Human Capital: Diversity in the Federal SES and Processes for Selecting New Executives
Published: 2008-11-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A diverse Senior Executive Service (SES), which generally represents the most experienced segment of the federal workforce, can be an organizational strength by bringing a wider variety of perspectives and approaches to policy development and implementation, strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making. In a January 2003 report (GAO-03-34), GAO provided data on career SES members by race, ethnicity, and gender as of October 2000 and a statistically estimated projection of what the profile of the SES would be in October 2007 if appointment and separation trends did not change. In response to a request for updated information on the diversity in the SES, GAO is providing information from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (1) on the representation of women and minorities in the SES and the SES developmental pool (i.e., GS-15 and GS-14 positions) for the executive branch as of fiscal year 2007 and comparing this representation to fiscal year 2000 levels and to levels GAO projected for October 2007 in its 2003 report; (2) for fiscal years 2000 and 2007, the average age at which women and minorities were appointed to and retired from the SES as well as information on those in the SES reporting targeted disabilities; and (3) on the overall processes used in executive branch agencies for selecting and certifying members into the SES.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The representation of women and minorities in the SES and the SES developmental pool increased governmentwide from October 2000 through September 2007, but increases did not occur in all agencies. Over these 7 years, increases occurred in more than half of the 24 major executive branch agencies, but in both 2000 and 2007 the representation of women and minorities continued to vary significantly at those agencies. In 2003, we projected that increases would occur in the representation of women and minorities in the SES and SES developmental pool by 2007. These increases generally did occur. Looking beyond racial, ethnic, and gender profiles, GAO also reviewed the average age at appointment to and retirement from the career SES as well as the disability status reported by career SES employees for fiscal years 2000 and 2007. For the most part, career SES members were, on average, about age 50 at the time of their appointment to the SES and about age 60 at the time of their retirement. The average age at appointment to and retirement from the career SES generally did not vary much by race, ethnicity, or gender. GAO also calculated how long, on average, individuals served in the SES, and found that the length of their stay in the SES did vary. For example, women stayed in the SES longer than men; women who voluntarily retired stayed, on average, for 11.4 years, and men who voluntarily retired stayed, on average, for 8.8 years. The average length of service among minorities ranged from 4.1 years for Asian/Pacific Islander women to 12 years for American Indian/Alaska Native men. Governmentwide less than 1 percent of the career SES in 2000 and 2007 had self-reported targeted disabilities, and their representation declined slightly over this time. Executive branch agencies have established processes for selecting members into the SES and have developmental programs that are designed to create pools of candidates from which new members can be selected. These agencies use Executive Resources Boards to review the executive and technical qualifications of eligible candidates for initial SES career appointments and make recommendations based on the best qualified. An OPM-administered board reviews candidates' qualifications before appointment to the SES.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government continues to face new and more complex  challenges in the 21st century resulting from long-term fiscal constraints,  changing demographics, and other factors. Leadership in agencies across  the federal government, especially at senior executive levels, is essential to  providing accountable, committed, consistent, and sustained attention to  human capital and related organizational transformation issues. The  federal government’s senior corps generally represents the most  experienced segment of the federal career workforce. Having a diverse  senior corps can be an organizational strength that can bring a wider  variety of perspectives and approaches to bear on policy development and  implementation, strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making.
Over the past several years, we have reported on the diversity of the  Senior Executive Service (SES). For example, we issued a January 2003  report that included both a comprehensive review of career SES by race,  ethnicity, and gender governmentwide as of October 2000 and a  statistically estimated projection of what the profile of the SES would be  in October 2007 if appointment and separation trends did not change.  Earlier this year, we testified on the diversity of the SES again by race,  ethnicity, and gender governmentwide, comparing the results of our 2003  report with the representation of the SES in September 2007. This report  goes beyond the representation of the SES in 2007 to include other  characteristics of the diversity of the SES, specifically age of SES members  and disability status.
As requested, this report updates our January 2003 report and provides  information (1) on the representation of women and minorities in the SES  and the SES developmental pool (i.e., GS-15 and GS-14 positions) for the  executive branch as of fiscal year 2007 and compares this representation  to fiscal year 2000 levels and to levels we projected for the end of fiscal  year 2007 in our 2003 report; (2) for fiscal years 2000 and 2007, the average  age at which women and minorities were appointed to and retired from  the SES, the average length of service among those appointed to the SES  in fiscal year 1990, as well as information for 2000 and 2007 on the  representation of individuals with targeted disabilities among the SES;  and (3) on the overall processes used in executive branch agencies for  selecting and certifying members into the SES. The information provided  for objectives (1) and (3) was reported earlier this year in testimony.
For this report, we extracted representation data for the SES and the SES  developmental pool governmentwide and by Chief Financial Officers Act  (CFO) agencies for October 2000 and September 2007 from the Office of  Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). We  also extracted data from the CPDF to identify average age at appointment  and retirement and using those data calculated the mean and median ages  of those appointed to or retired from the SES in fiscal years 2000 and 2007.  We also calculated how long individuals, on average, served in the SES. To  do so, we analyzed data from the CPDF on those appointed to the SES in  fiscal year 1990 and followed those individuals through fiscal year 2007 to  determine how many were still in the SES. Finally, we identified from the  CPDF the representation of individuals in the SES who reported that they  had targeted disabilities. We believe the CPDF is sufficiently reliable for  the informational purpose of this report because we previously reported  that governmentwide data from the CPDF for the key variables in this  report—agency, gender, race or national origin, pay plan or grade, and  disability status—were 96 percent or more accurate. Some data on the  SES and the SES developmental pool for 2000 in this report differ from  data in our prior products.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2008 through  November 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: OPM and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) each  play important roles in ensuring equal employment opportunity (EEO) in  the federal workplace through their leadership and oversight of federal  agencies. In their oversight roles, OPM and EEOC require federal agencies  to analyze their workforces, and both agencies also report on  governmentwide representation levels. Under OPM’s regulations  implementing the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program  (FEORP), agencies are required to determine where representation levels  for covered groups are lower than in the civilian labor force and take steps  to address those differences. Agencies are also required to submit annual  FEORP reports to OPM in the form prescribed by OPM. EEOC’s  Management Directive 715 (MD-715) provides guidance and standards to  federal agencies for establishing and maintaining effective equal  employment opportunity programs, including a framework for executive  branch agencies to help ensure effective management, accountability, and  self-analysis to determine whether barriers to equal employment  opportunity exist and to identify and develop strategies to mitigate or  eliminate the barriers to participation. Specifically, EEOC’s MD-715  states that agency personnel programs and policies should be evaluated  regularly to ascertain whether such programs have any barriers that tend  to limit or restrict equitable opportunities for open competition in the  workplace. The initial step is for agencies to analyze their workforce data  with designated benchmarks, including the civilian labor force. If analyse of their workforce profiles identify potential barriers, agencies are to  examine all related policies, procedures, and practices to determine  whether an actual barrier exists. EEOC requires agencies to report the  results of their analyses annually. In addition, EEOC recently issued a  report on the participation of individuals who reported targeted  disabilities in the federal workforce. Targeted disabilities are those  disabilities that the federal government, as a matter of policy, has  identified for special emphasis. The targeted disabilities are deafness,  blindness, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis,  convulsive disorders, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of  limb and/or spine.
section_title: Women and Minorities in the Career SES and the SES Developmental Pool Increased Governmentwide between 2000 and 2007, and Their Representation in the SES Increased in More Than Half of the Agencies
paragraphs: The data that we are reporting provide a demographic snapshot of the  career SES as well as the levels that serve as the SES developmental pool  for October 2000 and September 2007. Table 1 shows that  governmentwide, the number and percentage of women and minorities in  the career SES and SES developmental pool increased between October  2000 and September 2007.
As shown in table 2, the percentage of both women and minorities in the  SES increased in 15 of the 24 CFO Act agencies by 2007. For the remaining  CFO Act agencies, most experienced an increase in either the percentage  of women or minorities between October 2000 and September 2007.
As we reported in 2003, the gender, racial, and ethnic profiles of the career  SES at the 24 CFO Act agencies varied significantly in October 2000. The  representation of women ranged from 13.7 percent to 41.7 percent, with  half of the agencies having 27 percent or fewer women in the career SES.  For minority representation, rates varied even more and ranged from   3.1 percent to 35.6 percent, with half of the agencies having less than   15 percent minorities in the career SES. In 2007, the representation of  women and minorities, both overall and in more than half of the individual  agencies, was higher than it was in October 2000. The representation of  women ranged from 19.9 percent to 45.5 percent with more than half of  the agencies having 30 percent or more women. For minority  representation, rates ranged from 6.1 percent to 43.8 percent, with more  than half of the agencies having over 16 percent minority representation,  and more than 90 percent of the agencies having more than 13 percent  minority representation in the career SES.
For this report, we did not analyze the factors that contributed to the  changes in representation from October 2000 through September 2007. As  we said previously, OPM and EEOC, in their oversight roles, require  federal agencies to analyze their workforces and both agencies also report  on governmentwide representation levels.
In our 2003 report, we (1) reviewed actual appointment trends from fiscal  years 1995 to 2000 and actual separation experience from fiscal years 1996  to 2000; (2) estimated by race, ethnicity, and gender the number of career  SES who would leave government service from October 1, 2000, through  October 1, 2007; and (3) projected what the profile of the SES would be if  appointment and separation trends did not change. We estimated that  more than half of the career SES members employed on October 1, 2000,  will have left service by October 1, 2007. Assuming then-current career  SES appointment trends, we projected that (1) the only significant changes  in diversity would be an increase in the number of white women with an  essentially equal decrease in white men and (2) the proportions of  minority women and men would remain virtually unchanged in the SES  corps, although we projected slight increases among most racial and  ethnic minorities.
Table 3 shows career SES representation as of October 1, 2000, our 2003  projections of what representation would be at the end of fiscal year 2007,  and actual fiscal year 2007 data. We projected increases in representation  among both minorities and women. Fiscal year 2007 data show that  increases did take place among those groups and that those increases  generally exceeded the increases we projected. The only decrease among  minorities occurred in African American men, whose representation  declined from 5.5 percent in 2000 to 5.0 percent at the end of fiscal year  2007.
Table 4 shows SES developmental pool representation as of October 1,  2000, our 2003 projections of what representation would be at the end of  fiscal year 2007, and actual fiscal year 2007 data. We projected increases in  representation among both minorities and women. Fiscal year 2007 data  show that increases did generally take place among those groups. The  representation of American Indian/Alaska Native men remained  unchanged from the October 2000 baseline.
As stated previously, we have not analyzed the factors contributing to  changes in representation; therefore, care must be taken when comparing  changes in demographic data since fiscal year 2000 to the projections we  made in 2003, and to the 2007 actual data we present in both tables 3 and  4. For example, we have not determined whether estimated retirement  trends materialized or appointment and separation trends used in our  projections continued and the impact these factors may have had on the  diversity of the SES and its developmental pool.
Considering retirement eligibility and actual retirement rates of the SES is  important because individuals normally do not enter the SES until well  into their careers; thus, SES retirement eligibility is much higher than the  workforce in general. As we have said in previous reports, as part of a  strategic human capital planning approach, agencies need to develop long- term strategies for acquiring, developing, motivating, and retaining staff.  An agency’s human capital plan should address the demographic trends  that the agency faces with its workforce, especially retirements. In 2006,  OPM reported that approximately 60 percent of the executive branch’s   1.6 million white-collar employees and 90 percent of about 6,000 federal  executives will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years. If a  significant number of SES members were to retire, it could result in a loss  of leadership continuity, institutional knowledge, and expertise among the  SES corps, with the degree of loss varying among agencies and  occupations. This has important implications for government management  and emphasizes the need for good succession planning for this leadership  group. Rather than simply recreating the existing organization, effective  succession planning and management, linked to the strategic human  capital plan, can help an organization become what it needs to be. Leading  organizations go beyond a “replacement” approach that focuses on  identifying particular individuals as possible successors for specific top- ranking positions. Rather, they typically engage in broad, integrated  succession planning and management efforts that focus on strengthening  both current and future capacity, anticipating the need for leaders and  other key employees with the necessary competencies to successfully  meet the complex challenges of the 21st century.
Succession planning also is tied to the federal government’s opportunity to  affect the diversity of the executive corps through new appointments. In  September 2003, we reported that agencies in other countries use  succession planning and management to achieve a more diverse  workforce, maintain their leadership capacity, and increase the retention  of high-potential staff. Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the SES is an  important component for the effective operation of the government.
section_title: Minimal Changes Occurred in the Average Age at Appointment to and Retirement from the Career SES and in Targeted Disabilities among the Career SES between 2000 and 2007
paragraphs: Individuals do not typically enter the career SES until well into their  careers. As of the end of fiscal years 2000 and 2007, the average age of  women and minorities at the time of their appointment to the SES was  about age 50 and did not change dramatically over this 7-year period  except for certain groups, as shown in table 5. The average age at  appointment for American Indian/Alaska Native women declined from age  48 in 2000 to age 42 in 2007 and increased during this time for both  American Indian/Alaska Native men (from age 50 in 2000 to 53 in 2007)  and white women (from age 47 in 2000 to 49 in 2007).
Similarly, the average age of women and minorities at the time of  retirement from the career SES did not change much between 2000 and  2007. As shown in table 6, all of those who retired did so, on average, at  around age 60, with the exception of Asian/Pacific Islander men, whose  average retirement age in 2007 was 64; Hispanic men, whose average  retirement age in 2000 was 57 and in 2007 was 58; and African American  men, whose average retirement age in 2000 was 62 and 59 in 2007.
In addition to examining the average age of individuals at the time of their  appointment to and retirement from the career SES, we analyzed the  length of time that a cohort of individuals served in the SES and  differences in length of service. We reviewed data on the 625 individuals  appointed to the career SES in fiscal year 1990. Because of questions with  the records of 11 individuals, we excluded them from our analysis and  analyzed the records of the remaining 614 individuals appointed to the SES  in fiscal year 1990 and followed them through September 2007. We found  that 432 of the 614 had left the SES by that date—338 had retired  voluntarily, 66 had resigned, and 28 had left for other reasons, such as  disability or mandatory retirement. Those individuals who had voluntarily  retired served in the SES an average of 9.2 years, as shown in table 7.  Table 7 also shows that women stayed in the SES longer than men; women  who voluntarily retired stayed, on average, for 11.4 years, and men who  voluntarily retired stayed, on average, for 8.8 years. The average length of  service among minorities ranged from 4.1 years for Asian/Pacific Islander  women to 12 years for American Indian/Alaska Native men.
The average number of years in the SES does not include those appointed  to the SES in 1990 who, as of September 30, 2007, died (10); took other  types of retirement, such as disability or mandatory retirement (17); or  were terminated (1).
As shown in table 8, as of September 2007, about one-third of the 614  individuals we identified who were appointed to the career SES in 1990  remained in the SES. More women from the original cohort remained than  men.
We also reviewed the representation of career SES members who reported  having targeted disabilities. EEOC reported that it first officially  recognized the term targeted disabilities in its Management Directive 703,  which was approved on December 6, 1979. In its report, EEOC stated  that some individuals with disabilities are reluctant to self-identify their  disability status because they are concerned that (1) such disclosure will  preclude them from employment or advancement or subject them to  discrimination and (2) their disability status will not remain confidential. It  is not clear the extent to which individuals with disabilities do not identify  or report them.
Governmentwide, the representation of career SES members reporting  targeted disabilities declined from 0.52 in fiscal year 2000 to 0.44 in fiscal  year 2007. Table 9 shows the representation of SES members with targeted  disabilities governmentwide and within the CFO Act agencies.
In both 2000 and 2007, half of the CFO Act agencies (12) did not employ  any SES members with targeted disabilities.
section_title: Processes Used for Selecting Career SES Members Are to Follow Competitive Merit Staffing Requirements
paragraphs: Executive branch agencies have processes for selecting members into the  career SES and developmental programs that are designed to create pools  of candidates for senior positions. Federal executive agencies are to  follow competitive merit staffing requirements for initial career  appointments to the SES or for appointment to formal SES candidate  development programs, which are competitive programs designed to  create pools of candidates for SES positions. Each agency head is to  appoint one or more Executive Resources Boards (ERB) to conduct the  merit staffing process for initial SES career appointments. ERBs review  the executive and technical qualifications of each eligible candidate and  make written recommendations to the appointing official concerning the  candidates. The appointing official selects from among those candidates  identified by the ERB as best qualified and certifies the executive and  technical qualifications of those candidates selected. Candidates who are  selected must have their executive qualifications certified by an OPM- administered Qualifications Review Board (QRB) before being appointed  to the SES.
According to OPM, it convenes weekly QRBs to review the applications of  candidates for initial career appointment to the SES. QRBs are  independent boards of three senior executives that assess the executive  qualifications of all new SES candidates. At least two of the three QRB  members must be career appointees. In addition, OPM guidance states  that QRB members cannot review candidates from their own agencies. An  OPM official stated that an OPM official acts as administrator, attending  each QRB to answer questions, moderate, and offer technical guidance but  does not vote or influence voting. OPM guidance states that the QRB does  not rate, rank, or compare a candidate’s qualifications against those of  other candidates. Instead, QRB members judge the overall scope, quality,  and depth of a candidate’s executive qualifications within the context of  five executive core qualifications—leading change, leading people, results  driven, business acumen, and building coalitions—to certify that the  candidate’s demonstrated experience meets the executive core  qualifications.
To staff QRBs, an OPM official said that OPM sends a quarterly letter to  the heads of agencies’ human capital offices seeking volunteers for  specific QRBs and encourages agencies to identify women and minority  participants. Agencies then inform OPM of scheduled QRB participants,  without a stipulation as to the profession of the participants. OPM solicits  agencies once a year for an assigned quarter and requests QRB members  on a proportional basis. The OPM official said that OPM uses a rotating  schedule, so that the same agencies are not contacted each quarter.  Although QRBs generally meet weekly, an OPM official said that QRBs can  meet more than once a week, depending on case loads. The official said  that because of the case load of recruitment for SES positions recently,  OPM had been convening a second “ad hoc” QRB. According to another  OPM official, after QRB certification, candidates are officially approved  and can be placed.
In addition to certification based on demonstrated executive experience  and another form of certification based on special or unique qualities,  OPM regulations permit the certification of the executive qualifications of  graduates of candidate development programs by a QRB and selection for  the SES without further competition. OPM regulations state that for  agency candidate development programs, agencies must have a written  policy describing how their programs will operate and must have OPM  approval before conducting them. According to OPM, candidate  development programs typically run from 18 to 24 months and are open to  GS-15s and GS-14s or employees at equivalent levels from within or  outside the federal government. Agencies are to use merit staffing  procedures to select participants for their programs, and most program  vacancies are announced governmentwide or to all sources. OPM  regulations provide that candidates who compete governmentwide for  participation in a candidate development program, successfully complete  the program, and obtain QRB certification are eligible for noncompetitive  appointment to the SES. OPM guidance states that candidate  development program graduates are not guaranteed placement in the SES.  Agencies’ ERB chairs must certify that candidates have successfully  completed all program activities, and OPM staff review candidate  packages to verify that regulatory requirements have been met. An “ad  hoc” QRB then reviews the candidates’ training and development and  work experiences to ensure he or she possesses the required executive  qualifications.
OPM also periodically sponsors a centrally administered federal candidate  development program. According to an OPM official, the OPM-sponsored  federal candidate development program can be attractive to smaller  agencies that may not have their own candidate development program,  and OPM administers the federal program for them. According to OPM  officials, from the first OPM-sponsored federal candidate development  program, 12 graduated in September 2006. Of those, 9 individuals were  placed in SES positions within 1 year of graduating from the program. In  January 2008, OPM advertised the second OPM-sponsored federal  candidate development program but subsequently suspended the program.  In June 2008, OPM re-advertised the second OPM-sponsored federal  candidate development program, and 18 candidates were selected for the  program and have started their 12-month training and development  program.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Acting Director of OPM and the Chair of EEOC with a  draft of this report for their review and comment. OPM provided technical  comments via e-mail, which we incorporated as appropriate, but did not  otherwise comment on the report. In an e-mail, EEOC said it had no  comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the Acting Director of OPM, the  Chair of EEOC, and other interested congressional parties. We also make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Demographic Profiles of Career SES, GS-15, and GS-14 Employees Governmentwide and at the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act Agencies
paragraphs: Appendix I: Demographic Profiles of Career  SES, GS-15, and GS-14 Employees  Governmentwide and at the 24 Chief  Financial Officers Act Agencies Equal employment  opportunity (EEO) group  5.8 2.8   1.3   56.5   22.9   0.1   100.0   20.5   68.6   12.1   We included GS-15, GS-14, and equivalent employees. GS-equivalent employees are those in  equivalent grades under other pay plans that follow the GS grade structure and job evaluation  methodology or are equivalent by statute.
Data on the SES and the SES developmental pool for 2000 in this report differ from prior GAO  products. We first identified SES and SES developmental pool data for 2000 in our 2003 report  (GAO-03-34), in which we excluded the FBI from the SES and the SES developmental pool because  that report contained projected SES and the SES developmental pool levels for the end of fiscal year  2007 based on separation and appointment data, and the FBI did not submit separation and  appointment data to the CPDF for 2000.  We subsequently cited data on the SES and SES  developmental pool for 2000 from that report in four additional products (GAO-04-123T,  GAO-07-838T, GAO-08-609T, and GAO-08-725T). Data on the SES and the SES developmental  pool for 2007 include the FBI.  5.7 2.9   0.6   63.4   19.7   0.0   100.0   16.9   75.0   11.6   9.3 22.7 3.0   0.9   52.6   28.6   0.0   100.0   18.8   62.0   9.4   19.4 5.0 1.8   0.9   59.8   20.0   0.0   100.0   20.2   72.9   13.1   11.7 2.8 2.1   0.5   73.7   14.6   0.1   100.00   11.7   82.5   8.8   5.4 9.1 1.5   1.1   39.5   37.3   0.0   100.0   23.2   49.4   9.9   22.8 4.8 2.1   1.1   62.3   21.2   0.1   100.0   16.5   72.9   10.5   9.9 6.5 2.0   1.7   52.2   31.4   0.4   100.0   16.0   59.4   6.9   13.1 .8 1.6   1.1   51.1   28.2   0.5   100.0   20.3   60.6   9.0   15.0 9.6 1.7   1.3   43.0   36.7   0.2   100.0   20.2   53.0   10.0   16.1 3.1 The Department of Homeland Security did not exist before March 2003.  Its creation united 22  agencies or parts of agencies, including the U.S. Customs Service, which was formerly located in the  Department of the Treasury; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and the Coast Guard.  24.7 3.0   2.2   38.6   20.3   0.2   100.0   40.9   57.0   18.4   28.1 9.0 1.5   0.4   62.7   21.1   0.3   100.0   16.0   72.7   9.8   8.6 4.0 3.6   1.5   54.3   27.7   0.1   100.0   17.9   64.7   10.3   The data on Justice for 2000 in this report differ from such data in prior GAO products. We first  identified Justice SES and GS-15 and GS-14 data for 2000 in our 2003 report (GAO-03-34), in which  we excluded the FBI from Justice data because that report contained projected SES and SES  developmental pool levels for the end of fiscal year 2007 based on separation and appointment data,  and the FBI did not submit separation and appointment data to the CPDF for 2000.  We subsequently  cited 2000 data from that report in four additional products (GAO-04-123T, GAO-07-838T,  GAO-08-609T, GAO-08-725T).
The data on Justice for 2007 include the FBI.  9.8 2.0   1.5   51.3   30.2   0.0   100.0   18.5   60.4   9.1   15.7 5.3 3.6   0.9   65.4   17.2   0.2   100.0   17.2   78.1   12.5   6.9 4.1 1.9   0.3   60.6   18.5   0.0   100.0   20.9   76.3   15.8   9.3 .1 0.0   0.0   40.2   41.5   0.0   100.0   18.3   46.3   6.1   14.8 .1 2.6   2.0   47.4   29.6   0.0   100.0   23.0   59.2   11.8   25.9 11.1 5.7   3.1   49.7   18.1   0.0   100.0   32.1   66.3   16.6   20.7 13.4 3.4   1.4   42.2   31.5   0.0   100.0   26.3   52.6   10.4   19.0 .9 1.0   1.2   52.3   32.6   0.9   100.0   14.2   58.7   5.8   The number of GS-15s, GS-14s and equivalents decreased because the Department of State  stopped reporting data on Foreign Service employees to the Office of Personnel Management’s  Central Personnel Data File in fiscal year 2006.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Assistant  Director; Clifton Douglas, Jr.; Jessica Drucker; Karin Fangman; Kirsten B.  Lauber; Mary Martin; Michael R. Volpe; and Gregory H. Wilmoth made key  contributions to this report.