cost. 

57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B: DATA ANALYSES 

Note: Tables included in this Appendix are a subset of the tables provided to EEOC with the 

annual MD-715 submission; these tables were created for the purposes of conducting barrier 

analyses. 

Workforce Summary 

Table 1. NASA Employees by Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Disability Status: FY 2018 

AAPI Black Hispanic 

MultiRacial AIAN White Male Female IWD* IWTD* 

All NASA Employees 

(non-students) (n=16,855) 7.6% 11.6% 7.6% 0.3% 1.0% 71.8% 66.0% 34.0% 8.9% 1.5% 

NASA SES Employees 

(n=395) 5.0% 10.6% 4.3% 0.5% 1.0% 78.6% 70.9% 29.1% 6.3% 1.0% 

All NASA Supervisory 

Employees (n=2,041) 5.9% 12.3% 6.0% 0.3% 0.9% 74.5% 66.3% 33.7% 7.0% 0.9% 

Senior Level (SL) and 

Senior Scientific (ST) 

Employees (n=169) 

7.1% 2.4% 4.1% 0.0% 1.2% 85.2% 83.4% 16.6% 6.5% 1.8% 

GS-14 and GS-15 

Employees (n=9,094) 7.7% 9.0% 6.4% 0.2% 0.9% 75.7% 71.2% 28.8% 6.7% 1.0% 

Science and Engineering5 

Employees (n=10,967) 9.0% 6.2% 7.2% 0.2% 0.8% 76.6% 76.7% 23.3% 6.3% 1.1% 

Professional 

Administrative6 Employees 

(n=5,196) 

5.3% 22.2% 8.4% 0.7% 1.5% 61.8% 43.2% 56.8% 13.4% 2.1% 

Comparison Populations 

Federal STEM Workforce 

(n=298,019) 9.8% 10.2% 5.8% 1.7% 0.9% 71.6% 71.3% 28.7% -- --

National Civilian Labor 

Force (NCLF) 4.1% 12.0% 10.0% 0.6% 1.1% 72.3% 51.8% 48.2% -- --

* IWD = Individuals with Disabilities; IWTD = Individuals with Targeted Disabilities. Comparable data 

for IWD and IWTD are not available for the Federal STEM workforce; data for IWTD are not available 

for the NCLF. The EEOC goals for the employment of IWD are: 12 percent of employees in grades GS10 and below and 12 percent of employees in grades GS-11 and above. The goals for IWTD are 2 

percent of employees in each grade category. 

Sources: Workforce Information Cubes for NASA (WICN) (data as of 10/1/2018); NASA MD-715 Tables 

A-1 and B-1, prepared for NASA by the U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, FedScope, Federal Human Resources Data, Diversity Cube and Employment Cube, data 

as of September 2018, accessed at <https://www.fedscope.opm.gov>. 

5 In the Workforce Information Cube for NASA (WICN) data, Science and Engineering occupations include the 

following OPM occupational categories and codes: Biological Sciences (04xx), Medical (06xx), Engineering (08xx), 

Physical Sciences (13xx), and Mathematics (15xx). 6 In WICN, Professional Administrative occupations include the following OPM occupational categories and 

codes: Social Sciences (01xx); Human Resources (02xx); General Administrative (03xx); Accounting and Budget 

(05xx); Business and Industry (11xx); Patent and Trademark (12xx); Library and Archives (14xx); Equipment, Facilities, 

and Services (16xx); Education (17xx); Investigations (18xx); Quality Assurance (19xx); Supply (20xx); Transportation 

(21xx); and Information Technology (22xx). 

58 
 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Results 

Figure 1. NASA New Inclusion Quotient Index Scores, FY 2017 and FY 20187 

 

 

48% 

58% 

60% 

60% 

78% 

61% 

65% 

76% 

79% 

80% 

89% 

78% 

66% 

77% 

79% 

81% 

89% 

78% 

Fair 

Cooperative 

Empowered 

Open 

Supportive 

New Inclusion Quotient Index: 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

NASA Total - 2018 NASA Total - 2017 Government-wide - 2018 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results. Governmentwide, there were 598,003 respondents; there were 11,568 NASA respondents. 

Figure 2. NASA Engagement Index Scores, FY 2017 and FY 20188 

 

 

82% 

Engagement Index: 82% 

68% 

84% 

Intrinsic Work Experience 84% 

72% 

88% 

Supervisors 88% 

75% 

73% 

Leaders Lead 74% 

56% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

NASA Total - 2018 NASA Total - 2017 Government-wide - 2018 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results. 

7 The FEVS is a climate survey conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The New Inclusion 

Quotient Index is calculated by averaging a subset of 20 FEVS questions measuring five factors: Empowered, 

Supportive, Cooperative, Open, and Fair. 8 The Employee Engagement is calculated by averaging a subset of FEVS questions measuring 3 factors: Intrinsic 

Work Experience, Supervisors, and Leaders. 

59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. FEVS Questions Focused on EEO, D&I, Safety, and Compliance: FY 2013-18 

Questions: 

Percent Positive Responses: 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Governmentwide, 2018 

17. I can disclose a suspected 

violation of any law, rule or 

regulation without fear of reprisal. 

76.1% 76.9% 78.2% 79.8% 81.8% 82.4% 66.1% 

34. Policies and programs promote 

diversity in the workplace (e.g., 

recruiting minorities and women, 

training in awareness of diversity 

issues, mentoring). 

76.7% 76.9% 78.0% 78.7% 79.4% 80.3% 58.2% 

38. Prohibited Personnel Practices 

(e.g., illegally discriminating for or 

against any employee/ applicant, 

obstructing a person's right to 

compete for employment, knowingly 

violating veterans' preference) are 

not tolerated. 

81.7% 82.4% 82.8% 83.7% 85.6% 85.7% 69.8% 

45. My supervisor/team leader is 

committed to a workforce 

representative of all segments of 

society. 

78.8% 80.1% 81.1% 82.3% 84.2% 85.6% 70.9% 

55. Managers/supervisors/team 

leaders work well with employees of 

different backgrounds. 

79.3% 80.3% 80.1% 81.7% 84.7% 85.0% 69.5% 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results. 

60 
Occupational Categories 

Figure 3. NASA Workforce by Race and Ethnicity, FY 2018 

Black, 11.6% 

AAPI, 7.6% 

Hispanic, 7.6% 

AIAN, 1.0% 

White Multiracial, 0.3% , 

71.8% 

NASA Workforce 

Black, 6.7% 

AAPI, 8.6% 

Hispanic, 7.5% 

AIAN, 0.9% 

White Multiracial, 0.2% , 

76.1% 

Engineers 

Black, 2.9% 

AAPI, 9.9% 

Hispanic, 4.9% 

AIAN, 0.1% 

Multiracial, 0.0% 

White, 

82.2% 

Physical Scientists 

Black, 21.9% 

AAPI, 4.3% 

Hispanic, 8.9% 

AIAN, 1.7% 

Multiracial, 0.8% 

White, 

62.3% 

General Administrative Professionals 

(OPM series 03xx) 

Source: WICN (data as of 10/1/2018). 

Figure 4. NASA Employee Demographic Groups by Occupational Category: FY 2018 

 

 

 

 

35%

45%

46%

48%

49%

62%

69%

76%

77%

65%

59%

51%

46%

44%

43%

34%

27%

20%

22%

NASA Workforce (n=16,855) 31% 4% 

AAPI (n=1,282) 1% 

Male (n=11,121) 4% 

White (n=12,093) 4% 

Hispanic (n=1,285) 4% 

Targeted Disabilities (n=252) 8% 

AIAN (n=176) 7% 

Any Disability (n=1,504) 7% 

Female (n=5,734) 4% 

Black (n=1,953) 6% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 

Science and Engineering Professional Administrative Clerical or Technician 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NASA Workforce (n=16,855)

AAPI (n=1,282)

Male (n=11,121)

White (n=12,093)

Hispanic (n=1,285)

Targeted Disabilities (n=252)

AIAN (n=176)

Any Disability (n=1,504)

Female (n=5,734)

Black (n=1,953) 35%

45%

46%

48%

49%

62%

69%

76%

77%

65%

59%

51%

46%

44%

43%

34%

27%

20%

22%

31%

6%

4%

7%

7%

8%

4%

4%

4%

1%

4%

Science and Engineering Professional Administrative Clerical or Technician

Source: WICN (data as of 10/1/2018). 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. NASA Engineers by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: FY 2018 

AAPI Black Hispanic AIAN White Male Female IWD 

Engineers (n=9,160) 8.9% 6.6% 7.6% 0.9% 75.9% 77.1% 22.9% 6.4% 

2010 RCLF 11.8% 4.8% 5.2% 0.6% 77.2% 88.8% 11.2% 3.3% 

2015 Graduates 15.7% 5.1% 9.7% 0.3% 61.6% 78.5% 21.5% --

Table 4. NASA AST Physical Scientists by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: FY 2018 

AAPI Black Hispanic AIAN White Male Female IWD 

Physical Scientists (n=868) 10.4% 2.9% 4.6% 0.1% 82.0% 73.0% 27.0% 5.3% 

2010 RCLF 14.4% 3.5% 4.3% 0.6% 76.7% 62.6% 37.3% 3.2% 

2015 Graduates 7.2% 3.0% 7.9% 0.2% 73.3% 78.0% 22.0% --

Table 5. NASA Professional Administrative Employees, by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: FY 2018 

Occupation 

(OPM Occupation Code) AAPI Black Hispanic AIAN White Male Female IWD 

Human Resources 

Specialist (0201) (n=276) 

NASA 6.9% 28.6% 9.1% 0.4% 54.3% 26.4% 73.6% 21.0% 

RCLF 4.3% 10.4% 9.5% 0.7% 74.6% 39.7% 60.3% 3.7% 

Information Technology 

Specialist (2210) (n=476) 

NASA 5.9% 18.9% 6.9% 1.7% 65.5% 58.4% 41.6% 15.5% 

RCLF 6.8% 11.1% 7.6% 0.8% 73.1% 70.4% 29.6% 4.9% 

Finance (0501, 0505) 

(n=326) 

NASA 5.8% 21.8% 8.3% 0.9% 63.2% 33.1% 66.9% 12.9% 

RCLF 5.0% 13.2% 9.8% 1.2% 71.1% 43.7% 56.3% 4.5% 

Accounting (5010, 5011) 

(n=320) 

NASA 12.5% 27.5% 9.1% 0.6% 49.7% 32.2% 67.8% 12.5% 

RCLF 8.6% 8.1% 6.1% 0.6% 76.0% 39.9% 60.1% 3.5% 

Program Analyst (0343) 

(n=781) 

NASA 6.0% 20.1% 10.8% 2.2% 59.9% 37.4% 62.6% 11.3% 

RCLF 5.9% 6.8% 4.6% 0.6% 81.6% 58.4% 41.6% 4.0% 

Contract Specialist (1102) 

(n=704) 

NASA 4.8% 28.8% 9.9% 0.6% 55.0% 41.8% 58.2% 10.7% 

RCLF 3.3% 8.5% 7.1% 0.8% 80.0% 46.2% 53.8% 5.0% 

Sources for Tables 3-5: WICN (data as of 10/1/2018); U.S Census Bureau EEO Tabulation from the 2006-2010 

American Community Survey (data set EEO-CIT02R). For comparison to the NASA AST Engineer workforce, the RCLF 

for AST Engineers includes occupations equivalent to the following occupational series: Aerospace (0861), Electrical 

(0850), Computer (0854), Electronics (0855), and General (0801) Engineers. The RCLF for AST Physical Scientists 

includes all occupations that are equivalent to the following occupations: Physical Scientists (1301), Physicists 

(1310), and Space Scientists(1330). Data for college graduates are provided for comparison only. These data include 

all earned Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral degrees in the relevant fields in 2013 (the most recent year for which 

data are available). 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Promotions 

Table 6. Internal Competitive Promotions in S&E Positions, by Race and Ethnicity: FY 2017-18 

FY 2018 

Promotion to 

Grade 

AAPI Black Hispanic AIAN White 

Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted 

GS-14 (n=278) 10% 9% 8% 6% 9% 8% 1% 2% 72% 74% 

GS-15 (n=215) 9% 4% 5% 6% 7% 7% 1% 0% 77% 83% 

SES (n=21) 9% 0% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 80% 95% 

FY 2017 

GS-14 (n=157) 10% 9% 8% 9% 9% 11% 1% 1% 72% 71% 

GS-15 (n=110) 8% 12% 5% 12% 7% 5% 1% 1% 78% 70% 

SES (n=18) 8% 11% 5% 11% 5% 11% 1% 0% 81% 67% 

Table 7. Internal Competitive Promotions in Professional Administrative Positions, by Race and 

Ethnicity: FY 2017-18 

FY 2018 

Promotion to 

Grade 

AAPI Black Hispanic AIAN White 

Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted 

GS-13 (n=101) 5% 2% 28% 20% 8% 12% 2% 3% 56% 61% 

GS-14 (n=91) 6% 8% 23% 24% 8% 7% 2% 1% 61% 60% 

GS-15 (n=53) 6% 6% 21% 15% 8% 11% 1% 2% 63% 64% 

SES (n=8) 4% 0% 18% 25% 5% 13% 2% 0% 71% 63% 

FY 2017 

GS-13 (n=67) 4% 6% 28% 21% 9% 9% 2% 0% 57% 64% 

GS-14 (n=60) 5% 5% 23% 15% 8% 7% 2% 2% 61% 72% 

GS-15 (n=40) 5% 0% 20% 28% 8% 5% 1% 0% 64% 68% 

SES (n=6) 3% 0% 17% 17% 6% 0% 2% 0% 72% 83% 

Table 8. Internal Competitive Promotions in S&E and Professional Administrative Positions, by 

Gender: FY 2017-18 

FY 2018 S&E Positions Professional Administrative Positions 

Promotion to 

Grade: 

Male Female Promotion to 

Grade: 

Male Female 

Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted Pool Promoted 

GS-13 (n=0) -- -- -- -- GS-13 (n=101) 32% 46% 68% 54% 

GS-14 (n=278) 74% 71% 26% 29% GS-14 (n=91) 39% 43% 61% 57% 

GS-15 (n=215) 78% 67% 22% 33% GS-15 (n=53) 48% 60% 52% 40% 

SES (n=21) 79% 67% 21% 33% SES (n=8) 52% 25% 48% 75% 

FY 2017 

GS-13 (n=0) -- -- -- -- GS-13 (n=67) 32% 39% 68% 61% 

GS-14 (n=157) 74% 77% 26% 23% GS-14 (n=60) 39% 40% 61% 60% 

GS-15 (n=110) 78% 68% 22% 32% GS-15 (n=40) 48% 50% 52% 50% 

SES (n=18) 80% 72% 20% 28% SES (n=6) 50% 67% 50% 33% 

Source for Tables 6-8: WICN (data as of 10/1/2018); “n” refers to the number of promotions. 

63 
Individuals with Disabilities 

Figure 5. NASA Employees with Disabilities, by Grade Category: FY 2018 

Federal Goal 

2% All Grades 

1.5% GS-11 and Above 

Targeted Disabilities GS-10 and Below 1.4% 

4.6% 

12% 

10.4% 

All Disabilities 

10.0% 

22.2% 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 

Source: WICN (data as of 10/1/2018). Data include: 1) all permanent non-student employees who identified as 

having a disability on OPM Standard Form (SF) 256; 2) disabled veterans who are classified as “10-

Point/Compensable/30 Percent,” but who have not claimed a disability on SF 256; and 3) employees hired under 

Schedule A, but classified in WICN as “non-permanent.” 

64 
APPENDIX C: COMPLAINTS PROCESSING 

In FY 2018, the number of EEO contacts increased significantly: there were 313 contacts and 83 

informal complaints (compared to 210 contacts and 57 informal complaints in FY 2017) (see 

Figure 1). Between FY 2017 and FY 2018, the percentage of the workforce filing informal 

complaints increased from 0.30 percent to 0.43 percent in FY 2018, and the percentage filing 

formally increased from 0.17 percent to 0.34 percent. In FY 2018, NASA ODEO provided technical 

assistance to Center EEO offices, focusing on individualized feedback as to the effectiveness of 

execution of informal complaints processing as well as on guidance relating to unique or 

precedent setting issues and cases. NASA’s efforts to educate and train employees, managers, 

and supervisors on their EEO rights and responsibilities appeared to be succeeding as reflected 

by increases in contacts with EEO and Anti-Harassment Programs. The increase in complaint 

activity is matched by increases in the NASA FEVS results that also reflect increased trust in 

leadership and greater confidence that the Agency’s avenues of redress work. (See Appendix B, 

Table 2). 

Figure 1. Contacts and Informal Complaints Filed Agency wide 

76 74 77

57

83

166

209

272

210

313

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Informals Contacts

Eighty-three percent of formal complaints in FY 2018 were filed by NASA employees. Of those 

complaints, 56 percent were from individuals in PA positions, 32 percent were from Science and 

Engineering (S&E) employees, and 10 percent were from clerical and administrative support 

personnel. The remaining complaints were from students (1 percent) and technicians (1 

percent). (See Figure 2). These percentages contrast with NASA’s workforce composition which 

is 62 percent S&E, 29 percent PA, 2 percent clerical and administrative support, 4 percent 

student, and 3 percent technician. NASA will conduct a more in-depth analysis to determine 

what, if any, barrier(s) PA employees experience that may be causing higher number of 

complaints despite their low presence in the NASA workforce when compared to the S&E 

workforce. 

65 
In FY 2018, the top three leading bases were reprisal, race, and sex followed closely by disability 

and age. Non-sexual harassment continued to be the most prevalent issue with promotion/nonselection coming in second. Of note, there were more mixed cases filed in FY 2018, i.e., forced 

resignation and retirement, removal, or demotion, compared to evaluation/appraisal. (See 

Figures 3 and 4). 

Figure 2. FY 2018 Formal Employment Discrimination Complainants 

 

 

Professional & 

Administrative 

56% 

Science & Engineering 32% 

Technician 

1% 

Student Clerical and Adm Support 

10% 1% 

Figure 3. FY 2018 Formal Employment Discrimination Complainants 

50 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

45

Reprisal Race Sex

22

19 20

27

20 19

37

27

15

22

16

19

33

27 27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

66 
Figure 4. FY 2018 Leading Issues in Employment Discrimination Complaints 

20 

8 7 

21 

10 9 

27 

19 

9 

24 

6 

4 

30 

7 

15 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

Harassment (NonSexual) Evaluation/Appraisal Promotion/Nonselection 

NASA is well ahead of the government-wide average of 73 percent timeliness in EEO 

investigations. In FY 2018, 94 percent of NASA’s EEO investigations were timely completed 

(compared to 86 percent in FY 2017 and 73 percent in FY 2016) (see Figure 5). In addition, NASA 

decreased number of processing days to 243, 40 days faster than in FY 2017. 

Figure 5. Percent of Timely Investigations 

100% 94% 

90% 86% 

80% 76% 73% 

70% 61% 73% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 

NASA Governmt-wide 

The government-wide rate used in this report is based on EEOC’s Annual Report on the Federal Work Force Fiscal 

Year 2015, accessed at <https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/>. 

NASA has established and encouraged the widespread use of the ADR program. ADR is made 

available during the pre-complaint and formal complaint processes. NASA’s ADR program 

requires a management official with settlement authority, other than the responsible 

management official named in the complaint, to be available during the dispute resolution 

process. NASA evaluates the effectiveness of its ADR program on a regular basis. Per discussion 

with EEOC in May 2017, to ensure NASA leadership has an accurate view of the status of ADR 

67 
offer and participation, our measurement has been adjusted to include cases received within the 

fiscal year regardless if closed or still pending at the end of the reporting period. 

In FY 2018, NASA demonstrated its commitment to early resolution of complaints through ADR 

by training an internal cadre of mediators for Agency-wide deployment. Having an internal 

resource helps to ensure quality, efficient, cost effective responses to the Agency’s ADR needs. 

NASA requiresthat ADR be offered in all cases, unlessthe case meetsspecified exemptions under 

the ADR policy. Similarly, NASA requires managers and supervisors to participate in ADR once 

the aggrieved or complainant accepts the Agency’s ADR offer. To emphasize NASA’s 

commitment to ADR, in June 2017, NASA established a mandatory ADR training course for 

managers and supervisors which was deployed at the beginning of FY 2018. At the end of FY 

2018, 97 percent of NASA managers and supervisors had completed the mandatory training, 

increasing to 99 percent by December 2018. NASA, through its EEO offices at each Center, 

established focused training on and aggressive marketing of ADR; leveraged Conflict Resolution 

Day (during the month of October) to communicate the benefits of ADR to the workforce; and 

provided more “just in-time training” pertaining to conflict resolution. 

Regrettably, fewer employees agreed to participate in ADR, perhaps because of the type and 

complexity of casesfiled in FY 2018. (See Figures 6 to 9.) However, there were more settlements 

through ADR as compared to settlement through the traditional discrimination complaints 

processes. (See Figure 10.) In FY 2018, it only took 74 days to close a formal complaint via ADR 

compared to 503 days for traditional formal discrimination complaints process. (See Figure 11). 

Figure 6. EEO ADR Offer Rate at the Informal Stage 

NASA Government-Wide

100%

88% 87% 87% 87% 87% 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

35% 38%

50%

86% 88%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

68 
Figure 7. EEO ADR Participation Rate at the Informal Stage 

100%

90%

80%

70%

16% 19%

51%

65%

48%

53% 53% 53% 53%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 8. EEO ADR Participation Rate at the Informal Stage 

NASA Government-Wide

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

26%

13%

40%

53% 50%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

69 
Figure 9. EEO ADR Participation Rate at the Informal Stage 

100%

90%

80%

17%

3%

72% 75%

62%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 10. Settlements using ADR or Traditional EEO Formal Complaints Process 

15 15 

3 4 

7 

3 

6 

1 

6 

1 

6 

1 1 

3 

5 

7 

9 

11 

13 

3 

7 

4 

13 

7 

10 9 10 

8 

5 

1 

3 

5 

7 

9 

11 

13 

-1 ADR Non ADR -1 ADR Non ADR 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Figure 11. Average Processing Days 

70 

311

429 441

366

503

69

33 50 30

74 52 44 52 42 51

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

EEO ADR AHP
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D: DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY EEOC 

In addition to submitting this report and required data analyses to EEOC, NASA will submit the 

following required documents to EEOC. The documents also are available on the Web sites 

identified in the table below: 

Mandatory Documents Web site 

Organizational Chart https://www.nasa.gov/about/org_index.html 

EEO Policy Statement https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/policy-and-publications 

Strategic Plan https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html 

Anti-Harassment Policy and 

Procedures https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/policy-and-publications 

Reasonable Accommodation 

Procedures https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/policy-and-publications 

Personal Assistance Services 

Procedures https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/policy-and-publications 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Procedures https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/policy-and-publications 

Agencies have the option of submitting the following documents; please see the description or 

Web site information in the table below. In addition, the appendices in this report are not 

required by EEOC, but will be submitted with the MD-715 report as optional documents. 

Optional Documents Description and/or Web site 

Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment 

Program (FEORP) Report 

NASA completed this report and submitted it to the Office of 

Personnel Management. It will be provided upon request. 

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action 

Program (DVAAP) Report 

NASA completed this report and submitted it to the Office of 

Personnel Management. It will be provided upon request. 

Operational Plan for Increasing 

Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities under Executive Order 

13548 

Part J of this document serves as the plan for increasing the 

employment of individuals with disabilities. 

Diversity and Inclusion Plan under 

Executive Order 13583 https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/diversity-and-inclusion 

Diversity Policy Statement https://www.nasa.gov/offices/odeo/policy-and-publications 

Human Capital Strategic Plan This document will be provided upon request. 

EEO Strategic Plan This report constitutes NASA’s EEO Strategic Plan. 

Results from most recent FEVS or 

Annual Employee Survey 

NASA uses the results of the FEVS in conducting its trigger 

and barrier analyses for the MD-715 plan. See Figures 1 and 

2 in Appendix B for summary data. 

71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E: LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS 

AA Associate Administrator 

AAPI Asian Americans and Pacific 

Islanders 

ADR Alternative Dispute 

Resolution 

AFRC Armstrong Flight Research 

Center 

AHP Anti-Harassment Program 

AIAN American Indians and Alaska 

Natives 

ARC Ames Research Center 

AST Aerospace Technology 

CAP Complaints and Programs 

Division 

DAD Diversity and Data/Analytics 

Division 

D&I Diversity and Inclusion 

EEO Equal Employment 

Opportunity 

EEOC Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission 

ERG Employee Resource Group 

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Survey 

GRC Glenn Research Center 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center 

HQ NASA Headquarters 

IWD Individuals with Disabilities 

IWTD Individuals with Targeted 

Disabilities 

JSC Johnson Space Center 

KSC Kennedy Space Center 

LaRC Langley Research Center 

LGBTQ+ Lesbian, Gay, Bi- sexual, 

Transgender, and Queer 

and/or Questioning 

MD-715 Management Directive 715 

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 

NASA National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

NCLF National Civilian Labor Force 

NPD NASA Policy Directive 

NPR NASA Procedural 

Requirement 

NSSC NASA Shared Services Center 

ODEO Office of D iversity and Equal 

Opportunity 

OCHCO Office of the Chief Human 

Capital Office 

OPM Office of Personnel 

Management 

PA Professional Administrative 

IWD People with Disabilities 

IWTD People with Targeted 

Disabilities 

RCLF Relevant Civilian Labor Force 

S&E Science and Engineering 

SEP Special Emphasis Program 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SSC Stennis Space Center 

STEM Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics 

WFF Wallops Flight Facility 

72