Protecting Public Health and Preventing Foodborne Illness 

Fiscal Year 2022 

Management Directive 715 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

Agency Identifying Information (Parts A-D)............................................................................... 4 - 7 

Executive Summary (Part E)........................................................................................................ 8 - 31

Certification of Establishment of EEO Programs (Part F)............................................................ 32

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist (Part G - Essential Elements)............................................... 33 - 54

EEO Plan to Attain Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program (Part H)............................... 55 - 56 

EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barriers (Part I)........................................................................ 57 - 77 

Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring and Advancement of Individuals 

Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (Part J).............................................................................. 78 - 104

Agency FY 2022 Hispanic Analysis...................................................................... 105 - 112

USDA Civil Rights Policy Statement >>.......................................................................Attached 

USDA Anti-Harassment Policy Statement.............................................................. Attached 

Organizational Chart........................................................................................ Attached 

Agency FY 2022 462 Report............................................................................... Attached 

FY2022 Workforce Data Tables 

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

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

Table A3-1: Occupational Categories (Rates Across) ................................................. Attached 

Table A3-2: Occupational Categories (Rates Down)................................................... Attached 

Table A4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule and Wage Grades

 (Permanent) (Rates Across)............................................................ Attached 

Table A4-1T: Participation Rates for General Schedule and Wage Grades

 (Temporary) (Rates Across).............................................................. Attached 

Table A4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex

 (Permanent) (Rates Down).................................................................. Attached 

Table A4-2T: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex 

(Temporary) (Rates Down) ................................................................... Attached 

Table A5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex 

(Permanent)(Rates Across)............................................................... Attached 

Table A6P: Participation Rates for Major Occupations (Permanent)................................ Attached 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A6T: Participation Rates for Major Occupations (Temporary)................................. Attached 

Table A9: Selections for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major Occupations................ Attached 

Table A10: Non-Competitive Promotion Time in Grade.............................................. Attached 

Table A11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions........................................... Attached 

. 

Table A13: Employee Recognition and Awards........................................................ Attached 

Table A14: Separations by Type of Separations....................................................... Attached 

Table B1: Total Workforce - Distribution by Disability................................................. Attached 

Table B2: Total Workforce by Component............................................................... Attached 

Table B3-1: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Disability (Rates Across)................ Attached 

Table B3-2: Occupational Categories - Distribution by Disability (Rates Down)...................Attached 

Table B4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule and Wage Grades - by Disability 

(Permanent) (Rates Across).................................................................. Attached 

Table B4-1T: Participation Rates for General Schedule and Wage Grades - by Disability 

(Temporary) (Rates Across)................................................................. Attached 

Table B4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule and Wage Grades - by Disability

 (Permanent) (Rates Down)................................................................... Attached 

Table B4-2T: Participation Rates for General Schedule and Wage Grades - by Disability (Temporary) 

(Rates Down).................................................................................... Attached 

Table B5-1: Participation Rates for Wage Grade - by Disability (Permanent)..................... Attached 

Table B5-2: Participation Rates for Wage Grade - by Disability (Permanent) (Rates Down).... Attached 

Table B6P: Participation Rates for Major Occupations - by Disability (Permanent)............. Attached 

Table B6T: Participation Rates for Major Occupations - by Disability (Temporary).............. Attached 

Table B9: Selections for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major Occupations -

 by Disability............................................................................. Attached 

Table B10: Non-Competitive Promotions Time in Grade - by Disability.......................... Attached 

Table B11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions - by Disability......................... Attached 

Table B13: Employee Recognition and Awards..................................................... Attached 

Table B14: Separations by Type of Separation........................................................ Attached 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MD-715 

Parts A Through D 

Part A - Department or Agency Identifying Information 

Agency 

Second 

Level 

Component 

Address City State 

Zip 

Code 

(xxxxx) 

Agency 

Code 

(xxxx) 

FIPS 

Code 

(xxxx) 

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 

Food Safety 

and 

Inspection 

Service 

1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW 

Jamie L. Witten 

Building, Room 

331-E 

Washington DC 20250 AG37 

Part B - Total Employment 

Total Employment Permanent Workforce Temporary Workforce Total Workforce 

Number of Employees 8,639 100 8,739 

Part C.1 - Head of Agency and Head of Agency Designee 

Agency Leadership Name Title 

Head of Agency Paul Kiecker Administrator 

Head of Agency Designee Terri Nintemann Deputy Administrator 

Part C.2 - Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s) 

EEO Program 

Staff Name Title Occupational Series (xxxx) 

Pay 

Plan 

and 

Grade 

(xx-xx) 

Phone Number 

(xxx-xxx-xxxx) Email Address 

Principal EEO 

Director/ Official Angela Kelly Director 0260 GS-15 (301) 504-7755 Angela.Kelly@usda.gov 

Affirmative 

Employment 

Program Manager 

Angela Kelly Director 0260 GS-15 (301) 504-7755 Angela.Kelly@usda.gov 

Complaint 

Processing 

Program Manager 

Angela Kelly Director 0260 GS-15 (301) 504-7755 Angela.Kelly@usda.gov 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

EEO Program 

Staff Name Title Occupational Series (xxxx) 

Pay 

Plan 

and 

Grade 

(xx-xx) 

Phone Number 

(xxx-xxx-xxxx) Email Address 

Diversity & 

Inclusion Officer 

Danisha 

Montague 

Diversity Program 

Manager 0301 GS-14 (301) 504-7755 Danisha.Montague@usda.gov 

Hispanic Program 

Manager (SEPM) Denise Lauletta Consumer Safety 

Inspector 1862 GS-9 (423) 242-6596 HispanicSEPM@usda.gov 

Women's 

Program Manager 

(SEPM) 

Tisha LightyCain Consumer Safety 

Inspector 1862 GS-09 (267) 226-4539 WomenSEP@usda.gov 

Disability 

Program Manager 

(SEPM) 

Damali Carr EEO Specialist 0260 GS-14 (301) 504-7753 NDEAMSEPM@usda.gov 

Special 

Placement 

Program 

Coordinator 

(Individuals with 

Disabilities) 

Shonda Moore Program Manager 0201 GS-14 (202) 720-7250 Shonda.Moore@usda.gov 

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

(RA) Program 

Manager 

Julaine 

McCabe 

Equal Employment 

Specialist/ 

Reasonable 

Accommodation 

Advisor 

0260 GS-13 (612) 852-7708 

ReasonableAccommodations@us 

da.gov 

Anti-Harassment 

Program Manager 

Pamela 

WashingtonBrock 

Human Resources 

Specialist/Workpla 

ce Violence 

Prevention and 

Response Program 

Manager 

0201 GS-13 (1-877) 987-

3747 

WorkplaceViolencePrevention@u 

sda.gov 

ADR Program 

Manager Angela Kelly Director 0260 GS-15 (301) 504-7755 Angela.Kelly@usda.gov 

Principal MD-715 

Preparer Damali Carr EEO Specialist 0260 GS-14 (301) 504-7753 Damali.Carr@usda.gov 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

■ 

Part D.1 – List of Subordinate Components Covered in this Report 

Please identify the subordinate components within the agency (e.g., bureaus, regions, etc.). 

If the agency does not have any subordinate components, please check the box. 

Subordinate Component City State Country 

(Optional) 

Agency 

Code 

(xxxx) 

FIPS 

Codes 

(xxxxx) 

N/A 

Part D.2 – Mandatory and Optional Documents for this Report 

In the table below, the agency must submit these documents with its MD-715 report. 

Did the agency submit the following mandatory documents? Please respond Yes 

or No Comments 

Organizational Chart Yes 

EEO Policy Statement Yes 

Strategic Plan Yes 

Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures Draft Yes 

Reasonable Accommodation (RA) Procedures Yes 

Personal Assistance Services (PAS) Procedures Yes 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Yes 

In the table below, the agency may decide whether to submit these documents with its MD-715 report. 

Did the agency submit the following optional documents? Please respond Yes 

or No Comments 

Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report No 

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) Report No 

Operational Plan for Increasing Employment of Individuals with 

Disabilities under Executive Order 13548 No 

Diversity and Inclusion Plan under Executive Order 13583 No 

Diversity Policy Statement (EEO Policy Statement) Yes 

Human Capital Strategic Plan No 

EEO Strategic Plan No 

The Agency’s EEO 

strategic plans and goals 

are included in the FSIS 

6 
 

 

 

Did the agency submit the following optional documents? Please respond Yes 

or No Comments 

Strategic Plan available 

at: Strategic Planning | 

Food Safety and 

Inspection Service 

(usda.gov). 

Results from most recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or 

Annual Employee Survey No 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part E – Executive Summary 

Part E.1 - Executive Summary: Mission 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the public health agency in the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) whose mission is to protect the public’s health by ensuring the safety of the 

Nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS ensures food safety through 

the authorities of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg 

Products Inspection Act, as well as humane animal handling through the Humane Methods of 

Slaughter Act. 

FSIS currently employs 8,739 employees and 14 Public Health Service (PHS) Commission Corps 

Officers; a majority of the employees are assigned to one of the ten districts or three laboratories 

that are located throughout the United States. In support of the Agency’s mission, FSIS employees 

are primarily responsible for inspecting meat, poultry, and egg products to ensure the products are 

safe, wholesome, and properly labeled. 

FSIS STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 

Office of the Administrator: FSIS is comprised of the Office of the Administrator (OA) and 

eleven program areas. OA is responsible for providing oversight with respect to carrying out the 

full mission of the Agency, to include all inspection, regulatory, and non-regulatory activities. OA 

is also responsible for ensuring that FSIS accomplishes the goals and objectives in its Strategic Plan. 

OA reports to the Office of Food Safety. 

Subordinate components directly aligned under OA: The following two offices are directly 

aligned under OA and report directly to the Agency Head: 

• Civil Rights Staff: Responsible for providing advice, guidance, and assistance for all 

aspects of the Agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Civil Rights (CR) 

programs. The Civil Rights Staff also ensures that programs are administered in accordance 

with applicable EEO/CR laws and regulations. These programs include, but are not limited 

to: complaints management, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), affirmative 

employment, and special emphasis. The Civil Rights Staff also ensures the fair and equal 

treatment of internal and external customers, regardless of race, color, religion, sex 

(including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or 

older), disability, genetic information, or reprisal. 

• Internal Affairs (IA): Responsible for conducting investigations of employee misconduct 

and for performing inquiries related to allegations of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of 

Agency programs. IA also coordinates Office of the Inspector General, whistleblower, and 

hotline referrals on behalf of FSIS. 

Program Areas in FSIS: Below are the eleven Program Areas within FSIS: 

• Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO): Responsible for budget and financial 

management in FSIS. OCFO leads development of financial policy and manages accounting 

systems and financial reporting to support FSIS' public health objectives. 

• Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO): Responsible for information technology 

and information management for FSIS. OCIO develops, oversees, and implements strategies 

that improve the efficiency, security and performance of FSIS business technologies, 

information systems and processes to protect public health. 

8 
 

 

 

 

• Office of Employee Experience and Development (OEED): Responsible for employee 

development, education, and training programs designed to ensure public health and food 

safety through both inspection and enforcement. OEED is also responsible for employee 

engagement activities such as i-Impact, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), 

and the Administrator’s Awards for Excellence throughout FSIS. 

• Office of Field Operations (OFO): Responsible for managing and administering the nation’s 

meat, poultry and egg products inspection and verification program. Organized into 10 

District Offices nationwide, OFO carries out FSIS’ food safety mission in processing and 

slaughter facilities across the country. OFO is also responsible for managing all certification 

work including export verification. 

• Office of International Coordination (OIC): Oversees and coordinates the Agency’s 

international activities related to public health and food safety, implementing the Agency’s 

international strategic objectives and formulating international policies and programs. OIC 

also represents FSIS with other U.S. government agencies and foreign governments on 

technical issues pertaining to the import and export of meat, poultry, and egg products to 

promote the safe international trade of these products. 

• Office of Investigation, Enforcement and Audit (OIEA): Conducts surveillance and 

investigation of regulated and in-commerce meat, poultry, and egg products facilities; 

conducts investigation of foodborne illness outbreaks; responds to natural disasters and 

intentional contamination events; executes and applies enforcement of FSIS criminal, civil 

and administrative sanctions and authorities; verifies that state meat and poultry programs 

are conducted in a manner at least equal to the federal program; and audits foreign food 

safety systems to verify that meat, poultry and egg products imported into the United States 

are produced under equivalent standards. OIEA is also responsible for defending the 

Agency before third parties concerning complaints of discrimination, appeals of adverse 

actions, and unfair labor practice charges. 

• Office of Management (OM): Delivers a full range of human resources and administrative 

management services to FSIS. OM’s Human Resources (HR) portfolio spans across the 

human capital lifecycle, including talent acquisition and sustainment, performance 

management, workforce planning, personnel suitability, and employee/labor relations. 

OM’s administrative management portfolio includes acquisition management, real property 

and fleet management, supply management, safety, physical security, and information 

management services. Additionally, the Significant Incident Preparedness and Response 

Staff (SIPRS) develops and coordinates FSIS activities to prevent, prepare for, respond to 

and recover from significant incidents. The SIPRS portfolio is comprised of food defense, 

emergency management, and continuity of operations. 

• Office of Planning, Analysis, and Risk Management (OPARM): Supports food safety and 

protects public health through strategic planning, evaluation, data analysis and visualization, 

as well as enterprise risk management and internal controls Agency-wide. 

• Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD): Responsible for developing and 

publishing all Agency policy. OPPD also develops and publishes instructions to the field 

necessary to implement policy. In addition, OPPD develops guidance for industry to ensure 

industry understands Agency policy. OPPD also reviews and approves labels of product 

under FSIS jurisdiction and reviews and approves new technologies and ingredients for 

such product. Finally, OPPD provides administrative oversight for the Agency’s National 

9 
 

 

Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, which operates under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. 

• Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Education (OPACE): Ensures that the Agency’s 

food safety information reaches external stakeholders, public health partners and Agency 

employees. OPACE works to inform the public, members of Congress and USDA regulated 

industries of vital food safety policies or changes and assesses the impact and effectiveness 

of messaging and education efforts on public health. 

• Office of Public Health Science (OPHS): Responsible for collecting, analyzing, and 

reporting scientific information. OPHS scientists develop science-based, and data driven 

advice and recommendations (including risk assessments) for use by Agency decision 

makers. OPHS oversees three field service laboratories that analyze samples collected from 

FSIS regulated products nationwide to monitor for pathogens, chemical residues, allergens, 

species verification, and more. OPHS also provides administrative oversight for the 

National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, which operates under 

the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

Part E.2 - Executive Summary: Essential Elements A - F 

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership 

The Agency issues annual policy statements: 

• On an annual basis, the Secretary of Agriculture issues policy statements to the USDA 

workforce. Once they are issued, the Agency Head distributes these policies to the FSIS 

workforce, and in doing so, reinforces the commitment to ensuring that the Agency is a 

discrimination and harassment-free workplace. In accordance with EEOC guidelines, the 

Agency issues EEO and anti-harassment policy statements that include the following 

principles: 

o Harassment is unwelcome conduct based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 

disability, age, genetic information, sexual orientation, marital status, familial and/or 

parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

gender identity. 

o Harassment becomes unlawful when tolerating the offensive conduct becomes a 

condition of continued employment, or the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive 

to create a work environment a reasonable person would consider intimidating, 

hostile, or abusive. 

o Retaliation against an individual for reporting harassment or because of an 

individual's involvement in an inquiry related to such will not be tolerated. 

The Agency communicated EEO policies and procedures to all employees: 

• On a continuing basis, the Agency ensures that policies and procedures, relating to EEO/CR 

laws, EEO complaints process, Reasonable Accommodation (RA) procedures, and the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, are communicated to employees. They are 

communicated through several means: instructing supervisors and managers to ensure that 

they are prominently posted in conspicuous places in work units; distributing the policies and 

procedures to the workforce through the Agency’s weekly newsletter, Food for Thought; 

distribution during annual Title VII compliance reviews; and discussing the policies and 

procedures during EEO/CR training sessions and meetings. The policies are also posted on 

the Agency’s Civil Rights Staff’s website; and can be found at the following link: 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/employees/civil-rights. 

10 
 

 

 

 

• The Civil Rights Staff (EEO Director, EEO Practitioners, and Mediators) is responsible for 

the day-to-day implementation of the Agency’s EEO programs. The Agency’s Special 

Emphasis Program Managers (SEPM) are also an integral part of the Agency’s overall EEO 

goals and objectives. The SEPMs are actively involved in various initiatives aimed at 

educating the workforce. The link for the Civil Rights Staff and a listing of the Agency’s 

SEPMs can be found at the following link: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/employees/civil-rights. 

• RA and Personal Assistance Service (PAS) procedures are issued by USDA (also referred to 

as “the Department”). The RA and PAS procedures were approved by the EEOC and issued 

to all USDA employees in FY 2021. The procedures can also be found at the following link: 

http://www.usda.gov/ra. 

• The Agency utilizes several methods to inform employees of their rights and responsibilities 

pursuant to the EEO process, which include: educating the workforce on anti-harassment, 

ADR, and RA programs, as well as behaviors that could result in discipline. The methods 

used to convey this information include, but are not limited to, training, postings, brochures, 

other communications such as email messages, and information that is provided during the 

informal complaint process. With respect to training, during FY 2022, the Agency delivered 

training on topics such as the EEO process, anti-harassment, RA, diversity and inclusion, 

ADR, effective communication, and conduct and discipline. 

The Agency assesses and ensures EEO principles are part of its culture: 

• The Agency has an achievement award program that recognizes and rewards employees for 

outstanding accomplishments that support the Agency’s mission, operations, workforce, and 

contributions to EEO/CR and diversity. Further, on an annual basis, the Administrator’s 

Awards for Excellence recognize employees, supervisors, managers, and teams for their 

exceptional accomplishments in various categories, to include Diversity, Equity, Inclusion 

and Accessibility (DEIA). The Administrator’s Award is the highest recognition an employee 

can receive within the Agency. The Agency also has established the Model EEO Advisory 

Committee Award. The award recognizes the work unit that demonstrates excellence in 

informing and/or educating employees with respect to EEO/CR and diversity and inclusion. 

The Agency’s newsletter, Food for Thought, also highlights the accomplishments of Agency 

employees on a weekly basis. The Civil Rights Staff also provides positive feedback, 

accolades, and other sentiments of appreciation to Agency employees for their contributions 

to EEO/CR. 

• The Agency utilizes annual Title VII compliance reviews, information from EEO complaints, 

and information from the FEVS to glean information regarding employees’ perceptions of 

their work environment as it relates to EEO/CR. 

Essential Element B: Integration of Equal Employment Opportunity into the Agency’s 

Strategic Mission 

The Agency’s reporting structure ensures a successful EEO program: 

• EEO/CR is incorporated into Goal 3 of the Agency’s Strategic Plan, which states: “Achieve 

Operational Excellence.” Aligned under this goal, the Agency has established “Outcome 3.1: 

Sustain and Advance an Adaptable, High-Performing, and Engaged Workforce,” and more 

specifically, “Objective 3.1.3: Ensure Equal Opportunity, Civil Rights, Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Work Environment.” Under this measure, the Agency 

focuses on (1) increasing employees’ participation in the ADR process, specifically the 

acceptance rate (percentage) of ADR offers at the informal stage of the EEO complaint 

11 
process; and (2) increasing the percentage of supervisors and managers who complete 

Diversity and Inclusion training. In FY 2022, the Agency established an interim draft 

strategic plan as it closed out its FY 2017 – FY 2021 plan and moved its new FY 2023 – FY 

2026 plan through clearance. The interim plan included objectives and measures that were 

implemented and tracked throughout FY 2022. 

• The Agency’s Civil Rights Director has access to the Agency Head through several means: 

(1) reporting directly to the Agency Head; (2) attendance at weekly meetings with Agency 

officials where a myriad of topics such as personnel, budget, and workforce issues are 

discussed; and (3) attending ad-hoc meetings as necessary to discuss various subjects and 

issues as they arise. The Civil Rights Director also communicates directly with the Agency 

Head and senior Agency officials through email messages and telephonic discussions, as 

necessary. On a monthly basis, the Director meets with the Deputy Under Secretary, Agency 

Head, Deputy Administrator and/or Chief Operating Officer to discuss the Agency’s EEO 

program and compliance with EEOC requirements. Further, on an annual basis, Agency 

leadership is briefed on the “State of the Agency;” the briefing covers all components of the 

Agency’s MD-715 report to include an analysis of the Agency’s overall workforce; 

underrepresentation with respect to the mission critical occupations; and proposed actions to 

address barriers to underrepresentation. 

• The Agency’s Civil Rights Staff conducts Civil Rights Impact Analyses (CRIA) on proposed 

Agency action (e.g., policies, rules, reorganizations, realignments). CRIAs are conducted to 

determine if the proposed action would adversely and/or disproportionately impact 

employees or customers based on their membership in one or more of the protected groups. 

CRIAs also provide mitigating strategies to offset any adverse impact found in the analysis. 

The Agency has sufficient budget and staffing: 

• On an annual basis, the Civil Rights Staff is allocated sufficient funding and staffing to 

successfully carry out various activities. The budget enables the staff to perform numerous 

EEO/CR activities, to include: (1) conducting annual Title VII reviews of various Agency 

work units; (2) conducting a comprehensive workforce analysis wherein specific barriers and 

triggers are identified; (3) timely processing informal and formal EEO complaints; (4) timely 

conducting ADR-related services; (5) providing EEO training to employees, supervisors, and 

managers; (6) administering an effective SEP; and (7) ensuring the Agency is in compliance 

with orders issued by the EEOC. 

• EEO practitioners within the Agency are sufficiently trained to carry out the duties and 

responsibilities of their positions. In an effort to keep abreast of the latest information 

pertaining to EEO/CR, staff members attend conferences, webinars, audio conferences, and 

other training related to a variety of EEO/CR subjects on an annual basis. The staff also 

receives the required annual EEO counseling and mediator refresher training. 

• The Agency utilizes uniform performance plans for all EEO practitioners and ensures that 

their duties and responsibilities are clearly defined in the performance standards. Uniform 

performance plans are also in place for non-EEO professionals (both bargaining unit and nonbargaining unit positions). These plans include pre-written performance expectations for 

EEO/CR duties and responsibilities. Supervisors are required to discuss the plans with 

employees on a quarterly basis. 

12 
 

 

The Agency trains and involves managers in the implementation of its EEO program: 

• Managers and supervisors who are new to the Agency are required to complete EEO/CR 

training within one year of their appointment. Thereafter, they complete EEO/CR training 

on an annual basis. Training provided to managers and supervisors include anti-harassment, 

RA, the EEO process, ADR, and anti-reprisal. Information on the EEO complaint process is 

also posted on the FSIS website at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/employees/civil-rights. 

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability 

The Agency conducts regular internal audits of its component and field offices: 

• The Agency’s policies and practices are monitored through Title VII compliance reviews of 

headquarters and field work units. The reviews are conducted annually, on a rotational basis, 

or when a need is identified (e.g., excessive complaint activity, request by management). The 

reviews include: (1) a workforce analysis; (2) an assessment of internal procedures and 

practices; (3) an analysis of EEO complaint activity for a 3-year period; (4) a climate 

assessment survey; and (5) a facility assessment. Once the reviews are completed, findings 

and recommendations are issued, and corrective action plans are developed to address areas 

where deficiencies were noted. The Civil Rights Staff monitors implementation of the 

recommendations and ensures compliance. The work units are deemed compliant, and the 

review is closed if and when the recommended actions are completed. 

The Agency has established procedures to prevent all forms of discrimination: 

• In keeping with the EEOC requirement, the Agency’s anti-harassment program is not a part 

of the Civil Rights Staff; the program is a part of the Agency’s Workplace Violence 

Prevention and Response Program (WVPRP). The WVPRP is available to all employees who 

believe that they have been subjected to any form of harassment in the FSIS workplace, 

regardless of whether or not the alleged harassment is related to membership of one or more 

of the protected categories. The Civil Rights Director has no involvement in the day-to-day 

operations of the anti-harassment program; however, the WVPRP and Civil Rights Staff 

work closely to ensure that the WVPRP is kept apprised of EEO complaints alleging 

harassment and to ensure the Civil Rights Staff is made aware of any harassment complaints 

where EEO claims are involved. The Agency is in the process of developing anti-harassment 

procedures that fully outline the process for all parties involved (complainants, supervisors, 

managers, Civil Rights Staff, WVPRP, Internal Affairs, and Labor and Employment 

Relations Division (LERD)) during the processing of an allegation of harassment. The 

procedures will be separate from the EEO complaint process and will require that all 

allegations of harassment be addressed promptly in order to prevent or eliminate the conduct 

before it rises to the level of unlawful harassment. The procedures will continue to ensure 

that there is a firewall between the Civil Rights Staff and WVPRP to avoid a conflict of 

interest. 

• In accordance with FSIS Directive 4735.3, Employees’ Responsibilities and Conduct, 

employees are placed on notice regarding appropriate standards of conduct in the FSIS 

workplace; the consequences for inappropriate workplace behavior; and instructions and 

resources for reporting such conduct. The directive is available at: 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media-files/documents/management-Directive715-report-FY2021.pdf. 

• The Agency has an established RA program that processes all requests for accommodations 

and PAS. The RA program, which has full-time RA Advisors, is part of the Agency’s Human 

13 
 

 

 

Resources component. USDA’s Departmental Regulation 4300-008, Reasonable 

Accommodations and Personal Assistance Services for Employees and Applicants with 

Disabilities provides overall guidance for the implementation of the RA program. 

The Agency ensures effective coordination between its EEO programs and Human Resources 

(HR) programs: 

• The Agency ensures effective coordination between its EEO and HR programs by regularly 

meeting and collaborating on MD-715 initiatives and affirmative action plans. The Civil 

Rights Director and the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) meet weekly with the 

Agency’s leadership team and at least annually to discuss the “State of the Agency.” The HR 

offices residing under the CHCO work closely with the Civil Rights Staff during the 

completion of the MD-715 report to: (1) assess whether the Agency’s personnel programs, 

policies, and procedures comply with EEOC requirements; (2) develop an affirmative action 

plan that addresses all deficiencies and barriers to EEO; and (3) ensure access to accurate and 

complete workforce data and other types of HR-related information. The Civil Rights 

Director also provides regular updates and answers EEO-related questions during weekly 

Management Council meetings that are attended by the Agency’s leadership team. The 

AskCRD@usda.gov mailbox is also available for employees, managers, and supervisors 

seeking guidance on EEO-related matters and questions. The mailbox is monitored by the 

Civil Rights Staff and responses are usually provided within 1 to 2 business days. 

The Agency evaluates managers and supervisors on their efforts to EEO: 

• In order to ensure management’s commitment to EEO policies, principles, and programs, 

FSIS incorporates a standardized EEO/CR measure into all supervisors’ and managers’ 

critical “General Supervision and Leadership” performance standard. The element sets 

performance expectations to ensure compliance with EEO requirements and involvement in 

implementing EEO programs that support MD-715 requirements. Further, all nonsupervisory performance plans include EEO/CR expectations in the “Mission Results” 

element. 

The Agency ensures accountability for findings of discrimination: 

• To further ensure accountability, the Agency utilizes USDA’s table of penalties to address 

discriminatory misconduct. The LERD conducts accountability assessments on all findings of 

discrimination and settlement agreements. Where appropriate, Responsible Management 

Officials (RMO) are held accountable for their conduct through corrective and/or disciplinary 

action. Managers and supervisors are also informed about findings of discrimination through 

email communication. Additionally, the Agency reviews findings of discrimination against 

existing policies and procedures to determine any systemic or other issues or inconsistencies 

in the application of processes or procedures; systemic issues could potentially lead to a 

finding of discrimination. 

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination 

The Agency conducts a self-assessment on at least an annual basis that identifies areas where 

barriers may operate to exclude certain groups, and develops strategies to eliminate identified 

barriers: 

• On an annual basis, the Agency conducts a comprehensive analysis of the FSIS workforce to 

assist in identifying underrepresentation within protected groups. The analysis includes a 

review of employment and applicant demographic data, complaint data, feedback from the 

14 
FEVS, and internal climate assessment surveys to identify barriers. Once barriers are 

identified, an affirmative action plan is developed to address them. The plan includes 

recruitment, retention, and career development strategies for the underrepresented race/sex 

categories and Persons with a Disability (PWD). To ensure implementation and completion, 

the Agency tracks the progress of the action items on a quarterly basis and at year-end. The 

most recent plan is available on the FSIS website at: 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Management-Directive715-Report-FY2021.pdf. 

• In addition to the barrier analysis, the Agency conducts CRIAs to determine if proposed 

Agency regulations and HR actions will adversely and/or disproportionately impact 

employees or customers based on protected status. CRIAs are conducted prior to the 

implementation of the proposed regulations or action; if adverse or disproportionate impact(s) 

is found from the proposed regulations or HR action, strategies to mitigate or eliminate them 

are provided. 

Essential Element E: Efficiency 

The Agency maintains an efficient, fair, and impartial complaint resolution process: 

• The Agency oversees all steps of the informal EEO complaint process; the formal complaint 

process is managed by USDA’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR). 

However, FSIS assists with the EEO investigations portion of the process; this includes 

coordinating document requests for EEO investigations; submitting complaint files into the 

Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP); implementing final orders and actions; and overall case 

monitoring to ensure complaints progress during the formal process. 

• FSIS uses full-time permanent EEO counselors to process informal complaints. During case 

processing, counselors provide written notification of rights and responsibilities to all 

aggrieved parties. Work performed by the EEO counselors is monitored for technical 

accuracy and to ensure timeframes are met in accordance with EEO requirements. Specific 

measures are also included in EEO counselors’ performance standards to ensure timely and 

appropriate processing of all informal complaints. 

• The Agency maintains proper separation between its Civil Rights Staff and the legal 

representation function. The legal representation function is performed by both the Agency’s 

Enforcement Litigation Division and USDA’s Office of General Counsel. This separation 

ensures a neutral EEO process and prevents the intrusion of the Agency’s legal representation 

during the processing of EEO complaints (counseling, investigation, and final agency 

decisions). Legal sufficiency reviews of EEO reports of investigation is conducted by 

OASCR. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program: 

• FSIS has an active ADR program that is used by supervisors, managers, and employees to 

assist in resolving workplace conflict and EEO complaints. The Agency has certified 

mediators who conduct both EEO and non-EEO mediations (Early Intervention ADR). 

Supervisors and managers are required to participate in good faith in all ADR sessions. To 

remove perceptions of partiality, Resolving Officials are designated at the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) level. 

• Use of ADR during the informal stage of the EEO process is tracked by the Agency as a part 

of the FSIS Strategic Plan: “Goal 3: Achieve Operational Excellence;” “Outcome 3.1: 

15 
 

 

 

 

Sustain and Advance an Adaptable, High-Performing, and Engaged Workforce;” “Objective 

3.1.3: Ensure Equal Opportunity, Civil Rights, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility 

in the Work Environment.” In accordance with Objective 3.1.3, the Agency measures ADR 

acceptance among Aggrieved Parties during the informal process. The Agency markets the 

ADR program to increase the participation by: (1) educating parties during the informal 

complaint process; (2) delivering ADR training; and (3) disseminating ADR brochures and 

promotional materials. 

The Agency has effective and accurate data collection systems in place to evaluate its EEO 

Program: 

• USDA utilizes the USDA Civil Rights Enterprise System (CRES) (referred to as 

iComplaints), which is the system that sub-agencies are required to use. iComplaints enables 

the Agency to enter EEO complaint case information and track the complaint from the time it 

is initiated until it closes. The Agency utilizes the system on a daily basis and ensures that it 

contains the most recent case information. The system is also utilized to accurately analyze 

complaint activity and trends in order to complete annual reports such as the Federal EEO 

Statistical Report of Discrimination Complaints (EEOC Form 462), No FEAR Act, and MD715. In addition, when needed, the Agency utilizes the system to prepare reports for Agency 

leadership, union officials, Agency representatives, and other officials who may have need 

for complaint information. The Agency also has the appropriate access to the EEOC’s 

FedSEP database. The Agency has successfully utilized this database to ensure that both the 

MD-715 and EEOC-462 reports are transmitted to the EEOC in a timely manner. 

Additionally, the Agency uses this database to timely retrieve orders from EEOC judges and 

ensure that hearing requests are processed. 

• The Agency utilizes the National Finance Center (NFC) databases to collect, report, and 

analyze demographic data of the FSIS workforce. In addition, the USA Staffing system is 

used to assess hiring and applicant flow data. The HR office also maintains an automated 

tracking system for RA requests and dispositions, and the WVPRP staff utilizes an automated 

tracking system to process and monitor all allegations of harassment, intimidation, threats, 

and workplace violence. 

• The Agency also offers its managers various Talent Management tools to assist with 

recruitment. These applications allow hiring officials to publicize vacancies to colleges and 

universities, including minority serving institutions. Additionally, the applications include 

recruitment tracking features that allow the Agency to determine the effectiveness of its 

recruitment efforts. 

The Agency identifies significant trends and best practices in its EEO programs: 

• FSIS uses several methods to identify trends and/or best practices in EEO. These methods 

include analysis of complaint data on a routine basis; annual No FEAR Act trend analysis; 

and conducting annual barrier analyses, CRIAs, and Title VII compliance reviews. Once 

trends are identified, and if appropriate, actions are developed to address them. When best 

practices are identified, they are disseminated to appropriate officials, personnel, etc., for 

implementation. 

• The Agency continuously collaborates with the Department and USDA agencies on various 

EEO/CR initiatives and programs. These collaborations help identify trends, streamline 

processes, and implement best practices across USDA and within FSIS. 

16 
 

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance 

The Agency has processes in place to ensure timely and full compliance with EEOC orders and 

settlement agreements: 

• As noted previously, the Agency utilizes the iComplaints system to capture all complaintrelated information. In addition, the system monitors adherence to regulatory timeframes in 

the various stages of the EEO process, to include the implementation of EEOC judges’ orders 

and settlement agreements. The Agency has procedures in place to ensure that EEOC judges’ 

decisions and settlement agreements (for both monetary and non-monetary reliefs) are 

implemented in accordance with the timeframes established in the orders or the settlement 

agreements. When judges’ orders or settlement agreements are received by the Agency, the 

Civil Rights Staff coordinates the implementation of the orders and agreements with the 

appropriate office and monitors compliance. Monetary reliefs are processed by the OCFO. 

The OCFO has procedures in place to ensure that monetary reliefs are processed timely once 

they are received from the Civil Rights Staff. Once all orders and agreements have been 

implemented, the Civil Rights Staff has procedures in place to ensure that compliance reports 

are prepared and submitted to the appropriate office or to the EEOC. EEO Specialists are 

held accountable for the timely processing of EEOC orders and settlement agreements in 

their performance standards. 

The Agency complies with the law, including EEOC regulations, management directives, orders 

and other written instructions: 

• The Agency responds timely to all orders and requests for information from the EEOC. 

Timeframes are captured and tracked in the iComplaints system. The Agency also has a 

process in place to ensure the timely implementation and compliance of EEO issued orders. 

Part of this process involves responding to EEOC orders, hearing request notifications, or 

requests for reports of investigations within 5 calendar days or within the timeframe 

established by the EEOC. There have been no instances of untimely responses to EEOC 

orders or settlements and no remands or notices for failure to comply with any orders issued 

by EEOC. 

The Agency annual accomplishments and EEO compliance to EEOC: 

• The Agency reports annual accomplishments and EEO compliance to the EEOC through the 

timely submission of the No FEAR Act, MD-715, and EEOC Form 462 reports, responses to 

technical assistance correspondence from the EEOC, as well as other reports as appropriate. 

Regarding legal compliance with EEO complaint processing, Agency’s EEO practitioners are 

responsible for processing EEO complaints, to include ensuring timely compliance with 

settlement agreements, EEOC orders, and final Agency actions. 

17 
 

 

Part E.3 - Executive Summary: Workforce Analyses 

During FY 2022, the Agency’s workforce totaled 8,739; this represented a decrease of 129 employees when 

compared to FY 2021, when there were 8,868 in the workforce. Of the race/ethnicity and sex groups, Asian 

females experienced the greatest increase (7.41%) during FY 2022, followed by Black males with an increase of 

3.53% and Hispanic males with an increase of 3.45%. Hispanic females, and Two or More Races (TMR) males also 

experienced increases; there was however, a decrease in representation of Asian males during FY 2022 when 

compared to FY 2021. 

Figure 1: FSIS Total Workforce by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (Permanent and Temporary) 

FY 2022 

1.99% 

0.94% 

2.86% 

0.89% 

15.18% 

8.39% 

6.05% 

6.85% 

0.09% 

0.11% 

0.11% 0.14% 

22.68% 

33.70% 

Asian Female [1.99%] 

Asian Male [2.86%] 

American Indian and Alaska Native Female [0.94%] 

American Indian and Alaska Native Male [0.89%] 

Black Female [15.18%] 

Black Male [8.39%] 

Hispanic Female [6.05%] 

Hispanic Male [6.85%] 

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Female [0.09%] 

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islande Male [0.11%] 

Two or More Races Female [0.11%] 

Two or More Races Male [0.14%] 

White Female [22.68%] 

White Male [33.70%] 

FY 2020 – FY 2022 Trend Analysis 

A 3-year trend analysis from FY 2020 to FY 2022 shows that the number of Agency employees decreased by 

approximately 0.83%, from 8,813 to 8,739. The representation of females decreased by approximately 0.89% 

during the 3-year period; however, their representation rate remained fairly steady at 47.08% in FY 2020 compared 

to 47.05% in FY 2022. The representation of males decreased by approximately 0.79% during the same period, and 

their representation was also stable at 52.92% in FY 2020 and 52.95% in FY 2022. As illustrated in Figure 2, the 

number of all employees increased slightly (0.62%) in FY 2021, then decreased (-1.45%) in FY 2022. Females as a 

group were represented below the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) in FY 2022.1 

1 Male representation was FY 2020, 52.83%; FY 2021, 52.89%; and FY 2022 52.95%. Their CLF was 51.80% over 

this period. 

18 
9044 

4,263 

4,781 

8799 

4,142 

4,657 

9015 

4227 

4788 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 

Total Employees 

Female 

Male 

FY19 FY20 FY21 ■ ■ ■ 

Figure 2: FSIS Workforce, FY 2020-FY 2022 

4664 

FY 2020 4149 

8813 

FY 2021 

8868 

FY 2022 

8739 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 

4112 

4178 

4627 

4690 

Male Female Total Employees 

Further analysis of the various race/ethnicity and sex categories revealed underrepresentation of females (overall), 

Asian and Hispanic females, and White females and males from FY 2020 to FY 2022. Over this period, their 

respective participation rates were consistently below the CLF.2 When applying a 10% variance3 from the CLF, 

Asian and White females were considered underrepresented. In Figure 3, the 10% variance and underrepresentation 

of these groups are highlighted. 

2 The most current CLF data is from the 2018 Estimates from the Census. 3 In accordance with USDA guidance, a 10% variance was used to determine the expected or proportional range 

for each race and sex category. Participation outside the range are considered disproportional to the benchmark. 

19 
Figure 3: FSIS Workforce Below the CLF, FY 2020-FY 2022 

FY 

Female Hispanic 

Female 

White 

Female White Male Asian 

Female 

2020 47.07% 

CLF 

5.53% 

CLF 

23.05% 

CLF 

35.11% 

CLF 

1.72% 

CLF 

2021 47.14% 5.75% 23.14% 34.42% 1.80% 

48.20% 6.20% 31.80% 35.60% 2.20% 

2022 

47.05% 6.05% 22.68% 33.70% 1.99% 

The representation of the following groups from FY 2020 to FY 2022 equaled or surpassed the CLF: males 

(overall); American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) females and males; Asian males; Black females and males; 

and NHPI females. 

The Agency’s representation of PWD remained steady from FY 2020 to FY 2022, ranging from 8.60% to 8.98% 

(See Figure 4). This was below the EEOC target participation rate of 12%. The representation of Persons with 

Targeted Disabilities (PWTD) decreased from FY 2020 to FY 2022, from 2.99% in FY 2020 to 2.70% in FY 2022. 

However, during the three fiscal years, the Agency was above the EEOC’s target participation rate of 2%. In FY 

2020, seven PWTD were hired for permanent positions; in FY 2021, ten PWTD were hired for permanent positions; 

and in FY 2022, fifteen (15) PWTD were hired for permanent positions. During all three years, PWTD were hired at 

rates both below their representation on the FSIS workforce and the EEOC participation rate. 

20 
12.00% 

2.00% 

9.22% 

3.12% 

8.98% 

2.99% 

8.60% 

2.69% 

0.00% 

2.00% 

4.00% 

6.00% 

8.00% 

10.00% 

12.00% 

14.00% 

PWD PWTD 

CLF FY19 FY20 FY21 ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Figure 4: FSIS PWTD and PWD Workforce Representation, FY 2020-FY 2022 

14% 

12% 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

2.99% 

8.98% 

2.69% 

8.60% 

2.70% 

8.81% 

PWTD PWD 

EEOC Target Rate FSIS, FY 2020 FSIS, FY 2021 FSIS, FY 2022 

With respect to the Agency’s mission critical occupations of Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO) (0701), Consumer 

Safety Inspector (CSI) (1862), and Food Inspector (FI) (1863), applying a 10% variance indicated the following: 

• From FY 2020 to FY 2022, the representation of males as a group in the VMO occupation decreased from 

53.33% to 51.10%; despite the decrease, the representation remained above the Relevant CLF (RCLF) of 

39.30%. In the CSI occupation, male representation decreased from 57.99% to 56.80% (above the RCLF of 

47.40%); and in the FI occupation, male representation increased from 47.99% to 48.20% (below the RCLF 

of 75.60%); 

• Over the same period, females as a group experienced increases in the VMO occupation, from 46.67% to 

48.90% (below the RCLF of 60.70%), and in the CSI occupation, from 42.01% to 43.20% (below the 

RCLF of 52.60%). The FI occupation female representation decreased from 52.01% to 51.80%; however, 

the representation was above the RCLF of 24.40%; 

• Hispanic males were consistently represented at or above the RCLF in all major occupations over this 

period, with increased representation in the CSI occupation, from FY 2020 to FY 2022; 

• Black males and females were consistently represented at or above the RCLF in all major occupations; and 

• White females were consistently represented below the RCLF in all major occupations. 

Figure 5 provides the participation rates from FY 2020 to FY 2022 for all race/ethnicity and sex categories for each 

of the major occupations; a 10% variance from the pertinent CLF was used. The groups that are underrepresented 

are highlighted in red and those that are overrepresented are highlighted in blue. 

21 
Figure 5: FY 2020 to FY 2022 FSIS Workforce Representation Compared to the RCLF 

FY 2020 

Asian Asian Black Black Hispanic Hispanic White White Male 

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 

Veterinary 

Medical 1.01% 4.51% 8.79% 5.98% 2.25% 2.59% 33.71% 39.91% Science 

(0701) 

RCLF 1.30% 1.40% 1.20% 0.60% 1.40% 1.90% 45.50% 45.70% 

Consumer 

Safety 1.18% 2.43% 15.17% 8.11% 4.43% 6.58% 19.91% 39.51% Inspection 

(1862) 

RCLF 2.30% 3.00% 6.80% 4.30% 4.60% 4.60% 31.70% 40.40% 

Food 

Inspection 1.47% 2.07% 17.95% 8.76% 10.66% 9.03% 20.62% 26.61% 

(1863) 

RCLF 1.70% 2.40% 8.40% 6.70% 7.70% 7.80% 23.10% 39.30% 

FY 2021 

Veterinary 

Medical 0.78% 4.36% 2.24% 5.93% 2.24% 2.57% 36.02% 38.26% Science 

(0701) 

RCLF 2.40% 1.60% 1.20% 0.50% 2.40% 1.80% 53.40% 35.00% 

Consumer 

Safety 1.26% 2.80% 14.97% 8.03% 4.77% 7.19% 19.93% 38.41% Inspection 

(1862) 

RCLF 2.90% 2.40% 6.80% 4.60% 5.10% 5.10% 36.20% 34.00% 

Food 

Inspection 1.75% 1.75% 11.60% 10.20% 11.60% 8.80% 20.12% 25.10% 

(1863) 

RCLF 1.70% 2.40% 8.40% 6.70% 7.70% 7.80% 23.10% 39.30% 

22 
FY 2022 

Veterinary 

Medical 

Science 

(0701) 

1.00% 3.90% 8.30% 5.40% 2.50% 2.70% 36.30% 38.90% 

RCLF 2.10% 1.10% 1.20% 0.50% 2.40% 1.60% 53.90% 35.70% 

Consumer 

Safety 

Inspection 

(1862) 

1.40% 2.90% 15.50% 8.50% 5.50% 7.50% 19.60% 36.40% 

RCLF 2.90% 2.40% 6.70% 4.50% 5.10% 5.10% 36.40% 34.10% 

Food 

Inspection 

(1863) 

2.20% 1.30% 17.80% 10.90% 12.20% 9.80% 18.30% 24.60% 

RCLF 0.50% 0.70% 1.30% 3.90% 7.50% 19.00% 14.50% 50.30% 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part E.4 - Executive Summary: Accomplishments 

The information below reflects the Agency’s accomplishments under each element. 

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership 

The Agency Head issued the following EEO/CR policy statements: 

• Civil Rights policy issued on August 23, 2022 – addressed equity, inclusion, equal employment 

opportunity, and zero tolerance for any form of discrimination, harassment, or reprisal for 

employees and customers; 

• Anti-Harassment policy issued on August 25, 2022 – re-emphasized FSIS' commitment to 

Secretary Vilsack's Anti-Harassment policy and procedures issued in April 2021 for reporting 

harassment, making inquiries, and taking prompt action as warranted; and 

• Limited English Proficiency (LEP) policy issued on June 17, 2022 – addressed equal access to 

agency services, programs, and activities for LEP customers. 

Managers and supervisors were instructed to prominently post policies in their work units and 

periodically review content with employees. The policies were also posted on the Civil Rights 

Staff’s webpage at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/employees/civil-rights. 

The Agency communicated EEO policies and procedures to all employees: 

• In FY 2022, several methods were used to communicate EEO policies and procedures to the 

workforce. These included: 1) prominent display of policy statements and posters in all FSIS 

occupied workspace; 2) electronic posting of policies, posters, and information on EEO 

complaint filing procedures on the FSIS Civil Rights internet website; 3) electronic posting of 

RA policies, procedures, and forms on FSIS’ HR intranet portal and in articles published in the 

Agency’s weekly newsletter, Food for Thought; 4) workforce training including mandatory 

modules on the No FEAR Act, FSIS RA policy and procedures, and Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act. Additional training and educational efforts included Agency-wide special 

emphasis programs, webinars, and EEO/CR special emphasis programs, webinars, and 

EEO/CR articles in the Food for Thought and in local newsletters issued by individual program 

area and district EEOACs. 

• The Agency continued to manage its anti-harassment program as a part of WVPRP and utilized 

FSIS Directive 4735.4 and FSIS Form 4735.4 to provide guidance on reporting and processing 

non-EEO-related claims of harassment. In accordance with EEOC requirements, the directive 

and filing form were posted on the Agency’s website. At the close of FY 2022, 484 incidents 

were reported; 301 incidents were resolved; and 183 incidents were pending. 

The Agency assesses and ensures EEO principles are part of its culture: 

• The FY 2022 Administrator’s Awards for Excellence recognized employees, supervisors, and 

managers for exceptional accomplishments in multiple categories including DEIA. Over 100 

employees received recognition and an additional 111 employees received honorable mentions. 

Eight employees were recognized specifically for DEIA efforts. 

• Two Model EEOAC awards were presented during the Agency’s annual Virtual Diversity and 

Inclusion Conference. Specifically, the OCIO and Philadelphia District EEOACs were 

recognized for their outstanding contributions to the success of the Agency’s EEO/CR and 

diversity programs. 

24 
 

 

 

 

• As part of the performance management program, GS level employees were recognized for 

their day-to-day performance, special projects, and contributions to the Agency mission 

including diversity and inclusion efforts. The Agency disbursed its entire awards budget and 

issued 22,000 awards. Nearly 300 non-monetary recognition coins were also issued to 

employees demonstrating FSIS’ values of accountability, collaboration, empowerment, and 

solutions-oriented performance. 

• The Civil Rights Staff provided positive feedback, accolades, and other sentiments of 

appreciation to employees for their notable contributions to EEO/CR. 

Essential Element B: Integration of Equal Employment Opportunity 

into the Agency’s Strategic Mission 

The Agency’s reporting structure ensures a successful EEO program: 

• In FY 2022, the Agency established an interim draft strategic plan as it closed out its FY 2017 

– FY 2021 Strategic Plan and moved its new FY 2023 – FY 2026 plan through clearance. The 

interim plan included the following EEO/CR goal, outcome, and result measures: “Goal 3: 

Achieve Operational Excellence;” “Outcome 3.1: Sustain and Advance an Adaptable, HighPerforming, and Engaged Workforce;” and “Objective 3.1.3: Ensure Equal Opportunity, Civil 

Rights, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Work Environment.” In 

accordance with Measure 3.1.3.1, the Agency reported that 74% of employees accepted ADR 

when offered during the informal EEO complaint process. This exceeded the target goal of 

61%. For Measure 3.1.3.2, the Agency reported that 96% of managers and supervisors 

completed Diversity and Inclusion training in FY 2022, also exceeding the target goal of 94%. 

• In support of Executive Order (EO) 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, and EO 14035, Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce, the Agency collaborated with the 

USDA Equity Lead working group to establish a Department-wide Equity Action Plan. The 

plan included various actions to ensure equity among external and internal stakeholders. 

FSIS’ component of the plan included an action to establish a MD-715 workgroup to identify 

barriers to equal employment opportunity and develop an action plan to address the identified 

barriers. Throughout the year, FSIS’ Equity workgroup met monthly and monitored the 

progress of all Equity actions, to include those in support of the MD-715 workgroup. 

• The Agency contributed to the development of the USDA DEIA Strategy, FY2022 – FY2026. 

FSIS representatives actively participate in the Department’s DEIA Coordinating Group 

meetings. 

• The Agency hosted a second Virtual Diversity and Inclusion Conference providing all FSIS 

employees the opportunity to receive training on diversity and inclusion, conflict management, 

health and wellness and other topics. The Agency also hosted seven virtual observances for all 

recognized Special Emphasis months as well as an observance in January 2022 for Dr. Martin 

Luther King Jr. Day, and published articles in various newsletters to educate the workforce on 

EEO, civil rights, and diversity. 

• In FY 2022, the Civil Rights Director had access to the Agency Head through several means: 

(1) reported directly to the Agency Head; (2) attended weekly meetings with Agency officials 

where personnel, budget, and workforce issues were discussed; and (3) attended ad-hoc 

meetings to discuss various issues as they arise. The Director also communicated with the 

Agency Head and senior Agency officials through email messages and telephonic discussions. 

On a monthly basis, the Director met with the Deputy Under Secretary, Agency Head, Deputy 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

Administrator and/or Chief Operating Officer to discuss the Agency’s EEO program and 

compliance with EEOC requirements. The Civil Rights Director also provided regular updates 

and answered EEO-related questions during weekly Management Council meetings where 

Agency leadership was in attendance. 

• In December 2021, the Director and the Deputy Director briefed Agency leadership on the 

“State of the Agency,” and in May 2022, these briefings were also presented to all District 

Management. These briefings included an analysis of the Agency’s overall workforce, a 

discussion of underrepresentation in three mission critical occupations, and proposed actions 

to address barriers to underrepresentation. 

• The Civil Rights Staff conducted five comprehensive CRIAs on proposed Agency rulemaking 

and reorganizations and reviewed numerous draft notices and directives to determine if 

proposed actions presented potential adverse and/or disproportionate impact to employees or 

customers based on membership in one or more protected EEO groups. Where appropriate, 

mitigating strategies were recommended. 

The Agency has sufficient budget and staffing: 

• The Civil Rights Staff was allocated sufficient funding and staffing in FY 2022 to successfully 

carry out its EEO/CR programs and activities. These included: (1) four Title VII employment 

compliance reviews; (2) comprehensive workforce and barrier analyses; (3) EEO complaint 

processing including compliance with EEOC orders; (4) providing ADR-related services; (5) 

EEO workforce training; (6) administering an effective SEP; and (7) completing all required 

EEOC and congressional reports. The allocated funds ensured Agency EEO practitioners 

received sufficient annual training to perform their duties, including attendance or 

participation at group conferences, webinars, audio conferences, and other training related to 

EEO/CR topics. 

• The Agency utilized uniform performance plans for all 14 full time EEO practitioners and 

ensured duties and responsibilities were clearly defined in the performance standards. On a 

monthly basis the Deputy Director held ‘check-in’ meetings with all practitioners to discuss 

on-going work, and on a quarterly basis the Deputy Director held ‘quarterly conversations’ with 

practitioners to review their performance plans and provide feedback on performance. Final 

ratings were timely given at the end of the rating cycle. Additionally, uniform performance 

standards for all non-supervisory positions within the Agency included EEO/CR expectations in 

the “Mission Results” critical element. Agency supervisors were required to discuss the plans 

and provide feedback to employees on a quarterly basis with a final performance rating 

provided at the end of the rating cycle. 

The Agency trains and involves managers in the implementation of its EEO program: 

• In FY 2022, 132 new supervisors received mandatory training in EEO/CR, RA, ADR, 

employee conduct, anti-harassment, and effective communication and interpersonal skills. 

This included an inaugural Hybrid New Supervisor Training Program pilot initiated in the 4th 

quarter. Supervisors and managers with two or more years of service completed the 

Experienced Supervisor Training program. A total of 1,566 supervisors participated in 12 

webinars through the FSIS Gateway: A Supervisor’s Path to Continual Learning, which 

covered a variety of subjects germane to effective supervision, customer service, 

communication, teambuilding, and work life balance. Additional EEO/CR training was 

provided to these populations during employee engagement meetings, leadership and 

supervisory conferences, work unit meetings, and by request. Ten sessions of RA training 

were presented by RA staff to six Districts and two program areas reaching 284 participants 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

including supervisory personnel. A training session was recorded and made accessible 

through the Supervisory Help application. RA training to supervisors was also delivered 

through a mandatory AgLearn module. Three Agency newsletter articles were published on 

the topic of RA, and RA staff regularly interfaced with supervisors as needed to provide 

guidance. 

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability 

The Agency conducts regular internal audits of its component and field offices: 

• The Agency continued to monitor the execution of EEO/CR policies and practices through 

regularly scheduled Title VII employment compliance reviews of headquarters and field 

work units. In FY 2022, one district office and three headquarters programs were audited. 

Findings and recommendations for program improvement were issued in final reports and 

corrective actions plans were monitored throughout the fiscal year. 

The Agency has established procedures to prevent all forms of discrimination: 

• In compliance with the EEOC requirement to keep the Agency’s anti-harassment program 

distinct from functions of its Civil Rights Staff, the program was administered under OM 

as part of the Agency’s WVPRP. While the Civil Rights Director did not have 

involvement in the day-to-day operations of the anti-harassment program, both staffs 

communicated as needed to ensure each program was apprised of harassment filings 

falling under their jurisdiction, but which were raised in the other program’s forum. The 

Agency continued to follow policy and procedures contained in the Secretary’s FY 2021 

anti-harassment policy statement, which the Agency Head re-issued in FY 2022. 

• With respect to the RA program, policy and procedures for RA and PAS have been 

emphasized to the workforce for the past two fiscal years, first in FY 2021, when 

supervisory and non-supervisory modules were issued by the Department to all USDA 

employees, and again in FY 2022, when training was issued to all Agency employees on 

FSIS-specific RA policies, procedures, and resources. 

The Agency ensures effective coordination between its EEO programs and Human 

Resources (HR) programs: 

• The Civil Rights Staff collaborated with HR practitioners on various programs and 

initiatives such as RA, anti-harassment, MD-715, and training. The Civil Rights Director 

and the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) met weekly with the Agency’s leadership 

team and annually to discuss the “State of the Agency”. HR practitioners worked closely 

with the Civil Rights Staff during the completion of the MD-715 report to: (1) assess 

whether the Agency’s personnel programs, policies, and procedures complied with 

EEOC requirements; (2) develop an affirmative action plan to address deficiencies and 

barriers; and (3) ensure access to complete and accurate workforce data and other types 

of HR-related information. 

The Agency evaluates managers and supervisors on their efforts to EEO: 

• In FY 2022, all supervisory and managerial performance standards contained a critical 

“General Supervision and Leadership” element wherein EEO/CR requirements were 

incorporated. Among other requirements, the element outlined expectations regarding 

EEO programs that support MD-715 requirements. At the end of the rating cycle, 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

managers and supervisors were rated either Fully Successful or Unacceptable. 

The Agency ensures accountability for findings of discrimination: 

• The Agency continued to routinely conduct Civil Rights accountability assessments where 

findings of discrimination are received either from an adjudicatory body and in settlement 

agreements where Agency liability was identified. In FY 2022, there was one settlement 

agreement where potential Agency liability was identified. Case documentation was assessed 

by USDA’s OHRM and the FSIS LERD. The latter office reviewed existing policies and 

procedures at issue to identify potential inconsistencies in application as well as reviewed 

actions of supervisory officials who contributed to the adverse findings or potential liability 

to assess misconduct. 

• To ensure civil rights accountability, LERD continued to issue corrective and/or disciplinary 

actions where warranted. For the settlement agreement where liability was determined, 

adverse action was taken against the responsible supervisor based on separate substantiated 

findings of systemic misconduct in the work unit. No further discipline was imposed for the 

potential liability in the EEO case. 

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination 

The Agency conducts a self-assessment on at least an annual basis that 

identifies areas where barriers may operate to exclude certain groups, and 

develops strategic plans to eliminate identified barriers: 

• The Agency conducted an annual comprehensive barrier analysis based on triggers 

identified through employment and applicant demographic data, complaint data, FEVS 

feedback, and internal climate assessment surveys. Barriers were identified and an 

affirmative action plan was developed identifying objectives and action items addressing 

applicable employment actions. Throughout the year, the Agency tracked progress of the 

action items on a quarterly basis. The plan was also posted on the Agency’s website at: 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Management-Directive715-Report-FY2021.pdf. 

Essential Element E: Efficiency 

The Agency maintains an efficient, fair, and impartial complaint resolution process: 

• Two full time EEO Counselors and one EEO Specialist, who was assigned counseling 25% 

of the time, processed 119 informal EEO complaints in FY 2022. All informal complaints 

were timely counseled. Seventy-eight (78) of the 119 cases were resolved for a resolution 

rate of 66%. These closures consisted of 12 settlement agreements and 66 cases closed by 

withdrawal or where no formal complaint was filed. Eighty-five percent (85%) of aggrieved 

parties were offered ADR during counseling with an acceptance rate of 74%. ADR was not 

offered in 15% of informal cases as a result of aggrieved parties’ failure to cooperate in 

counseling or withdrawing from the process during initial contact with the Counselor. 

• Forty-one formal EEO complaints were filed in FY 2022 and processed by two EEO 

Specialists where formal complaint work accounted for 50% of their workload. The total 

FY 2022 formal complaint inventory was 104 cases of which 56 closed by the end of the 

fiscal year. Disposition of those 56 complaints included 12 closures by settlement 

28 
 

 

 

 

agreement, 3 by withdrawal, 21 by merit final agency decisions, 3 by procedural dismissal, 

and 17 by EEOC decisions. 

• The Agency continued to ensure a firewall existed between its Civil Rights Staff and its 

defensive function during FY 2022. The Agency’s OIEA, Litigation Division and USDA’s 

Office of General Counsel shared responsibility for defending the Agency during third party 

proceedings. This ensured a neutral EEO counseling and investigative process and 

prevented intrusion of the Agency’s legal representation during EEO processing. Although 

legal sufficiency reviews of EEO reports of investigation were conducted by USDA’s 

OASCR, the Agency assisted in this process by ensuring all relevant documentation was 

included as evidence in the report of investigation. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program: 

• Three full time Mediators provided ADR services in both EEO and non-EEO related 

workplace disputes. The Mediators used various forms of ADR including mediations, 

facilitations, one-on-one coaching, and team conflict resolution. In total, 58 EEO ADR 

sessions utilizing mediation were conducted with a 71% resolution rate. The resolution of 

those cases when combined with resolutions reached through traditional counseling 

contributed to an overall EEO resolution rate of 66%. The resolution of complaints via ADR 

has not only assisted in reducing the Agency’s formal complaint inventory, but it has also 

aided in addressing conflict in the workplace. In FY 2022 and in prior years, FSIS’ 

resolution rate has exceeded the resolution rates of both USDA and the Federal government. 

The Mediators also conducted 35 non-EEO ADR sessions addressing conflicts and 

workplace disputes. Training on ADR and conflict management was provided during new 

supervisor training sessions, Frontline Supervisor meetings, work unit meetings, and upon 

request. 

The Agency has effective and accurate data collection systems in place to evaluate its EEO 

Program: 

• FSIS EEO practitioners continued to utilize iComplaints as its EEO case management 

system. Mediators used Intelletrak for ADR case management. Practitioners entered 

information and updated these systems daily to ensure the most recent case information was 

captured. The iComplaints system was used to track and analyze complaint activity and 

trends for use in reports such as the Federal EEO Statistical Report of Discrimination 

Complaints (EEOC Form 462), the annual No FEAR Act report, and the annual MD-715 

report. The system was also used to generate ad-hoc reports based on requests from Agency 

leadership or union officials. The Agency also used FedSEP to create cases for hearing, 

exchange hearing documents amongst parties, and timely transmit EEO required reports. 

The Agency identifies significant trends and best practices in its EEO programs: 

• FSIS used several methods to identify trends and/or best practices in EEO. These included: 

routine analyses of complaint data; annual analysis of No FEAR Act report data, annual 

MD-715 barrier analyses, preparation of CRIAs, and Title VII compliance reviews. Trends 

were identified and actions were developed, where appropriate, to address them. Best 

practices were identified and disseminated to appropriate officials, personnel, etc., for 

implementation. In FY 2022, the Agency continued to make process improvements, using 

best practices and trend analysis, to improve its EEO programs. Improvements to data 

analysis tools were made to facilitate more accurate analyses of a large amount of 

employment data used in identifying triggers and completing barrier analyses for the annual 

MD-715 reports and for workforce and employee survey data for Title VII compliance 

29 
 

 

 

 

reviews. These data analysis tools streamlined the trigger analysis process and enabled the 

Agency to perform a more efficient and thorough analysis of workforce data to identify 

barriers. The Agency also utilized best practices and hosted a second Virtual Diversity and 

Inclusion Conference and broadcasted virtual SEP observances for all SEP months in order 

to reach all employees Agency-wide. Recorded sessions were made available on-demand 

and facilitated bringing diversity and inclusion training and cultural awareness to a 

geographically dispersed workforce. 

• In collaboration with other USDA agencies, FSIS was part of several teams that worked on 

numerous EEO-related initiatives. These included: supporting USDA’s Equity Leads 

Working Group with implementing EO 13985 and 14035; developing a new agency head 

assessment to evaluate the civil rights performance of USDA sub-agency leaders; 

developing and establishing a USDA-wide DEIA strategic plan; and assisting with the 

pending deployment of a new EEO complaint tracking system. 

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance 

The Agency has processes in place to ensure timely and full compliance with EEOC orders 

and settlement agreements: 

• Agency EEO Practitioners utilized iComplaints to capture and track the processing of all 

complaint-related information. The system monitored Agency adherence to regulatory 

timeframes in various stages of the EEO process including implementation of EEOC 

judges’ orders and settlement agreements. During FY 2022, the Agency ensured EEOC 

judges’ decisions and settlement agreements for monetary and non-monetary relief were 

documented and implemented in accordance with timeframes set forth in the documents. 

When judges’ orders or settlement agreements were received, the Agency timely 

coordinated implementation of orders and agreements with appropriate offices and 

monitored compliance. All orders and agreements for monetary relief were timely 

submitted to the OCFO for processing. Once orders and agreements were implemented, 

the Agency prepared reports containing documented proof of compliance which were 

timely distributed to the appropriate parties. EEO practitioners were held accountable 

through performance standards for the timely and accurate processing of EEOC orders 

and settlement agreements. 

The Agency complies with the law, including EEOC regulations, management directives, 

orders and other written instructions: 

• The Agency continued to adhere to EEOC regulations in all stages of EEO complaint 

processing under its area of responsibility. All adjudication, settlement, and 

compliance orders and requests for information from the EEOC were implemented and 

responded to by the Agency in a timely manner. No remand orders or notices of 

noncompliance were issued by EEOC. 

The Agency annual accomplishments and EEO compliance to EEOC: 

• The Agency timely submitted the following reports: 

o EEOC Form 462 for FY 2021 was submitted on November 5, 2021. 

o No FEAR Act report for FY 2021 was submitted on January 19, 2022, 

30 
and quarterly No FEAR Act data was posted at: 

https://www.usda.gov/nofear/agencies. 

o MD 715 for FY 2021 was submitted on June 21, 2022, and posted on the 

FSIS internet site at 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/Mana 

gement-Directive-715-Report-FY2021.pdf. 

• With respect to legal compliance with EEO complaint processing, Agency EEO 

practitioners were responsible for processing EEO complaints, to include ensuring the 

timely compliance with settlement agreements, EEOC orders, and final Agency 

actions. 

S 

31 
EEOC FORM 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 715-01 

PART F FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

CERTIFICATION of ESTABLISHMENT of CONTINUING 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS 

I, Angela Kelly, Civil Rights Director, GS-0260-15 am the 

(Insert name above) (Insert official title/series/grade above) 

Principal EEO 

Director/Official for 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Insert Agency/Component Name above) 

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 work force 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. 

ANGELA KELLY Digitally signed by ANGELA KELLY

Date: 2023.02.01 13:08:13 -05'00' 

Signature of Principal EEO Director/Official Date 

Certifies that this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report is in compliance with EEO MD-715. 

Digitally signed by PAUL KIECKER PAUL KIECKER Date: 2023.02.01 14:20:53 -05'00' 

Signature of Agency Head or Agency Head Designee Date 

32
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

I 

..... 

• -

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

Essential Element: A Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership 

Compliance 

Indicator 

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

Measures 

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, ll(A)] 

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)] If the EEO policy statement covers 

any additional bases (e.g., marital status, veteran status and political affiliation), please list them in the 

comments column. 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

Yes No 

X 

N/A 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach 

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

FSIS issued an 

electronic 

memorandum 

Dated June 8, 

2022, fully 

adopting USDA’s 

Civil Rights 

policy statement. 

X 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

34

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in

the space below or 

A.2. The agency has communicated EEO policies and procedures to all employees. complete and 

Measures Yes No N/A attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

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, ll(A)] X 

A.2.a.2. Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(3)] X 

A.2.b. Does the agency prominently post the following information throughout the workplace and on its public

website? X 

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)] 

X 

A.2.b.2. Written materials concerning the EEO program, laws, policy statements, and the operation of the EEO

complaint process? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(5)] 

X 

A.2.b.3. Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(3)(i)] If so, please provide the

internet address in the comment’s column. 

X https://www.usda.

gov/ra/howobtain-services 

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

A.2.c.1. EEO complaint process? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(a)(12) and 1614.102(b)(5)] If “yes”, please provide

how often and how such training is delivered. 

X Annually 

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

A.2.c.3. Reasonable accommodation program? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If “yes”, please provide

how often. 

X 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. 

X 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”, please provide how often. 

X Annually 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t • 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC FORM FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 715-02 EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT PART G 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

Measure Has For all unmet Compliance Been Met measures, provide Indicator a 

brief explanation

in

the space below or 

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

attach Measures Yes No N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

A.3.a. Does the agency provide recognition to employees, supervisors, managers, and units demonstrating X Recognition is

superior accomplishment in equal employment opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(9)] If “yes”, provide provided through

one or two examples in the comments section. . (1) the Agency’s

Administrator’s

Award for

Excellence in

“Diversity,

Equity, Inclusion

and

Accessibility”;

and the Model

EEOAC Award. 

A.3.b. Does the agency utilize the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or other climate assessment tools to X 

monitor the perception of EEO principles within the workforce? [see 5 CFR Part 250]' 

35
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

I 

..... 

• -

-

-

-

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

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

Compliance 

Indicator 

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. Measures 

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)] 

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. 

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)] 

B.1.b. Does the EEO Director have a regular and effective means of advising the agency head and other senior 

management officials of the effectiveness, efficiency, and legal compliance of the agency’s EEO program? [see 

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

B.1.c. During this reporting period, did the EEO Director present to the head of the agency, and other senior 

management officials, the "State of the agency" briefing covering the six essential elements of the model EEO 

program and the status of the barrier analysis process? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If “yes”, please provide 

the date of the briefing in the comment’s 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)] 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

Yes No 

X 

X 

X 

X 

N/A 

X 

X 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach 

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

“State of the 

Agency” briefing 

was delivered to 

Agency 

leadership (FSIS 

Administrator, 

Deputy 

Administrator, 

Assistant 

Administrators, 

and District 

Managers) 

numerous times 

during FY 2022. 

Specifically, during 

leadership meetings 

and during one-onone meetings with 

District Managers. 

36
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

37

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in

the space below or 

B.2. The EEO Director controls all aspects of the EEO program. complete and 

Measures Yes No N/A attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

B.2.a. Is the EEO Director responsible for the implementation of a continuing affirmative employment program X 

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)] If not, identify the office with this authority in the comment’s column. 

B.2.b. Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the completion of EEO counseling? [see 29 CFR X 

§1614.102(c)(4)]

B.2.c. Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the fair and thorough investigation of EEO complaints? X USDA’s Office of 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may not be applicable for certain subordinate level components.] the Assistant

Secretary for 

Civil Rights

(OASCR) is

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

B.2.d. Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the timely issuance of final agency decisions? [see 29 X OASCR is 

CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may not be applicable for certain subordinate level components.] responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

B.2.e. Is the EEO Director responsible for ensuring compliance with EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR §§ X 

1614.102(e); 1614.502]' 

B.2.f. Is the EEO Director responsible for periodically evaluating the entire EEO program and providing X 

recommendations for improvement to the agency head? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] 

B.2.g. If the agency has subordinate level components, does the EEO Director provide effective guidance and X 

coordination for the components? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(c)(2); (c)(3)] 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measures 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

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

consulted on, management/personnel actions. 

B.3.a. Do EEO program officials participate in agency meetings regarding workforce changes that might impact 

EEO issues, including strategic planning, recruitment strategies, vacancy projections, succession planning, and 

selections for training/career development opportunities? [see MD-715, II(B)] 

B.3.b. Does the agency’s current strategic plan reference EEO / diversity and inclusion principles? [see 

MD-715, II(B)] If “yes”, please identify the EEO principles in the strategic plan in the comment’s 

column. 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

Objective 3.1.3 -

Ensure Equal 

Opportunity, Civil 

Rights, Diversity, 

Equity, Inclusion, 

and Accessibility 

in the Work 

Environment. 

Measure 3.1.3.1 – 

Percentage of 

ADR acceptance 

rate for informal 

EEO complaints. 

Measure 3.1.3.2 – 

Percentage of 

supervisors and 

managers who 

complete 

Diversity and 

Inclusion 

training. 

Yes 

X

X 

No 

37
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

38

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

B.4. The agency has sufficient budget and staffing to support the success of its

EEO program. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

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)] X 

B.4.a.10. to effectively manage its reasonable accommodation program? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(4)(ii)] X 

B.4.a.11. to ensure timely and complete compliance with EEOC orders? [see MD-715, II(E)] X 

B.4.a.2. to enable the agency to conduct a thorough barrier analysis of its workforce? [see MD-715, II(B)] X 

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)] 

X 

B.4.a.4. to provide all supervisors and employees with training on the EEO program, including but not limited to

retaliation, harassment, religious accommodations, disability accommodations, the EEO complaint process, and

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

the comments column. 

X 

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)] 

X 

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

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

X 

B.4.a.7. to maintain accurate data collection and tracking systems for the following types of data: complaint

tracking, workforce demographics, and applicant flow data? [see MD-715, II(E)] If not, please identify the

systems with insufficient funding in the comments section. 

X 

B.4.a.8. to effectively administer its special emphasis programs (such as, Federal Women’s Program, Hispanic

Employment Program, and People with Disabilities Program Manager)? [5 USC § 7201; 38 USC § 4214; 5 CFR

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

X 

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] 

X 

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)] 

X 

B.4.c. Are the duties and responsibilities of EEO officials clearly defined? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A), 2(III), &

6(III)] 

X 

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? 

X 

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? 

X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. t .. 

39

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

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

who have effective managerial, communications, and interpersonal skills 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

B.5.a. Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(5), have all managers and supervisors received orientation, training,

and advice on their responsibilities under the following areas under the agency EEO program:

B.5.a.1. EEO complaint process? [see MD-715(II)(B)] X 

B.5.a.2. Reasonable Accommodation Procedures? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(d)(3)] X 

B.5.a.3. Anti-harassment policy? [see MD-715(II)(B)] X 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in

the space below or 

B.6. The agency involves managers in the implementation of its EEO program. complete and 

Measures Yes No N/A attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

B.6.a. Are senior managers involved in the implementation of Special Emphasis Programs? [see MD-715

Instructions, Sec. I] 

X 

B.6.b. Do senior managers participate in the barrier analysis process? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] X 

B.6.c. When barriers are identified, do senior managers assist in developing agency EEO action plans (Part I,

Part J, or the Executive Summary)? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

X 

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)] 

X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

I 

..... 

• -

-

40

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

Essential Element: C Management and Program Accountability 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

C.1. The agency conducts regular internal audits of its component and field offices. complete and 

Measures Yes No N/A attach 

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

C.1.a. Does the agency regularly assess its component and field offices for possible EEO program deficiencies? X 

During FY 2022, four

Title VII compliance 

reviews were 

conducted of field and 

headquarters

components. The 

work units that were 

reviewed were: Office 

of Field Operations – Headquarters (OFO- HQ), OCIO, OPACE,

and OFO Springdale 

District. The reviews 

were conducted 

during the course of

fiscal year. 

[see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If ”yes”, please provide the schedule for conducting audits in the comments 

C.1.b. Does the agency regularly assess its component and field offices on their efforts to remove barriers from X 

the workplace? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If ”yes”, please provide the schedule for conducting audits in the 

comments section. Annually. During FY

2022, four Title VII

compliance reviews

were conducted of 

field and headquarters

components. The 

work units that were 

reviewed were: OFO- HQ, OCIO, OPACE;

and OFO Springdale 

District. The reviews 

were conducted 

during the course of

fiscal year. 

C.1.c. Do the component and field offices make reasonable efforts to comply with the recommendations of the X 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

41

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

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

discrimination. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

C.2.a. Has the agency established comprehensive anti-harassment policy and procedures that comply with

EEOC’s enforcement guidance? [see MD-715, II(C); Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability

for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)] 

X 

C.2.a.1. Does the anti-harassment policy require corrective action to prevent or eliminate conduct before it rises

to the level of unlawful harassment? [see EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for

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

X 

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)] 

X 

C.2.a.3. Does the agency have a separate procedure (outside the EEO complaint process) to address harassment

allegations? [see Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by

Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)] 

X 

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.] 

X 

C.2.a.5. Does the agency conduct a prompt inquiry (beginning within 10 days of notification) of all harassment

allegations, including those initially raised in the EEO complaint process? [see Complainant v. Dep’t of

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123232 (May 21, 2015); Complainant v. Dep’t of Defense (Defense

Commissary Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130331 (May 29, 2015)] If “no”, please provide the percentage

of timely-processed inquiries in the comments column. 

X 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

C.2.b.4. Do the reasonable accommodation procedures clearly state that the agency should process the request

within a maximum amount of time (e.g., 20 business days), as established by the agency in its affirmative action

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

X 

C.2.b.5. Does the agency process all initial accommodation requests, excluding ongoing interpretative services,

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, excluding ongoing interpretative services, in the comments

column. 

X 

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)] 

X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

I 

' 

' 

' 

~ 

• 

l -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC FORM FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 715-02 EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT PART G 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

C.2.c.1. Does the agency post its procedures for processing requests for Personal Assistance Services on its X Reasonable 

Accommodation 

(usda.gov) 

public website? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(5)(v)] If “yes”, please provide the internet address in the comments 

column. 

Measure Has For all unmet Compliance Been Met measures, provide Indicator a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or C.3. The agency evaluates managers and supervisors on their efforts to ensure complete and equal employment opportunity. attach Measures Yes No N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

C.3.a. Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(5), do all managers and supervisors have an element in their X 

performance appraisal that evaluates their commitment to agency EEO policies and principles and their 

participation in the EEO program? 

C.3.b. Does the agency require rating officials to evaluate the performance of managers and supervisors based 

on the following activities: 

C.3.b.1. Resolve EEO problems/disagreements/conflicts, including the participation in ADR proceedings? [see X 

MD-110, Ch. 3.I] 

C.3.b.2. Ensure full cooperation of employees under his/her supervision with EEO officials, such as counselors X 

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

C.3.b.3. Ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, including harassment and retaliation? X 

[see MD-715, II(C)] 

C.3.b.4. Ensure that subordinate supervisors have effective managerial, communication, and interpersonal skills X 

to supervise in a workplace with diverse employees? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

C.3.b.5. Provide religious accommodations when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship? [see X 

29 CFR §1614.102(a)(7)] 

C.3.b.6. Provide disability accommodations when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship? [ see X 

29 CFR §1614.102(a)(8)] 

C.3.b.7. Support the EEO program in identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity?. [see MD-715, X 

II(C)] 

C.3.b.8. Support the anti-harassment program in investigating and correcting harassing conduct?. [see X 

Enforcement Guidance, V.C.2] 

C.3.b.9. Comply with settlement agreements and orders issued by the agency, EEOC, and EEO-related cases X 

from the Merit Systems Protection Board, labor arbitrators, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority? [see 

MD-715, II(C)] 

C.3.c. Does the EEO Director recommend to the agency head improvements or corrections, including remedial X 

or disciplinary actions, for managers and supervisors who have failed in their EEO responsibilities? [see 29 CFR 

§1614.102(c)(2)] 

C.3.d. When the EEO Director recommends remedial or disciplinary actions, are the recommendations regularly X 

implemented by the agency? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] 

42
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

43

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

C.4. The agency ensures effective coordination between its EEO program and

Human Resources (HR) program. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

C.4.a. Do the HR Director and the EEO Director meet regularly to assess whether personnel programs, policies,

and procedures conform to EEOC laws, instructions, and management directives? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(2)] 

X 

C.4.b. Has the 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 impeding full participation in the

program by all EEO groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

X 

C.4.c. Does the EEO office have timely access to accurate and complete data (e.g., demographic data for the

workforce, applicants, training programs, etc.) required to prepare the MD-715 workforce data tables? [see 29

CFR §1614.601(a)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

C.4.e.2. Develop and/or conduct outreach and recruiting initiatives? [see MD-715, II(C)] X 

C.4.e.3. Develop and/or provide training for managers and employees? [see MD-715, II(C)] X 

C.4.e.4. Identify and remove barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace? [see MD-715, II(C)] X 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measures 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

C.5. Following a finding of discrimination, the agency explores whether it should 

take a disciplinary action. 

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)] 

C.5.b. When appropriate, does the agency discipline or sanction managers and employees for discriminatory 

conduct? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(6)] If “yes”, please state the number of disciplined/sanctioned individuals 

during this reporting period in the comments. 

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 (e.g., post mortem to discuss lessons 

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

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

N/A During FY 2022,

there were no findings of

discrimination 

with the Agency. 

Yes 

X

X

X 

No 

44
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measures 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

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

Measure Has 

Been Met 

C.6.a. Does the EEO office provide management/supervisory officials with regular EEO updates on at least an 

annual basis, including EEO complaints, workforce demographics and data summaries, legal updates, barrier 

analysis plans, and special emphasis updates? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If “yes”, please identify the 

frequency of the EEO updates in the comment’s column. 

Yes 

X 

No 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

Weekly meetings 

between Civil 

Rights Director 

and Agency 

leadership; 

monthly meetings 

with the Agency 

Head; and annual 

meetings between 

the Civil Rights 

Director and 

Program Heads 

C.6.b. Are EEO officials readily available to answer managers’ and supervisors’ questions or concerns? [see X 

MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] 

45
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t + t + 

-

46

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Essential Element: D Proactive Prevention

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

D.1. The agency conducts a reasonable assessment to monitor progress towards

achieving equal employment opportunity throughout the year. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

D.1.a. Does the agency have a process for identifying triggers in the workplace? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec.

I] 

X 

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

Instructions, Sec. I] 

X 

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)] 

X 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

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

(reasonable basis to act.) 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

D.2.a. Does the agency have a process for analyzing the identified triggers to find possible barriers? [see X 

MD-715, (II)(B)] 

D.2.b. Does the agency regularly examine the impact of management/personnel policies, procedures, and X 

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

D.2.c. Does the agency consider whether any group of employees or applicants might be negatively impacted X 

prior to making human resource decisions, such as re-organizations and realignments? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)

(3)]

D.2.d. Does the agency regularly review the following sources of information to find barriers: complaint/ X EEO complaint

FEVS results; 

Title VII

compliance

reviews;

workplace

violence

complaints. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. t .. 

715-02 

EEOC FORM 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

D.3. The agency establishes appropriate action plans to remove identified barriers. 

Measure Has 

Been Met Compliance 

Indicator 

Measures 

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)] 

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)] 

D.3.c. Does the agency periodically review the effectiveness of the plans? [see MD-715, II(D)] 

Yes 

X

X

X 

No 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

Quarterly 

Measure Has For all unmet Compliance Been Met measures, provide Indicator a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or D.4. The agency has an affirmative action plan for people with disabilities, complete and including those with targeted disabilities. attach Measures Yes No N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

D.4.a. Does the agency post its affirmative action plan on its public website? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(4)] If X 

yes, please provide the internet address in the comments. https://www.fsis.usda

.gov/sites/default/file

s/media_file/docume

nts/Management- Directive-715- Report-FY2021.pdf. 

D.4.b. Does the agency take specific steps to ensure qualified people with disabilities are aware of and X 

encouraged to apply for job vacancies? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(1)(i)] 

D.4.c. Does the agency ensure that disability-related questions from members of the public are answered X 

promptly and correctly? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(A)] 

D.4.d. Has the agency taken specific steps that are reasonably designed to increase the number of persons with X 

disabilities or targeted disabilities employed at the agency until it meets the goals? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d)(7) 

(ii)] 

47
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

I 

..... 

• -

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 l I l 

48

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

Essential Element: E Efficiency 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

Measures 

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

process. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach 

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

E.1.a. Does the agency timely provide EEO counseling, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105? X 

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)? 

X 

E.1.c. Does the agency issue acknowledgment letters immediately upon receipt of a formal complaint, pursuant 

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

X OASCR is 

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

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. 

X OASCR is 

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

E.1.e. Does the agency ensure that 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)? 

X 

E.1.f. Does the agency timely complete investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108? X OASCR is 

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

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)? 

X OASCR is 

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

E.1.h. When the complainant did not request a hearing, does the agency timely issue the final agency decision, 

pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(b)? 

X OASCR is 

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

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)? 

X OASCR is 

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

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. 

X OASCR is 

responsible for 

performing this 

function. 

E.1.k. If the agency uses employees to implement any stage of the EEO complaint process, does the agency hold 

them accountable for poor work product and/or delays during performance review? [See MD-110, Ch. 5(V)(A)] 

X 

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)] 

X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

49

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in

the space below or 

E.2. The agency has a neutral EEO process. complete and 

Measures Yes No N/A attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

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)] If “yes”, please explain. 

X The EEO

complaint

program is

managed by the

Civil Rights Staff 

and the Agency’s

defensive

function is

managed by the

Hearings and 

Appeal Branch.

The Civil Rights

Staff reports 

directly to the 

Agency Head;

the Agency

representative 

staff reports to

the Assistant 

Administrator of

OIEA. 

E.2.b. When seeking legal sufficiency reviews, does the EEO office have access to sufficient legal resources

separate from the agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)] If “yes”, please identify the source/

location of the attorney who conducts the legal sufficiency review in the comments column. 

X This function is

performed by

OASCR. 

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)] 

X This function is

performed by

OASCR. 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. t + 

50

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

E.3. The agency has established and encouraged the widespread use of a fair

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

E.3.c. Does the Agency encourage all employees to use ADR, where ADR is appropriate? [See MD-110, Ch.

3(IV)(C)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

E.3.f. Does the agency annually evaluate the effectiveness of its ADR program? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(D)] X 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

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

evaluate its EEO program. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

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)] 

X 

E.4.a.2. The race, national origin, sex, and disability status of agency employees? [see 29 CFR §1614.601(a)] X 

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

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)] 

X 

E.4.a.5. The processing of requests for reasonable accommodation? [29 CFR §1614.203(d)(4)] X 

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] 

X 

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] 

X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

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

obligations under the statutes EEOC enforces? [see MD-715, II(E)] If “yes”, provide an example in the 

comments. 

E.5.b. Does the agency review other agencies’ best practices and adopt them, where appropriate, to improve the 

effectiveness of its EEO program? [see MD-715, II(E)] If “yes”, provide an example in the comments. 

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)] 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist 

E.5. The agency identifies and disseminates significant trends and best practices in 

its EEO program. 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet 

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation 

in 

the space below or 

complete and 

attach N/A an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status 

report 

When areas that 

need to be

addressed are 

noted during Title 

VII compliance 

reviews, the 

Civil 

Rights Staff

provides

recommendations 

to address those 

areas. CRS also 

monitors 

implementation to 

ensure that the 

recommended 

actions are 

completed. 

The Agency 

collaborated with 

sister agencies to 

improve equity 

programs

throughout

USDA; develop

an Agency Head

assessment tool to 

evaluate USDA’S 

sub-agencies’ EEO/CR 

programs; develop 

and establish a 

USDA-wide 

DEIA strategic 

plan; and assist

with the pending 

deployment of a

new EEO 

complaint

tracking system. 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measures Yes 

X

X

X 

No 

51
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t + t • 

-

52

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Essential Element: F Responsiveness and Legal Compliance

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has 

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

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

EEOC orders and settlement agreements. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

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)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

F.1.c. Are there procedures in place to ensure the timely and predictable processing of ordered monetary relief?

[see MD-715, II(F)] 

X 

F.1.d. Are procedures in place to process other forms of ordered relief promptly? [see MD-715, II(F)] X 

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)] 

X 

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in 

Measures 

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

directives, orders, and other written instructions. 

Yes No N/A 

the space below or 

complete and

attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

F.2.a. Does the agency timely respond and fully comply with EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR §1614.502; MD-715,

II(E)] 

X 

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)] 

X 

F.2.a.2. When there is a finding of discrimination that is not the subject of an appeal by the agency, does the

agency ensure timely compliance with the orders of relief? [see 29 CFR §1614.501] 

X 

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)] 

X Performed by 

OASCR 

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

documentation for completing compliance? 

X 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

t .. 

-

53 

EEOC FORM

715-02 

PART G 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Compliance 

Indicator 

Measure Has

Been Met 

For all unmet

measures, provide 

a 

brief explanation

in

the space below or 

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

Measures Yes No N/A attach

an EEOC FORM 

715-

01 PART H to the 

agency's status

report 

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)] 

X 

F.3.b. Does the agency timely post on its public webpage its quarterly No FEAR Act data? [see 29 CFR

§1614.703(d)] 

X 

Essential Element: O Other 
 

 

I 

I 

EEOC FORM 

715-02 

PART H 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL 

EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT 

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service For period covering October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022 

Plan to Attain Essential Elements 

54
 

 

 

□ 

Part H 

Agency EEO Plan to Attain the Essential Elements 

of a Model EEO Program 

Describe the status of each plan the agency has implemented to correct deficiencies in the EEO 

program. 

 If the agency did not address deficiencies during the reporting period, check the box. 

1. Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency 

Type of Program Brief Description of Program Deficiency Deficiency 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Date Initiated 

Objective Target 

Date 

Modified 

Date 

Date 

Completed 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards 

Address 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

55
 

 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date Planned Activities 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal 

Year Accomplishments 

56
 

 

 

 

 

MD-715 – Part I 

Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier 

Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier: 

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

Advancement and 

hiring of qualified 

and selected 

Total 

Workforce – 

Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity 

and Sex 

Promotions 

During FY 2022, a total of 8,835 internal candidates 

(FSIS and USDA) applied for vacant positions within 

FSIS. Of those, 4,076 qualified for the positions to which 

they applied. Using the relevant applicant pool (i.e., total 

workforce) as the benchmark, multiple triggers were 

identified when looking at candidates that qualified. 

Specifically, the qualified applicant rate for the following 

minority groups fell at least 10% below the relevant 

applicant pool: AI/AN males (0.7%) and NHPI males 

(0.05%). 

During FY 2022, FSIS promoted a total of 772 

employees, of which 638 provided demographic data. 

Using the qualified applicant pool as a benchmark, 

multiple triggers were identified when looking at 

selection rates. The selection rate for the following 

groups fell at least 10% below the rate of qualified 

applicants: Black males (selection rate 10.0%); Black 

females (14.6%); Asian males (3.0%); and AI/AN 

females (0.3%). 

applicants. (Table A1), 

Applicant Flow 

Data from 

USA Staffing 

New Hires 

During FY 2022, a total of 8,756 external candidates 

applied for vacant positions within FSIS. Of those, 4,660 

qualified for the positions to which they applied. Using 

the relevant applicant pool (i.e., CLF) as a benchmark, 

multiple triggers were identified when looking at 

candidates that qualified. Specifically, the qualified 

applicant rate (i.e., the rate at which candidates qualified 

for vacant positions) for the following minority groups 

fell at least 10% below the relevant applicant pool: NHPI 

males (0.0%); Two or More Races (TMR) males (0.3%); 

and TMR females (0.2%). 

During FY 2022, FSIS hired a total 925 new employees, 

of which 877 provided demographic data. Using the 

qualified applicant pool as a benchmark, multiple triggers 

were identified when looking at selection rates. The 

selection rate for the following groups fell at least 10% 

below the rate of qualified applicants: Hispanic males 

(selection rate 6.4%); Black females (15.4%); and Asian 

males (3.1%). 

57
 

 

 

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group 

Selections for Promotions: Black males; Asian 

males; and AI/AN females 

Selections for New Hires: Hispanic males; Black 

females; and Asian males 

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data 

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) 

Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables Yes Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity 

and Sex (Table A1) 

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes No FEAR data and EEO complaints data that include 

bases and claims relevant to promotion/non-selection 

Grievance Data (Trends) No 

Findings from Decisions 

(e.g., EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

No 

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS) 

Yes Employee climate surveys administered to four work 

units as part of the Title VII employment compliance 

reviews and FEVS data. 

Exit Interview Data No 

Focus Groups No 

Interviews No 

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM) No 

Other (Please Describe) Yes Applicant flow data from the USA Staffing database 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

Yes Yes 

58
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

Based on the uneven rates of promotion and hiring observed, the analysis suggests that barriers may 

exist that impact the hiring and advancement of some race and sex groups. Triggers were identified 

among various groups when looking at qualified applicant rates for both promotions and new hires. 

This may suggest that barriers exist in the Agency’s outreach and recruitment programs/processes 

that are preventing the Agency from attracting diverse qualified internal and external candidates. 

Triggers were also identified among various groups when looking at the selection rates for both 

promotions and new hires. This may indicate a potential barrier during the hiring process that is 

filtering out diverse qualified candidates. 

Promotions 

A disproportionate impact was identified for one race insex groups when looking at the rates at 

which internal candidates qualified (i.e., qualified applicant rate) for FSIS vacant positions. The 

expected range for each race and sex category was established using a 10% variance below each 

category’s respective participation rate in the Agency total workforce. Qualified applicant rates less 

than the lower bound of the 10% range equated to disproportionate impact. Using this method, 

disproportionate impact was identified for the following minority groups: AI/AN males (qualified 

applicant rate 0.7%, lower bound 0.9%); and NHPI males (qualified applicant rate 0.05%, lower 

bound 0.1%). 

In addition, disproportionate impact was identified for multiple groups when looking at the rates at 

which each group was selected for FSIS vacant positions. The expected range for each race and sex 

category was established using a 10% variance above and below each category’s respective 

qualified applicant rate. Selection rates less than the lower bound of the range suggested a 

disproportionate impact. Using this method, disproportionate impact was identified for the selection 

rates of the following groups: Black males (selection rate 10.0%, lower bound 11.5%); Black 

females (selection rate 14.6%, lower bound 18.4%); Asian males (selection rate 3.0%, lower bound 

4.1%); AI/AN females (selection rate 0.3%, lower bound 1.4%); NHPI males (selection rate 0.0%, 

lower bound 0.1%); NHPI females (selection rate 0.0%, lower bound 0.1%); and TMR females 

(selection rate 0.0%, lower bound 0.1%). 

New Hires 

A disproportionate impact was identified for multiple race and sex categories when looking at the 

rates at which external candidates qualified for FSIS vacant positions. The expected range for each 

race and sex category was established using a 10% variance below each category’s respective CLF 

rate. Qualified applicant rates less than the lower bound of the 10% range equated to 

disproportionate impact. Using this method, disproportionate impact was identified for the 

following minority groups: NHPI males (qualified applicant rate 0.0%, lower bound 0.1%); TMR 

males (qualified applicant rate 0.3%, lower bound 0.9%); and TMR females (qualified applicant 

rate 0.2%, the lower bound was 0.9%). 

While looking at the selection rates for external candidates, a disproportionate impact was 

identified for multiple groups. The expected range for each race and sex category was established 

using a 10% variance below each category’s respective qualified applicant rate. Selection rates 

lower than the lower bound of the range equated to disproportionate impact. Disproportionate 

impact was identified for the following groups: Hispanic males (selection rate 6.4%, lower bound 

8.9%); Black females (selection rate, 15.4%, lower bound 16.6%); Asian males (selection rate 

3.1%, lower bound 3.7%); NHPI females (selection rate 0.0%, lower bound was 0.1%); TMR males 

(selection rate 0.2%, lower bound 0.3%); and TMR females (selection rate 0.1%, lower bound 

0.2%). 

59
 

 Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective 

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyy 

y) 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyy 

y) 

Sufficien 

t 

Funding 

& 

Staffing 

? 

(Yes or 

No) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyy 

y) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyy 

y) 

Expand outreach and 

recruitment to 

optimize the quality 

and diversity of the 

applicant pool. 

10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Yes 

Market FSIS 

leadership 

development 

programs to Agency 

personnel and 

prospective hires. 

10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Yes 

Improve outreach to 

potential participants 

for leadership 

development 

programs. 

10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Yes 

Ensure equity during 

hiring process 

10/01/2022 Ongoing Yes 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Assistant Administrator, OEED Soumaya Tohamy Yes 

Assistant Administrator, OM Frank Mays Yes 

Director, Civil Rights Staff Angela Kelly Yes 

All Program Executives Yes 

60
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities Modified Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

01/30/2023 Establish Chief Talent Management 

Officer position to lead the Agency’s 

talent management strategy. 

09/30/2023 Establish Diversity Program Manager 

position to promote DEIA initiatives and 

programs within the Agency, to include 

those related to recruitment and outreach. 

09/30/2023 Partner with at least three affinity groups, 

employee organizations, educational 

institutions, and/or military and civilian 

organizations to broaden recruitment 

outreach efforts and strengthen talent 

pipeline. 

09/30/2023 Promote recruitment incentives for frontline positions. 

09/30/2023 Disseminate Agency leadership 

development program announcements via 

numerous methods that include (but, are 

not limited to): The Food for Thought 

newsletter, the FSIS Gateway Listserv, 

SEPMs, and FSIS EEO Advisory 

Committees. 

09/30/2023 Increase and enhance career development 

resources to assist with internal 

promotions. 

09/30/2023 Implement upward mobility program for 

field personnel. 

09/30/2023 Issue annual mandatory EEO, Civil 

Rights, and Diversity and Inclusion 

training and ensure completion. 

09/30/2023 Provide recruitment and hiring resources 

to hiring managers. 

61
 

 

 

 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal 

Year 

2022 

Accomplishments 

1. In FY 2022, FSIS ranked second best among agencies in USDA on time-to-hire, 

with a 95-day average time-to-hire as compared with the USDA average of 108 

days. 

2. FSIS continued to complement its Model EEO program with its talent management 

pilot program, which entered its second year in FY 2022 and is set for expansion in 

FY 2023. The program was designed to improve the quality and diversity of 

applicant pools and leverage the opportunity to be competitive with private industry 

through virtual career fairs and recruiting events. FSIS’ internal workgroup, 

consisting of representatives across the Agency, developed new recruitment 

materials, including tailored “Insider View” stories that provide first-person 

accounts of different employees’ roles in the Agency and how they help protect 

public health. Through these tools, the Agency expanded its outreach to over 1,400 

schools and alumni associations with a reach of nearly 10 million students and 

graduates and covering over one third of all minority-serving institutions. FSIS also 

entered a partnership with the State University of New York, resulting in the 

opportunity to directly recruit for positions within the largest comprehensive 

university system in the United States by participating in over 10 STEM events. As 

a result, the Agency was able to fill positions in data science fields and attract those 

interested in veterinary medicine, microbiology, and information technology. 

Results from recruitment events, including print and digital promotion in targeted 

spaces, garnered significant successes throughout the year. Two such events 

occurred in Dodge City, Kansas, where the Agency successfully recruited and hired 

67 new FIs. This staff expansion further enhances FSIS’ capabilities to meet its 

critical public health mission. 

3. FSIS continued to use incentives as a recruitment strategy. During FY 2022, 395 

inspectors signed on to receive an incentive. Additionally, recruitment incentives 

were offered to 28 newly hired VMOs and retention incentives to 205 currently 

employed VMOs. In FY 2022, 75 VMOs received student loan repayments of 

$10,000 each. Additionally, to invest in the future of the Agency’s workforce, the 

Adel A. Malak Scholars program, a Federal employment pathway for qualified 

veterinary students to train for careers at FSIS, offered tuition assistance up to 

$15,000 per year for up to four years. In FY 2022, FSIS converted seven scholars of 

the Adel A. Malak Scholars program to permanent VMO positions and offered 14 

new scholarships. Since 2017, 35 veterinary students have completed the program 

and converted to full time FSIS VMOs. At the end of FY 2022, FSIS approved a 

referral bonus award incentive for employees who refer new qualified in-plant FIs, 

CSIs, VMOs to join FSIS. This initiative, which will begin in FY 2023, grants 

$1,000 to the referring FSIS employee once their referred new hire has onboarded 

and performed successfully for 90 days. 

4. FSIS’ digital presence significantly expanded across recruitment platforms such as 

LinkedIn, Handshake, Craigslist, Indeed, ZipRecruiter, Facebook, and Twitter. To 

increase the diversity and breadth of candidates applying for specialized laboratory 

positions, FSIS shared announcements via its new talent management tool, 

62
 

12Twenty. The tool reached 31 schools with diverse student populations, including 

private and public universities and land grant colleges. By growing its digital 

presence on LinkedIn, FSIS saw an increase of 264 percent in total update 

impressions and a 222 percent increase in new followers. Based on initial data 

across platforms, hundreds of applicants used these digital tools to find FSIS 

positions, with a notable increase in interest from those in under-represented groups. 

FSIS learned, anecdotally, that many applicants only found out about the available 

positions through these digital platforms and had been previously unaware of 

Federal employment opportunities on USAJobs.gov. FSIS continues to participate 

in virtual and in-person career fairs, course lectures, and national veterinary 

conferences to promote career opportunities. 

5. The Agency implemented various recruitment incentive initiatives providing 

monetary incentives for hard-to-fill locations and payment of moving expenses to 

first duty station; monetary incentives with service agreements to newly appointed 

VMOs, FIs, and CSIs; public transit subsidies in select areas; and participation in 

the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. 

6. To inform recruitment strategy, FSIS created an internal recruitment dashboard to 

provide insights into the mission-critical field inspector recruitment processes. 

7. In August 2022, FSIS launched the Professionals with Disabilities page on the FSIS 

website to serve as an outreach knowledge bank for managers and PWD seeking 

information on disability intelligence training and strategies for recruiting, hiring, 

retaining, and advancing PWD. FSIS assisted 36 veterans (both internal and 

external candidates) and PWD with resume building and job searches, which 

resulted in the placements of 10 veterans and one PWD. These process 

improvements have allowed FSIS to issue job offers more quickly and secure 

quality candidates amidst high competition with private industry. 

8. To support career growth within the Agency, FSIS developed and published four 

visual career pathway charts showing possible avenues for employees to develop a 

career in FSIS. FSIS laboratory leadership, for example, created a forum to discuss 

the skills needed to develop staff not only within their current positions, but also 

prepare them for future opportunities including leadership. 

9. All supervisors received training on “Diversity Recruiting,” which discussed biases 

in the recruitment processes and strategies for achieving success. This type of 

training was paramount to building a workforce more representative of America and 

ensuring the Agency can best meet the needs of all whom it serves. Other 

mandatory trainings in FY 2022 covered topics such as cyber security, ethics, 

reasonable accommodation, and fostering equity in the workplace to prevent 

harassment, bullying, and retaliation. 

10. FSIS launched a new initiative in support of continuous development that permits 

each employee up to 40 hours of training of their choice. In support of this new 

initiative, FSIS’ “Help Resources” button on employee e-Devices (computers and 

mobile phones) launched a new feature that highlights suggested trainings. 

63
 

11. FSIS hosted EEO events throughout the year, such as special emphasis observances 

and for the second year, a virtual diversity and inclusion conference with sessions 

on inclusive mindset, gender bias, hidden disabilities, and conflict resolution. 

12. Agency internet and intranet websites: Continued improvements were made to 

modernize the public facing website to improve page layouts, search capabilities, 

and make enhancements to security and 508 requirements. This was to enhance 

user experiences including improving communication of information and Agency 

resources to applicants for employment. Modernization of the FSIS Intranet for 

similar improvements to information and resources for employees continues with 

replacement by a USDA-wide solution. 

64
 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier: 

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

Large and small cash 

award participation 

rate in comparison to 

the participation rate 

of the Permanent 

Workforce. 

Total 

Workforce – 

Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity 

and Sex 

(Table A1), 

Employee 

Recognition 

and Awards 

participation 

rates (Table 

A13) 

Awards 

Cash Awards of $500 and Below 

FSIS issued 10,786 cash awards of $500 or less. When 

analyzing the distribution of awards in this category, the 

award rate for Black males (7.3%) and females (12.4%) 

and Asian males (2.5%) was lower than their expected 

participation rate within the workforce. 

Cash Awards of $501 and Above 

FSIS issued 11,085 cash awards of $501 or more. When 

analyzing the distribution of awards in this category, the 

award rate for Hispanic females (5.1%), Black males 

(7.2%) and females (13.3%), and AI/AN males (0.7%) 

and females (0.6%) was lower than their expected 

participation rate within the workforce. 

Cash Awards by Mission Critical Occupation 

Consumer Safety Inspection (CSI) (GS-1862): The award 

rate for Black females (13.0%) in the CSI occupation was 

lower than their expected participation rate within the 

workforce. 

Food Inspector (FI) (GS-1863): The award rate for Black 

males (9.0%) and females (13.2%) in the FI occupation 

was lower than their expected participation rate within 

the workforce. 

Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO) (GS-701): The 

award rate for Asian males (1.4%) in the VMO 

occupation was lower than their expected participation 

rate within the workforce. 

65
 

 

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group 

Hispanic females; Black males and females; 

Asian males; and AI/AN males and females 

(based on overall award distribution) 

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data 

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) 

Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables Yes 

Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity 

and Sex (Table A1); Employee Recognition and 

Awards participation rates (Table A13); Insight 

Reports Providing Performance Award Data by 

Mission Critical Occupation (MCO). 

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes 

No FEAR Report; i-Complaint data relating to the 

EEO complaints that include bases and claims 

relevant to awards 

Grievance Data (Trends) No 

Findings from Decisions 

(e.g., EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

Not 

Applicable The Agency had no findings in FY 2022 

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS) Yes 

Employee climate surveys administered on four work 

units as part of the Title VII employment compliance 

reviews and FEVS data 

Exit Interview Data No 

Focus Groups No 

Interviews No 

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM) No 

Other (Please Describe) Yes Title VII compliance reviews 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

Yes Yes 

66
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

A barrier may exist that is impacting the award actions for various race and sex categories. This 

conclusion is based on the disproportionate impact noted for some minority groups. 

Cash Awards $500 and Below 

In FY 2022, FSIS issued 10,786 cash awards of $500 or less. The expected range for each race and 

sex category was established using a 10% variance above and below each category’s respective 

workforce participation rate. Award rates lower than the range (i.e., less than the lower bound of the 

range) equated to negative impact. Using this method, the lower bound for Black males was 8.4%, 

but the award rate was 7.3%. The lower bound for Black females was 15.2%, yet the award rate 

was 12.4%. The lower bound for Asian males was 2.9%, but the award rate was 2.5%. 

Cash Awards of $501 and Above 

In FY 2022, FSIS issued 11,085 cash awards of $501 and above. The lower bound for Hispanic 

females was 6.1%, but the award rate was 5.1%. The lower bound for Black males was 8.4%, but 

the award rate was 7.2%. The lower bound for Black females was 15.2%, but the award rate was 

13.3%. The lower bound for AI/AN males was 0.9%, but the actual award rate was 0.7%. The 

lower bound for AI/AN females was 0.9%, but the award rate was 0.6%. 

Cash Awards by MCO 

When looking at cash award distribution by MCO, several minority groups were disproportionately 

awarded in one or more of the MCOs. 

Black males: A disproportionate impact was identified in the FI occupation; the lower bound for 

this group was 9.8%, but their award rate was 9.0%. 

Black females: A disproportionate impact was identified for Black females in two (2) MCOs. In 

the CSI occupation, the lower bound for Black females was 14.0%, but their award rate was 13.0%. 

In the FI occupation, the lower bound for Black females was 16.0%, but their award rate was 

13.2%. 

Asian males: A disproportionate impact was identified for Asian males in the VMO occupation; 

the lower bound for this group was 3.5%, but their award rate was 1.4%. However, while the cash 

awards issued to Asian males in VMO positions may be disproportionate, the total dollar value of 

the cash awards received appear to be in line with other categories. All Asian males received at 

least one cash award in FY 2022. They either received at least one award of $500 or less or at least 

one award of $501 or more. 

Two or More Races males: A disproportionate impact was identified in the distribution of cash 

awards for TMR males in the FI occupation; the lower bound was 0.2%, but their award rate was 

0.0%. However, determination of a barrier cannot be determined for TMR males because the 

population of employees in this category is too small. 

Two or More Races females: A disproportionate impact was identified for TMR females in the 

VMO occupation; the lower bound was 0.1%, but their award rate was 0.0%. However, 

determination of a barrier cannot be determined for TMR females because the population of 

employees in this category is too small. 

67
 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective 

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyyy 

) 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy 

) 

Sufficien 

t 

Funding 

& 

Staffing? 

(Yes or 

No) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy 

) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

Continue to ensure 10/01/2021 09/30/2022 Yes 09/30/2023 

the consistent and 

fair administration of 

the USDA’s two-tier 

performance 

management and 

awards programs, 

under which 

Achievement 

Awards, NonMonetary Awards, 

Quality Step 

Increases and 

Recognition Coins 

are awarded. 

Continue to ensure 10/01/2021 09/30/2022 Yes 09/30/2023 

nonmonetary awards 

programs are 

available to 

supervisors and 

managers. 

Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Assistant Administrator, OM Frank Mays Yes 

Assistant Administrator, OEED Soumaya Tohamy Yes 

Chief Financial Officer Cara LeConte Yes 

Assistant Administrator, OPARM Geraldine French Yes 

All Program Executives Yes 

68
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities Modified Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

9/30/2023 Administer the FY 2022 

Administrator’s Awards for 

Excellence nomination 

process and publicize in 

employee publications. 

09/30/2023 Market the Agency’s awards 

programs through employee 

publications, EEOACs, and 

SEPMs to promote the 

importance and availability of 

employee recognition. 

09/30/2023 Continue the Agency’s 

Achievement Award Program 

for all personnel. 

03/31/2023 Monitor work units’ awards 

spending to ensure 

supervisors and managers are 

sufficiently utilizing awards 

funds. 

03/31/2023 Monitor application of awards 

across various demographic 

categories. 

69
 

 

Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal Accomplishments Year 

1. FSIS continued to ensure its employee recognition programs aligned with the 

Agency’s strategic goals. The Agency established quarterly goals for award 

spending and closely monitored program areas’ award budget execution to ensure 

all available award money was utilized by supervisors to recognize employees. 

2022 

2. Agency leadership discussed FSIS awards and specifically recognized work units 

and employees during multiple monthly employee Town Hall meetings. Leadership 

also featured related information in the Agency’s weekly newsletter, Food for 

Thought, and posted award and recognition content on the Inside FSIS intranet site. 

3. Agency leadership held the FY 2022 Administrator’s Awards for Excellence 

ceremony on September 14, 2022, to publicly recognize FSIS employees, 

supervisors, and groups for the contributions in nine (9) award categories. These 

areas included: Administrator’s Award for Excellence in Food Safety; 

Administrator’s Award for Excellence in Transformation and Innovation; 

Administrator’s Award for Operational Excellence; Administrator’s Award for 

Excellence in Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility; Administrator’s 

Award for Excellence in Customer Service; Administrator’s Award for Employee 

of the Year (In Plant/Non-In Plant); and Administrator’s Award for Supervisor of 

the Year (In Plant/Non-In Plant). 

4. FSIS leveraged its resources in OCFO to perform a comprehensive Achievement 

Awards equity analysis of FY 2021 awards data, looking at award distribution by 

work unit, location, grade level, race/national origin, and sex. The analysis was 

presented to FSIS’ leadership team in September 2022. 

70
 

 

 

 

 

Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier: 

Source of the 

Trigger 

Specific 

Workforce 

Data Table 

Narrative Description of Trigger 

Total Separation 

rates compared to 

Total Participation 

rates using 10% 

variance and standard 

deviation analyses. 

Total 

Workforce – 

Distribution by 

Race/Ethnicity 

and Sex 

(Table A1), 

Separations 

Separations/Retention 

Using a standard deviation analysis, separation rates for 

females were significantly disproportionate when 

compared to their total workforce representation. 

Total separations: The rates at which AI/AN females 

(1.3%) separated from service were higher than their 

workforce participation rates. While similar separation 

rates were identified in the FY 2021 barrier analysis, 

there was marginal improvement observed in the rate of 

separations between fiscal years. 

Voluntary Separations: The voluntary separation rate 

for AI/AN females (1.2%) was higher than their 

participation rate. While similar separation rates were 

identified in last year’s barrier analysis, there was 

marginal improvement observed in the rate of 

separations between fiscal years. 

Involuntary Separations: The involuntary separation 

rates for Black females (27.7%), Black males (11.88%), 

and AI/AN females (1.98%) were higher than their 

participation rates. Black and AI/AN females had 

separation rates approaching double their participation 

rates. 

EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger 

EEO Group 

Females as a group, Females – Black/African 

American, Females – American Indian/Alaska 

Native, Males – Black/African American 

71
 

 

 

Barrier Analysis Process 

Sources of Data 

Source 

Reviewed? 

(Yes or No) 

Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables Yes 

Total Workforce – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity 

and Sex 

(Table A1), Employee Separations by Type of 

Separation – Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex 

(Table A14) 

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes No FEAR Report; EEOC 462 report; iComplaints 

data 

Grievance Data (Trends) No 

Findings from Decisions 

(e.g., EEO, Grievance, 

MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

Not 

Applicable The Agency had no findings in FY 2022 

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS) No 

Employee climate surveys administered on four work 

units as part of Title VII employment compliance 

reviews and FEVS data 

Exit Interview Data No 

Focus Groups No 

Interviews No 

Reports (e.g., Congress, 

EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM) No 

Other (Please Describe) Yes Title VII compliance reviews 

Status of Barrier Analysis Process 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? 

(Yes or No) 

Barrier(s) Identified? 

(Yes or No) 

Yes Yes 

Statement of Identified Barrier(s) 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

Barriers may exist that are impacting retention of various race and sex categories. This conclusion 

is based on the disproportionate impact noted for some groups. 

Unfavorable work life balance and pay limitations contribute to job dissatisfaction: 

72
 

 

 

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice 

Front-line staffing shortages and pay limitations may create challenges that contribute to work-life 

balance and retention issues (doubling/tripling of assignments, mandatory overtime, working the 

slaughter line to cover vacancies, detail assignments to cover vacancies, inability to retain staff in 

high cost of living areas). 

Prior to accepting positions, applicants may not fully understand work schedules and travel 

requirements may conflict with work/life balance. In addition, working conditions and other 

factors such as interactions with industry personnel may result in job dissatisfaction and attrition. 

Limited job placement opportunities as a reasonable accommodation or in work reductions: 

Medical requirements of front-line positions may disqualify some employees who become 

disabled in the course of employment resulting in disability retirements or removals since there are 

limited Department-wide positions to which to reassign these employees. 

Work reductions resulting from industry adoption of the New Poultry Inspection System create a 

surplus of Food Inspectors with limited local placement. 

Failure to satisfy training as a condition of employment requirements: 

Employees promoted into positions with training as a condition of employment may fail to 

successfully complete the on-line training and testing requirements; this could result in demotion, 

removal, retirement, or resignation. 

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan 

Objective 

Date 

Initiated 

(mm/dd/yyy 

y) 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyy 

y) 

Sufficient 

Funding & 

Staffing? 

(Yes or No) 

Modified 

Date 

(mm/dd/yy 

yy) 

Date 

Completed 

(mm/dd/yyy 

y) 

Develop, implement, 

and advertise 

recruitment and 

retention incentives 

10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Yes 

Continue transparent 

communication, 

information sharing, 

solicitation of 

employee feedback, 

and training within 

the Agency 

10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Yes 

Promote employee 

engagement, 

empowerment, and 

retention 

10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Yes 

73
Responsible Official(s) 

Title Name 

Performance 

Standards Address the 

Plan? 

(Yes or No) 

Assistant Administrator, OPACE Carol Blake Yes 

Assistant Administrator, OM Frank Mays Yes 

Assistant Administrator, OFO Philip Bronstein Yes 

Assistant Administrator, OEED Soumaya Tohamy Yes 

Director, Civil Rights Staff Angela Kelly Yes 

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective 

Target Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities Modified Date (mm/dd/yyyy) 

Completion Date 

(mm/dd/yyyy) 

9/30/2023 Gather employee feedback 

from Agency exit surveys and 

assess for conditions/trends 

contributing to retention 

issues. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Issue annual mandatory EEO, 

Civil Rights, and Diversity 

and Inclusion training and 

ensure completion. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Advertise employee 

awards/recognition programs 

and career development 

programs through Town Hall 

meetings, employee 

publications, EEOACs, 

SEPMs, and program alumni 

to promote awareness of 

available opportunities. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Implement and advertise 

recruitment and retention 

incentives to front-line 

positions. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Advertise tuition 

reimbursements for 

continuing education and 

training programs available to 

all employees 

Yes 

74
09/30/2023 Explore flexible work 

arrangements for employees 

that promote work-life 

balance. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Implement the Workforce 

Investment Initiative Pilot, a 

program designed to help 

field employees envision their 

careers within the Agency. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Evaluate efficacy of on-line 

training versus in-person 

instructor led training for 

positions subject to training as 

a condition of employment 

Yes 

75
Report of Accomplishments 

Fiscal 

Year 

2022 

Accomplishments 

1. Recruitment and retention initiatives: Recruitment initiatives that were implemented 

included monetary incentives for hard-to-fill locations and payment of moving expenses 

to first duty station; monetary incentives with service agreements to newly appointed 

VMOs, FIs, and CSIs; public transit subsidies in select areas; and participation in the 

Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. At the end of FY 2022, FSIS approved a 

referral bonus award incentive for employees who refer new qualified in-plant FIs, CSIs, 

and VMOs to join FSIS. The initiative, which will begin in FY 2023, grants $1,000 to the 

FSIS employee making the referral once their referred new hire has onboarded and 

performed successfully for 90 days. Retention initiatives implemented included 

government-paid move for geographic relocation for competitive promotions; relocation 

bonus up to 25% of base pay to accept position and establish residence in hard-to-fill 

locations on case-by-case basis; paid moving expenses with service agreement to 

Veterinarians to relocate to hard-to-fill locations; retention bonus up to 25% of base pay 

with service agreement to Veterinarians who complete service periods; Student Loan 

Repayment Program with service agreement to in-plant Veterinarians and other 

occupations on case-by-case basis; family friendly workplace alternatives including less 

than full time work schedules in select locations; and provision of free EAP services. 

2. Continuing Education Program, College Tuition reimbursement: Participation in the 

program for college tuition reimbursement was expanded to include all FSIS employees 

who are permanent, full-time employees in good standing with a minimum of one year of 

service with FSIS at the time of application. All eligible employees may qualify for up to 

$5,000 per fiscal year in tuition reimbursement towards graduate or undergraduate college 

courses from accredited colleges or universities. 

3. Agency-wide exit surveys: Biannual analyses of data were completed and feedback 

provided to programs identifying contributing factors to employee attrition, including 

those identified by and impacting PWD/PWTD. 

4. Agency leadership development programs: Competitive announcements for the Federal 

Executive Institute and FSIS Escalade Leadership Development Program, and 

announcements for the New Supervisor Training Program were communicated through 

multiple sources including the FSIS Gateway Listserv, Food for Thought newsletter, 

SEPMs, EEOACs, and program graduates. Virtual and offsite training opportunities were 

provided to new and experienced FSIS employees to satisfy USDA and FSIS mandates. 

This included open-enrollment programs such as the Learning Trove Program (for all 

employees), the FSIS Gateway Program (for supervisors), the Escalade Leadership 

Development Program (for supervisors), the New Supervisor Training Program, and the 

Experienced Supervisor Training Program. 

5. I-Impact: My Agency, My Career initiative: Career journey visual maps for Food 

Inspectors and Consumer Safety Inspectors were developed and published to the 

Employee Help site button, and a FSIS Notice was issued. 

6. RA and PAS processes: Mandatory AgLearn training was issued to all employees on 

FSIS RA processes and procedures. A recorded RA training session was posted to the 

Supervisory Help button. The RA team published three articles in the Agency Food for 

Thought newsletter, provided eight training sessions to districts/programs, and regularly 

met with customers to assist with needs. 

76
7. Mandatory EEO/CR training: FSIS RA training was provided to all employees and 

Diversity Recruitment training was provided to all supervisors and managers. 

77
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MD-715 – Part J 

Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention 

of Persons with Disabilities 

To capture agencies’ affirmative action plan for PWD and PWTD, EEOC regulations (29C.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 CFR §1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific 

numerical goals for increasing the participation of persons with disabilities and persons 

with targeted disabilities in the federal government 

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

PWD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) 

in the text box. 

Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Answer: Yes 

Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Answer: No 

In the GS-1 to GS-10 cluster, PWD comprise 7.90%. This grade cluster is primarily representative of the in-plant 

inspection workforce where the FI and CSI mission critical positions have medical requirements that may potentially 

disqualify persons with physical disabilities 

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

PWTD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) 

in the text box. 

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

Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Answer: No 

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

and/or recruiters. 

The Civil Rights Director holds annual “State of the Agency” briefings with hiring managers who include the 

Agency Head, Deputy Administrator, 11 Assistant Administrators, and 10 District Managers. Numerical 

employment goals for PWD/PWTD are presented and each program’s current PWD/PWTD representation is 

discussed with recommendations for improvement. Disability employment representation and numerical 

employment goals are also communicated to the FSIS Disability Employment Program Manager, to each program 

area and district EEOAC and are identified in the Agency’s annual MD-715 report posted on the Agency’s website. 

78
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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

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

Disability Program Task 

# of FTE Staff By Employment Status 

Responsible Official (Name, Title, 

Full Time Part Office Email) 

Time 

Collateral 

Duty 

Architectural Barriers Act Compliance 1 0 0 Yolanda Chambers, Director 

Office of Management (OM) 

Administrative Services Division 

Yolanda.chambers@usda.gov 

Processing applications from PWD and PWTD 35 0 0 Laura Frantes, Assistant Director 

OM, Office of Human Resources (OHR) 

laura.frantes@usda.gov 

Special Emphasis Program for PWD and PWTD 1 0 0 Tisha Lighty-Cain, Consumer Safety 

Inspector, Office of Field Operations 

Philadelphia District 

Tisha.lighty@usda.gov 

Processing reasonable accommodation requests 

from applicants and employees 

2 0 0 OM, Human Resources Business 

Systems Division, Program 

Management and Information 

Systems Branch 

ReasonableAccommodations@usda.gov 

John Paul Antonetti, Chief 

Section 508 Compliance 1 0 0 Kyna Fernandez, Management Analyst, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

kyna.fernandez@usda.gov 

Answering questions from the public about 

hiring authorities that take disability into 

account 

35 0 0 Laura Frantes, Assistant Director 

OM-OHR 

laura.frantes@usda.gov 

79
 

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. 

The RA Advisors attend annual training and stay updated on relevant authorities and information 

pertaining to RA and disability employment. All employees received training on USDA and FSIS RA 

processes and procedures in FYs 2021 and 2022. All 35 HR Specialists who process employment 

applications are required to complete training on Veterans Employment. This training covers the use of 

special hiring authorities for veterans, including 30% or more disabled veterans, as well as Schedule A 

authority used to hire PWTD. 

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities 

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

the recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to 

identify outcomes of the agency’s recruitment program plan for PWD and PWTD. 

A. PLAN TO IDENTIFY JOB APPLICANTS WITH DISABILITIES 

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

disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities. 

The Agency continued to use a distribution list of numerous programs and resources that serve PWD and 

PWTD; information such as vacancies at FSIS and other career information was shared with these groups and 

programs during FY 2022. The list includes the following: USDA’s Veterans and Disability Employment 

Program Managers, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Employment Coordinators, Soldier for Life 

Transition Assistance Programs, National and State Vocational Rehabilitation Offices, Student Veterans of 

America, and LinkedIn professional groups for Veterans and Professionals with Disabilities and Centers for 

College Students with Disabilities located across the country. 

FSIS’ Veterans and Disability Recruitment Program Coordinator assisted veterans and candidates with 

disabilities in the job recruitment process, provided resume guidance, assisted establishing USAJOB accounts, 

and answered questions on veterans’ preference, non-competitive hiring and the application process. The 

Coordinator also: used the Workforce Recruitment Program and USAJobs Resume Mining to locate and refer 

qualified candidates eligible for non-competitive hiring to FSIS positions; shared FSIS student employment 

vacancies listed in the Workforce Recruitment Program database with disabled students which also included 

disabled veterans; and maintained a resume repository to retain and manage unsolicited applications of 

qualified veterans and applicants with disabilities. This recruitment tool was used by HR Specialists during 

strategic recruitment discussions with districts and program areas, and potential applicants were referred to 

hiring managers for consideration. 

80
 

 

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

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

workforce. 

FSIS continued to utilize Schedule A authority and the Veterans Recruitment authority or 30% or More 

Disabled Veteran authority to recruit disabled candidates and disabled veterans. Agency vacancy 

announcements available on USAJobs were open to status candidates, veterans, and Schedule A applicants 

concurrently. 

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 for positions on USAJobs, they indicate whether they are eligible for and are 

applying under Schedule A authority. When reviewing applications, HR Staffing Specialists are able to 

determine the applicants’ qualifications and Schedule A eligibility. Once the review is complete, applicants 

who are eligible and qualified to be hired under a special hiring authority are referred to the hiring manager 

for consideration. 

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 X No 

In FY 2022 all hiring managers were required to take Veteran Employment training; the training covers the use 

of special hiring authorities for veterans, including the 30% or more disabled veterans and Schedule A. For 

new supervisors, training on the use of special hiring authorities was also a part of course content provided at 

each FSIS New Supervisors Training Program session. 

The Veterans and Disability Recruitment Program Coordinator also trained hiring managers on special hiring 

authorities used to recruit disabled veterans and PWDs. This training also included the use of hiring 

flexibilities and consideration of disabled veterans, professionals with disabilities and targeted disabilities. 

81
 

 

 

 

 

B. PLAN TO ESTABLISH CONTACTS WITH DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT 

ORGANIZATIONS 

During FY 2022, FSIS continued to collaborate with the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Regional 

Employment Coordinators, Soldier for Life Transition Assistance Programs, National and State 

Vocational Rehabilitation Offices, Student Veterans of America, the Viscardi Center, and Centers for 

College Students with Disabilities located nationwide. These collaborations included ensuring that 

potential applicants were informed about FSIS career opportunities or to request referrals of qualified 

non-competitive applicants. FSIS also continued to promote job announcements on professional groups 

such as LinkedIn for veterans and PWD. 

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

PWD, including PWTD, in securing and maintaining employment. 

C. PROGRESSION TOWARDS GOALS (RECRUITMENT AND HIRING) 

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

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

the triggers below. 

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

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

Triggers were identified for PWD and PWTD. PWD had a permanent new hire rate of 6.6%, which was 

disproportionately lower than the benchmark of 12%, and PWTD had a permanent new hire rate of 

1.7%, also disproportionately lower than the benchmark of 2% 

2. Using the Qualified Applicant Pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD 

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

triggers below. 

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

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

Using the qualified applicant pool as a benchmark, triggers were identified for two (2) MCOs for PWD. For 

GS-1862 CSIs, the rate of new hires for PWD (2.6%) was below the qualified applicant pool (4.5%). For GS1863 FIs, the rate of new hires for PWD (2.1%) was below the qualified applicant pool (2.7%). 

Triggers were also identified for two (2) MCOs for PWTD; for GS-1862, the rate of New Hires for PWTD 

(1.3%) was below the qualified applicant pool (4.5%). for GS-1863, the rate of new hires for PWTD (0.8%) 

was below the qualified applicant pool (1.1%). 

82
 

 

 

 

3. Using the Relevant Applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD 

among the Qualified Internal Applicants for any of the mission- critical occupations (MCO)? If 

“yes”, describe the triggers below. 

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 

b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 

Using the relevant applicant pool as a benchmark, triggers were identified for two (2) MCOs for PWD. For 

GS-1862 CSIs, the rate of qualified applicants for PWD (4.3%) was below the relevant applicant pool 

(7.2%). For GS-701 VMOs, the rate of qualified applicants for PWD (5.0%) was below the relevant 

applicant pool (8.5%) 

Triggers were also identified for three (3) MCO for PWTD. For GS-1862 CSIs, the rate of qualified 

applicants for PWTD (0.8%) was below the relevant applicant pool (2.2%). For GS-1863 FIs, the rate of 

qualified applicants for PWTD (0.0%) was below the relevant applicant pool (1.6%). For GS-701 VMOs, 

the rate of qualified applicants PWTD (2.0%) was below the relevant applicant pool (2.8%). 

4. Using the Qualified Applicant Pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD 

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

describe the triggers below. 

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Yes X No 

b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes No X 

Using the qualified applicant pool as a benchmark, triggers were noted for one (1) MCO for PWD. For GS701 VMOs, the rate of promotions for PWD (2.9%) was below the qualified applicant pool (5.0%). 

83
 

 

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 

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

advancement. 

FSIS’ competitive leadership development programs are open to all Agency GS employees and 

Commissioned Corps Officers who have a minimum performance rating of “Fully Successful” and 

obtain supervisory acknowledgement of the candidate’s intention to compete for program 

participation. Applications do not contain names or demographic data and are reviewed and rated by 

an external contractor to ensure objectivity. For competitive leadership development programs, top 

scoring applications are selected based on available funding. 

B. CAREER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

1. Describe career development opportunities the agency provides to employees. 

FSIS New Supervisor Training Program: Increases participants’ self-awareness and develops new 

knowledge, perspectives, behaviors, and skills to manage employees within the context of supervision. 

Target Audience: Permanent FSIS Supervisors in their first or second year as a Supervisor. 

FSIS Experienced Supervisor Training Program: A one-week classroom training and on-line training 

modules assigned to assist supervisors in meeting training requirements, increasing knowledge about latest 

practices, and maintaining skills already developed. Target Audience: Permanent FSIS Supervisors with one 

or more years of supervisory experience. 

FSIS Gateway Program: A Supervisors’ Path to Continual Learning: Provides FSIS 

Supervisors with ongoing training and resources to support successful management, mentoring and 

coaching of employees. Target Audience: All FSIS Supervisors. 

FSIS Learning Trove Program: Provides facilitator-led, daytime and evening webinars and traditional 

classroom instruction that may include assessment tools, books, and videos. Target Audience: All FSIS 

Employees. 

FSIS Virtual Escalade Leadership Development Program: Addresses the need for Agency succession 

planning and enhances Agency leadership competencies by offering development to current and aspiring 

leaders within FSIS who may assume future formal leadership positions. Target Audience: GS-9 through 

GS-13 Non-supervisors and Supervisors, and Commissioned Corps Offices O-3 and O-4. 

Federal Executive Institute (FEI) - Leadership for a Democratic Society (LDS): Designed to prepare 

senior-level government executives for complex challenges of leadership through expert instruction and 

experiential learning. The program develops visionary leaders who can transform their organizations and 

government. Target Audience: GS-15 or equivalent/military officer rank of O-6 or above, and GS-14 

employees who have executive-level duties and are granted an OPM waiver to participate. 

84
 

 

 

Continuing Education Program, College Tuition Reimbursement Program: Provides eligible 

employees that qualify up to $5,000 per fiscal year in tuition reimbursement towards graduate or 

undergraduate college courses from accredited colleges or universities. In accordance with FSIS notice 34-

22, this program is open to all employees. 

Continuous Development Program: The Continuous Development Initiative offers employees at least 40 

hours of development and training per fiscal year to be completed during their tour of duty and encourages 

them to utilize FSIS’ “Help Resources” button on employee e-Devices (computers and mobile phones) that 

highlights suggested trainings. 

These programs are publicized through the Agency’s weekly Food for Thought newsletter, EEOACs, 

and SEPMs for optimal marketing visibility to employees with disabilities. 

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

and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate. 

Career 

Development 

Opportunities 

Total Participants PWD PWTD 

Applicants 

(#) 

Selectees (#) Applicants 

(%) 

Selectees (#) Applicants 

(%) 

Selectees (#) 

Federal 

Executive 

Institute 15 15 0% 0 0% 0 

FSIS Gateway 

Program 278 278 9% 25 4% 12 

FSIS New 

Supervisor 

Training Program 114 114 6% 7 3% 4 

Learning Trove 

Program 

1367 1367 8% 122 4% 55 

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

programs? (The appropriate benchmarks are the Relevant Applicant pool for the applicants and the 

Applicant Pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Applicants (PWD) Yes No X 

b. Selections (PWD) Yes No X 

85
4. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development 

programs identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the Relevant Applicant Pool for applicants 

and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Applicants (PWD) Yes No X 

b. Selections (PWD) Yes No X 

86
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. AWARDS 

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

PWTD for any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD) Yes No X 

b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes No X 

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

and/or PWTD for quality step increases or performance-based pay increases? If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Yes No X 

b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes X No 

When comparing the rate of Quality Step Increases (QSI) with the inclusion rate, the rate of QSIs for 

PWD (7.69%) and PWTD (0%) was below the inclusion rate for PWD (8.60%) and PWTD (2.69%). 

The differences fell outside the 10% variance. 

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

disproportionately less than employees without disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is the inclusion 

rate.) If “yes”, describe the employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box. 

a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Yes No N/A X 

b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes No N/A X 

Non-monetary awards are a form of employee recognition, but distribution of these awards is not 

tracked. 

87
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. PROMOTIONS 

1. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the Qualified Internal Applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the Relevant 

Applicant Pool for Qualified Internal Applicants and the Qualified Applicant Pool for selectees.) For 

non-GS pay plans, use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text 

box. 

a. SES 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) N/A 

b. Grade GS-15 

c. 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) 

Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) 

Yes X 

Yes 

Yes X 

No 

No X 

No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 

d. Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 

The qualified internal applicant rate for PWD was below the permanent employment rate in the relevant 

applicant pool for three (3) grade levels. The qualified internal applicant rate was 5.6% for GS-13s, 

while the relevant applicant pool was 9.9%. The qualified internal applicant rate was 7.0% for GS-14s, 

while the relevant applicant pool was 12.1%. The qualified internal applicant rate was 4.4% for GS-15s, 

while the relevant applicant pool was 15.3%. 

The internal selection rate for PWD was below the permanent employment rate in the qualified internal 

applicant for three (3) grade levels. The internal selection rate was 2.5% for GS-13s, while the qualified 

internal applicant rate was 5.6%. The internal selection rate was 4.0% for GS-14s, while the qualified 

internal applicant rate was 7.0%. The internal selection rate was 0.0% for GS-15s, while the qualified 

internal applicant rate was 4.4%. 

2. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the Qualified Internal Applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the Relevant 

Applicant Pool for Qualified Internal Applicants and the Qualified Applicant Pool for selectees.) For 

non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s)in the 

text box. 

a. SES 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) N/A 

b. Grade GS-15 

• Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 

• Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No X 

88
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. Grade GS-14 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 

d. Grade GS-13 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 

The qualified internal applicant rate for PWTD was below the permanent employment rate in the 

relevant applicant pool for two (2) grade levels. The qualified internal applicant rate was 3.1% for GS13s, while the relevant applicant rate was 3.5%. The qualified internal applicant rate was 0.0% for GS15s, while the relevant applicant rate was 4.4%. 

The internal selection rate for PWTD was below the permanent employment rate in the qualified 

internal applicant pool for two (2) grade levels. The internal selection rate was 0.8% for GS-13s, while 

the qualified internal applicant rate was 3.1%. The internal selection rate was 0.0% for GS-14s, while 

the qualified internal applicant rate was 3.9%. 

3. Using the Qualified Applicant Pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non- GS pay plans, please use the 

approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) N/A 

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Yes X No 

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes X No 

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes No X 

The new hiring rate for PWD was below the qualified applicant rate for three (2) grade levels. The new hire 

rate was 0.0% for GS-13s, while the qualified applicant rate was 2.9%. The new hire rate was 0.0% for GS14s, while the qualified applicant rate was 1.1%. 

4. Using the Qualified Applicant Pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non- GS pay plans, please use the 

approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) N/A 

b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Yes No X 

c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) Yes X No 

d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes X No 

89
 

 

The new hiring rate for PWTD was below the qualified applicant rate for two (2) grade levels. The new hire 

rate was 0.0% for GS-13’s, while the qualified applicant rate was 0.7%. The new hire rate was 0.0% for GS14’s, while the qualified applicant rate was 1.1%. 

5. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the Qualified Internal Applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the Relevant 

Applicant Pool for Qualified Internal Applicants and the Qualified Applicant Pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Executives 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) N/A 

b. Managers 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No X 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No X 

The qualified applicant rate for PWD was below the permanent employment rate in the relevant applicant pool 

for supervisors and managers. The qualified applicant rate was 3.2% for Supervisors, while the relevant 

applicant pool was 10.6%. The qualified applicant rate was 4.4% for Supervisors, while the relevant applicant 

pool was 15.3%. 

The internal selection rate for PWD was below the permanent employment rate in the qualified applicant rate 

for Managers. The internal selection rate was 0.0% for Managers, while the qualified applicant rate was 4.4%. 

90
 

 

 

6. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the Qualified Internal Applicants and/or 

selectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the Relevant 

Applicant Pool for Qualified Internal Applicants and the Qualified Applicant Pool for selectees.) If “yes”, 

describe the trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. Executives 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) N/A 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) N/A 

b. Managers 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 

c. Supervisors 

i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes X No 

ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 

The qualified internal applicant rate for PWTD was below the permanent employment rate in the relevant 

applicant pool. The qualified internal applicant rate was 0.1% for Supervisors, while the relevant applicant 

pool was 3.2%. The qualified internal applicant rate was 0.0% for Managers, while the relevant applicant 

pool was 4.3%. 

The internal selection rate for PWTD was below the permanent employment rate in the qualified internal 

applicant rate for Supervisors. The internal selection rate was 0.0% for Supervisors, while the qualified 

internal applicant rate was 2.6%. 

7. Using the Qualified Applicant Pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) 

b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) 

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

X 

X 

No 

No 

The new hiring rate for PWD was below the qualified internal applicant rate for Supervisors. The new 

hire rate was 0.0% for Supervisors, while the qualified internal applicant rate was 2.7%. 

8. Using the Qualified Applicant Pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving 

PWTD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the 

trigger(s) in the text box. 

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) N/A 

b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Yes X No 

c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes X No 

91
 

 

 

 

 

 

The new hiring rate for PTWD was below the qualified internal applicant rate for Supervisors. The new hire 

rate was 0.0% for Supervisors, while the qualified internal applicant rate was 1.8%. 

Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities 

To be a model employer for PWD, 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”, explain why the agency did not convert all eligible Schedule A 

employees. 

Yes X No 

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

involuntary separations exceed that of persons withoutdisabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger 

below. 

a. Voluntary Separations (PWD) Yes No X 

b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes No X 

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

involuntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes”, describe 

the trigger below. 

a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 

b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes No X 

The voluntary separation rate for PWTD (3.0%) was above the inclusion rate for PWTD (2.7%), also 

exceeding the 10% variance range. 

92
4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, explain why they left the 

agency using exit interview results and other data sources. 

Exit Survey data was collected in FY 2022 by the Agency; however, the analysis had not been 

completed in time to be included with this report. 

B. ACCESSIBILITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITIES 

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and employees of their 

rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b), concerning the accessibility of 

agency technology, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151-4157), concerning the 

accessibility of agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to inform individuals where to file complaints 

if other agencies are responsible for a violation. 

1. Provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining employees’ 

and applicants’ rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a description of 

how to file a complaint. 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-directives/1300.4 

2. Provide the internet address on the agency’s public website for its notice explaining employees’ 

and applicants’ rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of how to file 

a complaint. 

The government buildings in which Agency employees are located are leased from the U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA). Thus, FSIS compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act is met via GSA’s ABA’s 

posted information. 

Accessible Facility Design | GSA 

National Accessibility Program Standards, Policies and Procedures (gsa.gov) (Online Architectural Barriers 

Act (ABA) Complaint Form (access-board.gov)) 

93
 

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

over the next fiscal year, designed to improve accessibility of agency facilities and/or technology. 

During FY22 and continuing into FY23, FSIS will be updating its forms to ensure they are 508 compliant. 

Additionally, OCIO staff is participating in a training program for 508 compliance testing. This two-part 

training program will initially cover the fundamentals of 508 manual testing, including analyzing Word and 

PDF documents and how to make them 508-compliant. The second part of the course will concentrate on the 

creation of a testing procedure leveraging 508 tools, such as JAWs and browser extensions, as well as 

automated testing tools (Deque's Axe DevTools, WAVE, and SiteImprove Accessibility Checker). Once 

complete OCIO personnel will identify the best 508 testing tools for the Agency's requirements. These tools 

will be integrated in the Agency's application testing lifecycle to improve accessibility to FSIS forms. 

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. Provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodations during the 

reporting period. (Do not include previously approved requests with repetitive accommodations, such as 

interpreting services.) 

The average timeframe for processing initial RA requests for FY 2022 was 13 days. 

2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the agency’s 

reasonable accommodation program. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing 

requests, timely providing approved accommodations, conducting training for managers and 

supervisors, and monitoring accommodation requests for trends. 

The Agency continued to use a tracking and recordkeeping system to improve case processing times and to 

maintain program accountability. A total of 148 cases were processed in FY 2022, reflecting a net increase of 

2.7% (4 cases) from FY 2021. The percentage of timely processed requests was 93%, reflecting a 3% increase 

from FY 2020 (90%). Furthermore, USDA’s RA procedures allow for extended timeframes in specific 

extenuating circumstances. The 7% that were not processed within the prescribed timeframe met the criteria 

for those extenuating circumstances, as described in the Departmental Regulation. Continued efforts to 

improve processing timeframes for RA requests were demonstrated by delivering continued training to 

supervisors/managers, adding additional managerial review/approval levels above the first level supervisor in 

the processing of RA requests, and adhering to due dates for Agency receipt of complete employee 

documentation before closing cases. 

94
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 PAS to employees who need them because of a targeted disability, unless doing so would 

impose an undue hardship on the agency. 

Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS 

requirement. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests for PAS, 

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

monitoring PAS requests for trends. 

The Agency did not receive any requests for PAS in FY 2023. 

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data 

A. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING HARASSMENT 

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

alleging harassment, as compared to the governmentwide average? 

No. The government-wide average of all PWD alleging harassment was 21.98% based on most recent EEOC data 

(FY 2022). The Agency-wide average of complainants who are PWD who filed harassment complaints was 7.5% in 

FY 2022. 

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, there were four complaints, each resulting in a settlement agreement. 

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 

B. EEO COMPLAINT DATA INVOLVING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION 

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

complaint alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, as compared to the

government-wide average? 

No. Agency 12.5%, government-wide average 14.03%. 

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

accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement? 

95
 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there were three complaints, each resulting in a settlement agreement. 

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide 

a reasonable accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective 

measures taken by the agency. 

N/A 

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers 

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

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

group. 

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

employment opportunities for PWD and/or PWTD? 

Yes X No 

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

PWTD? 

Yes X No 

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

objective(s), responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, 

accomplishments. 

Trigger(s) 

Triggers for disproportionate impact were identified when employment 

percentages fell outside a 10% variance range from applicable benchmarks. 

New Hires: 

Triggers were identified for PWD and PWTD when looking at new hires. PWD had 

a permanent new hire rate of 6.6%, which was disproportionately lower than 

EEOC’s benchmark of 12%, and PWTD had a permanent new hire rate of 1.7%, also 

disproportionately lower than the benchmark of 2%. 

Mission critical occupations (MCOs): When analyzing MCO hiring data, the 

Agency compared the demographic data of those selected to the demographic data of 

the qualified applicant pool. Using the qualified applicant pool as a benchmark, 

triggers were identified in two (2) MCOs for PWD. For the GS-1862 CSI 

occupation, the rate of new hires (selections) for PWD (2.6%) was below the 

qualified applicant rate (4.5%). For the GS-1863 FI occupation, the rate of new hires 

for PWD (2.1%) was below the qualified applicant rate (2.7%). 

Triggers were also identified in two (2) MCOs for PWTD. For the GS-1862 CSI 

occupation, the rate of new hires for PWTD (1.3%) was below the qualified applicant 

rate (4.5%). For the GS-1863 FI occupation, the rate of new hires for PWTD (0.8%) 

was below the qualified applicant rate (1.1%). 

96
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grades (GS-1 to GS-10): In the GS-1 to GS-10 cluster, PWD account for 7.9% of 

new hires. This grade cluster is primarily representative of the in-plant inspection 

workforce where FI and CSI mission critical positions have medical requirements 

which may potentially disqualify a person with physical disabilities. 

Senior Grade level (GS 13 to GS 15): When looking at the senior level positions, the 

rate of new hires (selections) for PWD was below the qualified applicant pool for 

two (2) senior grade levels. The new hire rate was 0.0% at the GS-13 grade level, 

while the qualified applicant rate was 2.9%. The new hire rate was 0.0% at the GS14 grade level, while the qualified applicant rate was 1.1%. 

The rate of new hires for PWTD was also below the qualified applicant pool for two 

(2) senior grade levels. The new hire rate was 0.0% at the GS-13 grade level, while 

the qualified applicant rate was 0.7%. The new hire rate was 0.0% at the GS-14 

grade level, while the qualified applicant rate was 1.1%. 

Supervisors and Managers: The rate of new hires for PWD and PWTD among 

supervisory positions was below the qualified applicant pool. The new hire rate for 

PWD was 0.0% for supervisory positions, while the qualified applicant rate was 

2.7%. The new hire rate for PWTD was 0.0%, while the qualified applicant rate was 

1.8%. 

The rate of new hires for PWD and PWTD among managerial positions was below 

the qualified applicant pool. The new hire rate for PWD and PWTD for managerial 

positions was 0.0%, while the qualified applicant rates were 3.9% and 1.5%, 

respectively. 

Applicant workflow data was not available for SES positions. 

Promotions: 

MCOs: When analyzing MCO promotions data, the Agency assessed 

disproportionate impact at two stages of the hiring process: qualifications and 

selections. To identify disproportionate impact during the qualifications process, the 

Agency compared the demographic data of those that qualified to the demographic 

data of the relevant applicant pool. Using this as the benchmark, triggers were 

identified among those that qualified for two (2) MCOs for PWD. For the 1862 CSI 

occupation, the rate that PWD qualified (4.3%) was below the relevant applicant 

pool (7.2%). For the GS-0701 VMO occupation, the rate PWD qualified (5%) was 

below the relevant applicant rate (8.5%). 

Triggers were also identified for two (2) MCOs for PWTD. For the GS-1863 

occupation, the rate of qualified applicants for PWTD (0.0%) was below the relevant 

applicant rate (1.6%). For the GS-0701 VMO occupation, the rate of qualified 

applicants for PWTD (2.0%) was below the relevant applicant rate (2.8%). 

To identify disproportionate impact during the selections process, the Agency 

compared the demographic data of those selected to the demographic data of the 

qualified applicant pool. Using the qualified applicant pool as a benchmark, triggers 

in selections were identified in one (1) MCO for PWD. For the GS-0701 VMO 

occupation, the rate at which PWD were selected for promotions (2.9%) was below 

the qualified applicant rate (5.0%). 

There were no triggers identified for PWTD among those selected for promotions. 

97
 

 

 

 

 

Barrier(s) 

Senior Grades (GS-13 to GS-15): When looking at the senior level positions, the rate 

of promotion for PWD was below the qualified applicant pool for all three (3) senior 

grade levels. The selection rate was 2.5% for PWD at the GS-13 grade level, while 

the qualified applicant rate was 5.6%. The selection rate was 4% at the GS-14 grade 

level, while the qualified applicant rate was 7%. The selection rate was 0.0% at the 

GS-15 grade level, while the qualified applicant rate was 4.4%. 

The rate of promotions for PWTD was below the qualified applicant pool for two (2) 

senior grade levels. The selection rate was 0.8% at the GS-13 grade level, while the 

qualified applicant rate was 3.1%. The selection rate was 0.0% at the GS-14 grade 

level, while the qualified applicant rate was 3.9%. 

Supervisors and Managers: 

The selection rate for PWTD among supervisory positions (0.0%) was below the 

qualified applicant rate (2.7%). PWD were proportionately represented among 

promotions into supervisory positions. 

The selection rate for PWD among managerial positions (0.0%) was below the 

qualified applicant rate (4.4%). PWTD were proportionately represented among 

promotions into managerial positions. 

Applicant workflow data was not available for SES positions. 

Separations: 

Voluntary Separations: The voluntary separation rate for PWTD (3.0%) was above the 

inclusion rate for PWTD (2.7%), also exceeding the 10% variance range. 

New Hires and Promotions: 

Institutional barriers may exist for positions in MCOs regarding medical 

qualifications, physical requirements, or job requirements (such as tours 

of duty, mandatory overtime, travel requirements, and relocation) that 

result in insufficient qualified applicant pools and/or the eventual 

disqualification of applicants during the hiring process. 

An attitudinal barrier may exist among hiring officials that disadvantages 

disabled candidates from receiving objective consideration for positions, 

including those in the three MCOs and positions at senior level grades. 

This attitudinal barrier may continue to exist despite continued training 

of hiring officials on the use and benefits of special hiring authorities, 

recurring strategic staffing discussions between HR and hiring officials, 

and awareness of the EEOC’s targeted affirmative employment goals. 

Separations: 

Institutional barriers may exist regarding supervisory resistance or 

misunderstanding regarding the continuing obligation to engage in the 

interactive RA process; the limited Agency job placement options for 

employees who become disabled during employment; and supervisory 

decisions determining if/when accommodations constitute undue Agency 

hardship. These factors may contribute to the disproportionate percentage 

of PWTD who voluntarily separate. 

98
 

 

Objective(s) 

Increase the numbers of PWD/PWTD within qualified applicant pools and improve 

percentages of PWD/PWTD hired and promoted with an emphasis on MCOs and 

senior grade levels to align with appropriate benchmarks. 

Continue improvements to the RA Program through issuance of a supplemental 

Agency directive, advertising and promoting the availability of online RA resources, 

and continuing Agency-wide education and training efforts. 

Responsible Official(s) Performance Standards Address the 

Plan? 

Chief Human Capital Officer, RA Advisors, Chief 

Training Officer, Hiring Officials, Supervisors and 

Managers 

Yes 

Barrier Analysis Process Completed? Barrier(s) Identified? 

Yes Yes 

Sources of Data 

Sources 

Reviewed? Identify Information Collected 

Workforce Data Tables Yes 

Total Workforce – Distribution by 

Disability (Table B1); Participation rates by 

GS grades (Tables B4-1); Participation 

rates for Major Occupations (Table B6-1); 

Permanent Hires by Disability (Table B-1); 

Employee Recognition and Awards by 

Disability (Table B9-1 and B9-2); Total 

Separations by Disability (Table B-1). 

Applicant flow data for Tables B7-1 and 

B7-2 Internal Competitive Promotions and 

Tables B8-1 and B8-2 Internal Selections 

for Senior Level Positions 

99
 

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes 

No FEAR data; iComplaints data involving 

failure to accommodate and disparate 

treatment disability discrimination claims. 

Grievance Data (Trends) No 

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, 

Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment 

Processes) 

No 

Climate Assessment Survey 

(e.g., FEVS) Yes Employee climate surveys administered on four 

work units as part of the Title VII employment 

compliance reviews and FEVS data. 

Exit Interview Data No 

Focus Groups No 

Interviews No 

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, 

MSPB, GAO, OPM) No 

Other: 

Yes Title VII employment compliance reviews 

Target Date Planned Activities Sufficient 

Staffing & 

Funding? 

Modified 

Date 

Completion 

Date 

09/30/2023 Continue to train the workforce on the 

RA process and requirements through 

the following efforts: 

• Providing RA training to 

employees and managers using 

various formats such as 

webinars, YouTube, Adobe 

Connect, and AgLearn. 

• Ensuring the RA team presents 

at least: 2 NSTP training 

sessions, 2 Agency or 

program-wide webinars, and 4 

district/program specific 

information sessions. 

• Publishing at least 2 Food for 

Yes 

100
Thought educational articles 

informing employees of the 

RA process. 

• Regularly meeting with 

supervisors across the Agency 

to assist with their RA needs. 

09/30/2023 Continue to collect and improve 

analyses of applicant flow data for 

employment actions for use in 

trigger identification and barrier 

analysis affecting PWD and PWTD. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Continue to increase outreach 

activities with relevant entities 

working with and providing services 

to disabled persons and veterans. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Continue training efforts on special 

hiring authorities that take disability 

into account; continue to emphasize 

the EEOC target employment goals 

and the availability/benefits of 

utilizing these hiring authorities 

during recurring strategic 

recruitment discussions with hiring 

officials. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Continue to offer details designed to 

provide employees the opportunity 

to spend up to 3 months assigned to 

another program area or to HQ 

component of their program, to 

include a shadowing and mentoring 

program, including PWD and 

PWTD. 

Yes 

09/30/2023 Establish a new Diversity Program 

Manager position that can advocate 

for PWD and PWTD and collaborate 

with the Disability Program Manager 

andAgency supervisors and 

managers to promote the hiring and 

retention of PWD and PWTD. 

Yes 

101
 

 

Fiscal Year 

2022 

2022 

Accomplishments 

FSIS continued to focus on providing RA training to employees, supervisors and 

managers throughout the Agency. In FY 2022, RA trainings were provided through the 

following: 

• Denver District Supervisory Public Health 

Veterinarian Meeting 1/13/2022 

• OPARM All Hands Meeting 2/15/2022 

• Dallas District Front Line Supervisor/Enforcement, 

Investigation, Analysis Officer Meeting 3/30/2022 

• Food for Thought Article 3/24/2022 

• Jackson District Front Line Supervisor Meeting 4/12/2022 

• Chicago District Front Line Supervisor Meeting 5/3/2022 

• OPPD Brown Bag 6/21-23/2022 

• Food for Thought Article 4/28/2022 

• Jackson District Front Line Supervisor Meeting 9/13/2022 

• Des Moines District Front Line Supervisor/ 

Enforcement, Investigation, and Analysis Officer 

Meeting 9/14/2022 

• Food for Thought Article 7/20/2022 

• FSIS continued to implement an Agency-wide exit survey process to identify 

factors, including those identified by and affecting PWD and PWTD, that 

contribute to employee attrition. The survey asked separating employees for 

various demographic information to allow the Agency to analyze the exit survey 

results by disability status as well as other demographic categories. 

• The FSIS Veterans’ Outreach Coordinator continued to conduct outreach 

activities by conducting five (5) site visits and four (4) virtual career fairs 

targeting Veterans and disabled persons, where the Coordinator provided resume 

writing and interview sessions for veterans and disabled persons. The Outreach 

Coordinator provided one-on-one training on Schedule A and the hiring process 

for disabled persons and initiated a partnership with Department of Veterans 

Affairs’ Veteran Readiness and Employment to match qualified veterans and 

disabled persons with jobs. In addition, the coordinator initiated partnerships 

with Gallaudet University. 

• The Agency developed a “Soldier to Ag” coalition with Fort Bragg and North 

Carolina State. FSIS participated in Career Information Briefings and Table Day 

marketing campaigns at Fort Bragg to market to an audience of Veterans, 

Disabled Veterans and transitioning servicemembers. The Agency partnered 

with the Department of Veteran Affairs to conduct Job Club briefings to 

Disabled Veterans to increase awareness of opportunities within the Agency and 

provide resume, job search and interview strategies. In addition, the Outreach 

Coordinator met with Joint Base Lewis-McChord and conducted quarterly 

virtual Brown Bag Sessions. The Agency also continuously provided services to 

countless Veterans and PWD/PWTD to assist them with their resumes, job 

searches, interview skills and job applications. 

• The Agency developed a Persons with Disabilities webpage on the FSIS website 

that includes a Disability Intelligence training library and On Demand training. 

102
 

 

 

 

Hiring managers also have the ability via the webpage to request training on 

Schedule A and other disability-related topics. The webpage can be found at 

Professionals with Disabilities | Food Safety and Inspection Service (usda.gov) 

2022 • The Agency continued to utilize the established HR phone number and email 

address to streamline the process for HR-related inquiries, including those 

related to RA, special emphasis hiring, and WVPRP/harassment. 

2022 • FSIS continued to utilize Department Regulation (DR) 4300-008 Reasonable 

Accommodations and Personal Assistance Services for Employees and 

Applicants with Disabilities as the authority for the FSIS RA program. In 

coordination with the regulation, FSIS submitted a request to the Department to 

use FSIS-developed and OMB approved forms as a part of its RA program; 

FSIS is currently awaiting a determination from the Department. 

2022 • The Agency issued mandatory RA training to all employees; the deadline to 

complete the training was September 30, 2022. FSIS provided additional RA 

training to employees and managers using various means such as webinars, 

YouTube, Adobe Connect, and AgLearn. In addition, the RA office regularly 

provided one-on-one training to employees and supervisors on an informal basis 

as RA requests were being considered. 

2022 • Applicant flow data was pulled from various HR staffing systems, such as USA 

Staffing and the NFC Personnel and Payroll System database. To improve FSIS’ 

ability to collect and analyze the data, Human Resources Operations Division 

(HROD) provided training and direction to their employees to encourage 

applicants to provide their disability and race/ethnicity status when applying for 

a position. This information was electronically collected for reporting and 

analysis. 

2022 • The Agency increased outreach and recruitment activities by partnering with 

Army Career Services, WorkEx and Soldier For Life Transition Assistance 

Program (SFL-TAP) to implement apprenticeship programs specifically for 

Veterans, some of which may be disabled. FSIS’ Human Resources Business 

Systems Division (HRBSD) and HROD collaborated to provide guidance and 

policy information to Veterans and disabled persons. HRBSD maintained 

various contacts/partnerships and increased its outreach activities with current 

contacts to increase the qualified hiring pool. 

2022 • As a practice, FSIS Staffing Specialists conducted Strategic Recruitment 

Discussions (SRD) with hiring officials prior to starting recruitment efforts. 

During the SRD, the importance of diversity hiring, and special hiring 

authorities were discussed. In FY 22, FSIS’ HROD updated the SRD Checklist 

to include a more robust discussion around hiring persons with disabilities and 

veterans, and to include a section emphasizing the importance for hiring officials 

to conduct pre-announcement outreach activities, to include underrepresented, 

disadvantaged and diverse communities. When submitting a recruitment request, 

hiring officials had to complete the Appendix A, which required hiring officials 

to consider the use of non-competitive methods for hiring veterans and persons 

with disabilities. 

103
• The Agency developed a new Internal Operation Procedure to ensure a 

consistent methodology was used among Staffing Specialists to ensure veterans 

and PWD candidates applying for positions outside of a USAJobs application, 

were provided equitable treatment when compared to applicants applying 

through USAJobs. 

• FSIS developed and disseminated a guide for hiring officials to outline and share 

best practices in outreach and hiring activities, with the goal of obtaining a more 

diverse workforce. In support of this effort, it was established as standard 

practice for hiring officials to open their jobs to veterans and PWD, providing 

transparency around the opportunity to apply for FSIS positions. 

• In FY22, the FSIS Veterans and PWD Outreach Coordinator worked 

collaboratively with OPACE to establish a website 

(https://www.fsis.usda.gov/careers/professional-disabilities) to assist hiring 

managers with strategies for recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing 

PWDs. This site serves as an information portal for PWDs because it contains 

information regarding Schedule A, a disability intelligence training library, and 

resources to combat challenges. 

4. Explain factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing any of the 

planned activities. 

Not applicable. 

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

toward eliminating the barrier(s). 

The Agency’s recruitment efforts resulted in the hiring of 58 PWD, with 15 reporting a targeted 

disability. 

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 fiscalyear. 

Multi-year timeframes are needed to realize greater change. The Agency will continue to implement 

and monitor planned activities and will consider additional strategies to further improve the 

representation of PWD and PWTD if changes are not realized. 

104
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FSIS Hispanic Representation Workforce Analysis 

In FY 2017 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) mandated that Federal agencies with at least 1,000 full-time 

equivalent employees conduct a focused barrier analysis on Hispanic employment. In keeping with 

this mandate, on an annual basis, FSIS conducts a comprehensive barrier analysis of the Hispanic 

workforce; this analysis is separate and apart from the overall barrier analysis of the workforce that 

is conducted. 

The results of the FY 2022 barrier analysis indicates that Hispanics represented 12.90% of the total 

FSIS workforce for both permanent and temporary employees. Hispanic females were 6.05% of the 

workforce, below the CLF representation of 6.20%, and Hispanic males were 6.85% of the workforce, 

above the CLF representation of 6.80%. When applying a 10% variance to the respective CLF, neither 

Hispanic females nor males were underrepresented in the FSIS workforce. 

In FY 2022, Hispanic representation in the workforce was primarily at the GS-5, GS-7 and GS-9 grades; 

representation at the GS-12 through SES was as follows: 

GS-12 GS-13 GS-14 GS-15 SES CLF 

Female 3.19% 3.06% 3.27% 20% 0% 6.20% 

Male 4.45% 2.88% 3.27% 0% 7.69% 6.80% 

Hispanic females and males representation at these grades were below their respective CLF or nonexistent (Hispanic females in the SES and males in GS-15). Two Hispanic males (7.69%) were 

represented at the SES level. Hispanic females and males were represented in all the grades and SES 

positions at lower rates than Black and White females and males. 

The barrier analysis has determined that the Agency’s Hispanic females and males were principally 

represented at the GS-5, GS-7 and GS-9 grades; underrepresented at the GS-10 and GS-11 grade levels; 

clustered in GS-12 and GS-13 grades; and underrepresented at the GS-14. Hispanic males were 

completely absent at the GS-15 grade level. The Agency representations at the GS-13 (Hispanic females 

3.06%; males 2.88%) and GS-14 grades (females 3.27%; males 3.27%) were disproportionately below 

the CLF benchmarks and, thus, hindered the advancement of Hispanic females and males into 

leadership and SES positions. 

New Hires 

In FY 2022, the representation of Hispanic male external applicants that applied for GS-13 (9.84%), 

GS-14 (7.14%) and GS-15 (8.57%) positions was equal to or above the CLF (6.80%) and Agency 

(6.51%) benchmarks. Hispanic female external applicant rates for GS-13 (5.49%) and GS-15 (5.00%) 

positions were below both the CLF (6.20%) and the Agency (5.73%) benchmarks. The percentage of 

Hispanic female external applicants for GS-14 (6.12%) was below the CLF (6.80%) but was above the 

Agency benchmark (5.73%). 

The representation of qualified external Hispanic female (8.20%) and male applicants (10.07%) at the 

GS 13 level was above the CLF (Hispanic females, 6.20%; males 6.80%) and Agency (Hispanic 

females, 5.73%; males 6.51%) benchmarks. At the GS-14 grade, the rates of qualified Hispanic female 

applicants (1.54%) and qualified male external applicants (4.62%) were both below the CLF (Hispanic 

females, 6.20%; males 6.80%) and Agency (Hispanic females, 5.73%; males 6.51%) benchmarks. At 

the GS-15 level, there were no qualified female or male Hispanic external applicants. These mixed 

results in terms of both the number of applicants and qualified applicants suggests that outreach to 

105
Hispanics, Hispanic organizations, and at Hispanic-focused outreach/recruitment events should improve 

in order to better target Hispanics applying for GS-13 through GS-15 grades. 

Internal Promotions 

In FY 2022, the representation of Hispanic male internal applicants that applied for GS-13 (5.45%) and 

GS-14 (5.78%) positions was below both the CLF (6.80%) and Agency (6.51%) benchmarks. The 

percentage of Hispanic male internal applicants for GS-15 positions (14.47%) exceeded both 

benchmarks. The rate of Hispanic female internal applicants for GS-13 positions (6.03%) was below 

the CLF (6.20%) but above the Agency (5.73%) benchmark. The percentage of Hispanic female 

internal applicants for GS-14 (4.73%) positions was below both the CLF and Agency benchmarks. The 

percentage of Hispanic female internal applicants for GS-15 (7.89%) positions exceeded both the CLF 

and Agency benchmarks. 

The representation of qualified internal Hispanic female (3.86%) and male applicants (5.60%) at the 

GS-13 level were below both the CLF (Hispanic females, 6.20%; males 6.80%) and Agency 

benchmarks (Hispanic females 5.73%; males 6.51%). Qualified internal Hispanic female applicants at 

the GS-14 (4.73%) and GS-15 (5.41%) levels were below both benchmarks. Hispanic male internal 

applicants at the GS-14 (7.10%) and GS-15 (16.22%) surpassed both benchmarks. 

Table 1 shows the representation of internal Hispanic females and males among those that applied, 

qualified and selected permanent GS-13 through GS-15 positions during FY 2022. Four internal 

Hispanic male applicants were selected for GS-13 positions, and one was selected for a GS-14 position. 

No internal Hispanic male applicants were selected for GS-15 positions. Four internal Hispanic female 

applicants were selected for GS-13 positions. No internal Hispanic female applicants were selected for 

GS-14 or GS-15 positions. 

Table 1: FSIS Hispanic Internal Selections for GS-13 through GS-15, FY 2022 

Grade Female Male 

GS-13 

Total Applicants 

Total 

Hispanic 

2,238 

1270 968 

(56.75) (43.25%) 

135 122 

(6.03%) (5.45%) 

Qualified 

Total 

Hispanic 

613 423 

(59.17%) (40.83%) 

40 58 

(3.86%) (5.60%) 

Selected 

 

 

 

 

I I 

Total 

Hispanic 

62 40 

(60.78%) (39.22%) 

4 4 (3.92%) (3.92%) 

106
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GS-14 Total Applicants 571 

Total 245 

(42.91%) 

326 

(57.09%) 

Hispanic 27 

(4.73%) 

33 

(5.78%) 

Qualified 

Total 68 

(40.24%) 

101 

(59.76%) 

Hispanic 8 (4.73%) 12 

(7.10%) 

Selected 

Total 10 

(52.63%) 

9 

(47.37%) 

Hispanic 0 

(0.00%) 

1 

(5.26%) 

GS-15 

Total Applicants 76 

Total 25 

(32.89%) 

51 

(67.11%) 

Hispanic 6 (7.89%) 11 

(14.47%) 

Qualified 

Total 16 

(43.24%) 

21 

(56.76%) 

Hispanic 2 (5.41%) 6 

(16.22%) 

Selected 

Total 3 

(75.00%) 

1 

(25.00%) 

Hispanic 0 

(0.00%) 

0 

(0.00%) 

Both the number of applicants and number of qualified applicants suggest that barriers may exist for 

Agency Hispanic female and male employees that are preventing them from applying, qualifying and 

being selected for positions at the GS-13 grade level and higher. This may reveal a need for increased 

communications regarding vacancy announcements and career and leadership development 

opportunities as well as guidance on the hiring process (i.e., application requirements, resume writing, 

interview skills, etc.). 

107
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I 

FSIS Hispanic Representation Across Agency Mission Critical Occupations 

The Agency’s mission critical occupations (MCO) and series are: Veterinary Medical Science (VMS) -

0701; Consumer Safety Inspection (CSI) - 1862; and Food Inspection (FI) - 1863. When applying a 

10% variance from the Relevant CLF (RCLF), Hispanic females and males were represented within the 

expected range for almost all MCOs. Only for the FI occupation did Hispanic males (9.8%) fall below 

the RCLF (19.0%) 

Table 2 shows the FY 2022 applicant flow data for Hispanic applicants and selections for MCO 

permanent positions. For the VMS occupation, there were no Hispanic female applicants that were 

selected. Hispanic males in this occupation were selected at a rate of 18.75%, well above their VMS 

representation in the Agency workforce of 2.65%. Hispanic females qualified for positions in this MCO 

at a rate of 3.85% and Hispanic males at a rate of 5.77%. 

In the CSI occupation, Hispanic female applicants were selected at a rate of 10.51%, above their CSI 

representation in the Agency workforce of 5.51%. Hispanic males were selected at a rate of 8.41%, 

above their CSI representation on the Agency workforce of 7.51%. Hispanic females qualified for CSI 

positions at a rate of 9.01% and Hispanic males at a rate of 9.47%. 

In the FI occupation, Hispanic female applicants were selected at a rate of 14.05%, above their FI 

representation in the Agency’s workforce of 5.51%. Hispanic males were selected at a rate of 16.12%, 

above their FI representation on the Agency workforce of 7.51%. Hispanic females qualified for FI 

positions at a rate of 12.19% and Hispanic males at a rate of 18.14%. 

Table 2: FSIS MCO Applicant Flow Data for Hispanic Employees, FY 2022 

Applicants for FSIS MCO Female Male 

Veterinary Medical Science (0701) (Grade Range: GS-11 to GS-15) 

Total Applicants 99 

Applicants Self-Identified 

Total 53 

(53.54%) 

46 

(46.46%) 

Hispanic 7 

(7.07%) 

7 

(7.07%) 

Qualified 

Total 36 

(69.23%) 

16 

(30.77%) 

Hispanic 2 

(3.85%) 

3 

(5.77%) 

Selected 

Total 10 

(62.50%) 

6 

(37.50%) 

Hispanic 0 

(0.00%) 

3 

(18.75%) 

108
Consumer Safety Inspection (1862) (Grade Range: GS-5 to GS-10) 

Total Applicants 3,607 

Applicants Self-Identified 

1739 1868 Total (48.21%) (51.79%) 

309 380 Hispanic (8.57%) (10.54%) 

Qualified 

Total 1175 

(53.48%) 

1022 

(46.48%) 

Hispanic 198 

(9.01%) 

208 

(9.47%) 

Selected 

 

 

 

Total 166 

(49.85%) 

167 

(50.15%) 

Hispanic 35 

(10.51%) 

28 

(8.41%) 

109
 

 

 

 

 

Food Inspection (1863) (Grade Range: GS-5 and GS-9) 

Total Applicants 2,567 

Applicants Self-Identified 

Total 

Hispanic 

1172 

(45.66%) 

322 

(12.54%) 

1395 

(54.34%) 

452 

(17.61%) 

Qualified 

Total 

Hispanic 

678 

(49.20%) 

168 

(12.19%) 

700 

(50.80%) 

250 

(18.14%) 

Selected 

Total 

Hispanic 

123 

(50.83%) 

34 

(14.05%) 

119 

(49.17%) 

39 

(16.12%) 

Comparing Hispanics to the overall applicant flow: 

• In the MCO of VMO, Hispanic males, White females, Black females and Asian males were 

selected at rates above their representations among qualified applicants. Hispanic females, 

White males, Black males, and Asian females were selected at rates below their representations 

among the qualified applicants; 

• In the MCO of CSI, Hispanic females, White males and females, Asian males and females, 

NHPI females, AI/AN males and TMR males were selected at rates that surpassed their 

representations among qualified applicants. Hispanic females, Black males and females, NHPI 

males, AI/AN females, and TMR females were selected at rates below their representations 

among the qualified applicants; and 

• In the MCO of FI, Hispanic females, White males and females, Black females, Asian females, 

and AI/AN males and females were selected at rates over their representations among qualified 

applicants. Hispanic males, Black males, Asian males, NHPI males and females, and TMR 

males and females were selected at lower rates than their representations among qualified 

applicants. 

Chart 1 compares rates of internal competitive promotions for Hispanic employees compared to their 

separation rates. In FY 2022, one Hispanic female was selected for a VMO position; 60 were selected 

for CSI positions; and one was selected for a FI position. One Hispanic male was selected for a VMO 

position; 62 were selected for CSI positions; and one was selected for a FI position. Meanwhile, 

Hispanic females separated at a rate of 5.48% and Hispanic males at a rate of 3.29%. The separation 

rate of Hispanic females exceeded their internal competitive promotion selection rate for the VMO 

110
 

 

 

 

 

■ ■ 

occupation (3.45%). Their separation rate was less than their respective selection rates for the CSI 

(13.51%) and FI (20.00%) occupations. Hispanic males separated at a rate below their internal 

competitive promotion selection rate for the VMO (3.45%), CSI (13.96%) and FI (20.00%) occupations. 

Chart 1: FSIS Hispanic MCO Internal Competitive Promotions Compared to Separations, FY 2022 

Veteranary Medical Science 

Separations 

3. 

3.2 

45% 

9% 

3.29% 

3.2 9%

16.94% Consumer Safety Inspectors 

Separations 

20.00% Food Inspectors 

Separations 

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 

Hispanic Male Hispanic Female 

Root Cause Analysis and Actions Taken 

One of the issues that may contribute to the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the Agency is outreach. 

It is possible that vacancy announcements about positions in FSIS are not reaching potential internal 

and/or external Hispanic candidates. To remedy this, during FY 2022, the Agency continued its efforts 

to increase Hispanic representation in the workforce through several outreach efforts. Vacancy 

announcements were posted and shared with numerous Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and other 

entities, including workforce centers, that have large Hispanic populations. The outreach efforts also 

focused on veterinary and animal science programs. For internal candidates, the Agency ensured that 

vacancy announcements were distributed via email and posted in work units. FSIS also utilized its 

Hispanic SEP Manager’s network to announce and promote job opportunities as well as publicize career 

development programs that may assist internal candidates advance and/or secure internal promotions. 

Training may be another factor contributing to the underrepresentation of Hispanic employees in senior 

grade level positions. For this reason, among others, the Agency has made a variety of leadership and 

development training available to the FSIS workforce. The following virtual training and development 

programs were available to employees: (1) New Supervisor Training Program (NSTP); (2) Experienced 

Supervisor Training; (3) Escalade Leadership Development Program; (4) Learning Trove Program; and 

(5) Gateway and Mentoring programs. These programs, which were also available to Hispanics, aimed 

111
 

 

 

to assist with career development and advancement into senior grade levels. A breakdown of Hispanic 

employees who attended or participated in these trainings is provided below. 

Table 3: FSIS Hispanic Employees Training Participation, FY 2022 

FSIS Training Program Hispanic Employees 

Trained 

New Supervisor Training Program 13 

Gateway Program 18 

Learning Trove Program (includes open-enrollment and customized 

training) 

94 

Total: 125 

FSIS Best Practices 

In FY 2022, FSIS delivered the mandatory training Reasonable Accommodations to the workforce and 

Diversity Recruiting training to FSIS supervisors and managers. This training was provided to both 

educate and provide guidance to its workforce. The training was added to employees’ learning plans in 

the USDA department-wide system known as AgLearn. 

Additionally, four (4) Title VII compliance reviews were completed, and reports were given to the 

Agency’s respective management officials. The reviews provided the work unit with information 

regarding their work unit and recommendations for improvements that would ensure equitable treatment 

for all employees. 

In FY 2022, Special Emphasis Program Managers (SEPMs) worked with USDA’s Diversity and 

Inclusion Managers to ensure that the Department promoted USDA programs and services and 

addressed the matters relevant to each of the special emphasis programs. Additionally, during FY 2022, 

FSIS observed Hispanic Heritage Month, Unidos: Inclusivity for a Stronger Nation by providing 

employees with a virtual event with Professor Carlos Rodriguez Sallaberry, Departments of Agricultural 

Technology and Natural Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, Utuado Campus. 

112