The federal government has been grappling with equal employment opportunity issues for over 3 decades. A number of laws and executive orders have been promulgated to end discrimination and promote affirmative employment within the federal government. The initial focus of the legislation was on ensuring fair employment practices and nondiscrimination. The attention to affirmative action as a means of addressing the historical underrepresentation of women and minorities in the federal workforce began in the 1960s. Two major pieces of legislation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, provide the statutory basis for the establishment of affirmative employment and recruitment programs in the federal government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has primary responsibility for providing federal agencies with guidance on their affirmative action programs and for monitoring and evaluating program implementation. Although affirmative action programs are currently the subject of some review and debate, these laws and programs remain in effect and guided the actions of the agencies we reviewed. This report is one in a series that we have prepared on the federal affirmative employment program for the former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. In May and October 1991, we reported on the federal affirmative employment planning guidance and the representation of women and minorities in the federal workforce. In March 1993 and July 1994, respectively, we reported on the progress of EEO groups in the key job workforces of large and small federal agencies. As agreed with the Committee, the objectives of this study were to determine the representation of women and minorities at the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State and changes in the representation levels of these groups, particularly at the upper grade levels and in occupations that lead to those grades; evaluate whether the agencies’ affirmative employment program plans complied with EEOC’s instructions, particularly those that address factors affecting women and minority underrepresentation; and assess the adequacy of EEOC’s and OPM’s oversight of the affirmative employment and recruitment programs. As table 1 shows, the four agencies we were asked to review differed in size, and showed different changes in the numbers of permanent employees in their workforces between 1984, 1992, and 1994. The four agencies also differed in terms of the percentages of their total workforces that were in white-collar and in key white-collar jobs. EEOC defines key jobs as nonclerical occupations with 100 employees or more that are or can lead to middle and senior-level positions. In fiscal year 1992, 88.8 percent of Interior’s permanent employees were in white-collar jobs, and 33.7 percent in key white-collar jobs. 98 percent of Agriculture’s permanent employees were in white-collar jobs, and 52.8 percent in key white-collar jobs. 68.7 percent of Navy’s permanent employees were in white-collar jobs, and 14.8 percent in key white-collar jobs. 42.4 percent of State’s permanent employees were in white-collar jobs. (State’s Foreign Service workforce accounted for 56.7 percent of the agency’s total permanent employees). The analyses presented in chapter 2 address the total, white-collar, and key job workforces at each agency except at the State Department. At State, we examined the Foreign Service workforce in addition to the total and white-collar civil service workforces. To determine the representation status of women and minorities, we compared each agency’s workforce profile with the CLF profile to determine whether the agencies’ workforces were representative of the race, ethnic, and gender groups in the CLF. MD-714 and its predecessors instruct that agencies make this comparison for affirmative employment planning purposes. There are different approaches to determining the appropriate CLF for use in this analysis. The directives encourage agencies to use broad occupational categories—professional, administrative, technical, clerical, other, and blue collar (PATCOB). However, its instructions for the last affirmative planning cycle provided as an alternative the use of occupation specific data. Each approach, as we discussed in a previous report, has advantages and disadvantages. For example, PATCOB categories can be too general if an occupation being compared requires particular qualifications and educational levels. A disadvantage of the occupation specific data is that it may be difficult to find occupations in the CLF that precisely match the agencies’ occupations. For this report, we made two different comparisons against the CLF. First, we analyzed the agencies’ EEO profiles on an overall basis (i.e., all occupations combined) against the national CLF profile. This provided a broad overview of the standing of the different EEO groups in the agencies’ total and white-collar workforces. However, this comparison does not take into account the differences in the agencies’ occupational mixes and the occupational mix in the CLF. Second, we compared key white-collar occupations that agencies had identified in their affirmative employment plans against specific occupations in the national CLF. Our analyses covered 10 different EEO groups—white men and women, black men and women, Hispanic men and women, Asian men and women, and Native American men and women. To assess the degree of representation, we computed representation indexes for overall employment and for key jobs. These indexes were computed by dividing the percentage of each EEO group in each of the four agencies by the corresponding percentage of each EEO group in the CLF and multiplying the result by 100. The indexes can range from 0 to more than 100, with 100 indicating full representation and numbers less than 100 indicating underrepresentation. To the extent an index is much smaller than 100, the underrepresentation is correspondingly more severe. The federal workforce data we used came from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). Our analyses included full-time and part-time permanent employees. CPDF data comes from federal departments and agencies that report to it. We did not verify the accuracy of the CPDF data. Following EEOC’s guidelines, we used the 1990 decennial census CLF data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau as the benchmark for calculating 1992 representation levels. The use of decennial census data for CLF comparisons is a common approach to measuring the representation of EEO groups in the federal government. However, we recognize that census data, like all other existing benchmarks, have strengths and weaknesses. Census-based CLF data are readily available by EEO group to do analyses of total employment and key jobs (e.g., civil engineers, computer specialists). However, the data become outdated with time and may require adjustments to compensate for undercounting of minorities. We did not make adjustments to the census data. EEOC, working with OPM, created a “crosswalk” that matches federal occupations with similar occupations in the decennial census CLF. The crosswalk does not always provide a perfect match between the federal and census occupations, but it is the closest readily available source for making comparisons. We used the crosswalked census occupations for our analysis of agency key jobs. We analyzed changes in representation levels of different EEO groups at two points in time—the end of fiscal years 1984 and 1992. Fiscal year 1984 was the most distant year for which we had complete data and 1992 the most recent data available. To analyze changes in representation over this period, we used a ratio-based approach. The ratio-based technique involves comparing ratios of numbers in differing EEO groups. To determine the change in representation levels between 1984 and 1992 for particular EEO groups, we divided the number of employees in the EEO group by the number of white men in each year and then took ratios of those numbers across the years. The term “relative number” used in this report refers to the number of women and minorities for every 100 white men. White men were selected as the benchmark because they dominated the agencies’ workforces in 1984 and 1992, especially at General Schedule (GS) grades 14, 15, and senior management levels. It seemed reasonable to consider how the numbers of women and minorities had changed over time relative to them. The ratio-based technique is especially useful in comparing relative changes in workforce representation across EEO groups of very different sizes and when the size and growth rates of the total employee population vary during the period studied. We also used this technique to analyze data on hires, separations, and promotions. These personnel events have an effect on the composition of the workforce, and the distribution of EEO groups across grade levels and analyses of these events may provide information to further explain representation trends. For our grade level analysis, we grouped the GS grades as follows: GS grades 1 through 10, 11 through 12, and 13 through 15. We converted the State Department Foreign Service grades to GS-equivalent grades using OPM’s guidelines. Our definition of senior management included employees in the SES, State Department’s Senior Foreign Service, and State Department’s Chief of Mission positions. To address our second objective—agency compliance with EEOC’s instructions—we reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and EEOC directives. We examined MD-714 and supplemental memorandums issued by EEOC which contain the affirmative employment planning instructions applicable to the period covered in our review. We discussed the affirmative employment planning instructions with former and current officials from EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations in Washington, D.C., and EEOC’s Atlanta and Philadelphia District Offices who are responsible for reviewing and approving agencies’ affirmative employment plans. (The Atlanta and Philadelphia offices had oversight responsibilities over components of the Navy that we reviewed.) These officials described the factors they considered in reviewing and approving plans and provided us with compliance information for the four agencies we examined. We obtained examples of approval letters and other relevant documentation on the approval process. In addition, we independently reviewed the multiyear affirmative employment plans that the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State prepared for fiscal years 1988 through 1992 and matched their contents against EEOC’s instructions. To determine whether agencies had analyzed each of the eight program elements as required by MD-714, we talked to agency officials about the affirmative employment planning process. We discussed the agencies’ multiyear plans with EEO and personnel specialists who described the analysis process and how the documents were prepared. We also asked for and reviewed documentation on the program analyses, comparing the analysis done to the guidance in MD-714. In addition, we interviewed agency supervisors, managers, SES members, and unit heads to document their roles and extent of involvement in affirmative employment planning and confirm whether certain required tasks were completed in the analyses. To assess the adequacy of EEOC’s and OPM’s oversight efforts, we reviewed 13 on-site evaluation reports of federal agencies or components that EEOC prepared between 1988 and 1992 to determine program coverage at each site. (EEOC reports included evaluations of the Departments of the Interior and the Navy.) We met with officials in EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations to discuss the methodology they used for on-site reviews and their monitoring of agency program implementation. We reviewed EEOC’s standard operating procedures for conducting on-site reviews and staff and budget information on the resources that EEOC has allocated to affirmative action planning since fiscal year 1988. In addition, we reviewed EEOC’s fiscal year 1990 Annual Report on the Employment of Women, Minorities, and People with Disabilities in the Federal Government. Likewise, we met with officials from OPM’s former Office of Affirmative Recruitment and Employment (now the Office of Diversity) and OPM’s Office of Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) (recently merged into the Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness) to discuss (1) OPM’s responsibilities in monitoring agencies’ affirmative recruitment programs; (2) the approach OPM uses to carry out its responsibilities, including the criteria used to evaluate agency FEORP plans; and (3) past and current activities to monitor and evaluate agency affirmative recruitment programs. In addition, we reviewed OPM FEORP reports to Congress for fiscal years 1990 to 1993. Our audit work was done from February 1992 to March 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the heads of Agriculture, EEOC, Interior, OPM, Navy, and State. The Chairman, EEOC; the Director, OPM; the Secretary of the Department of the Interior; and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense (Equal Opportunity) provided written comments that are discussed in chapters 3 and 4 and reprinted in appendixes III through VI. State’s Director of EEO and a program specialist from Agriculture’s Office of Personnel provided oral comments. Federal agencies have been required, as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, to develop and implement affirmative employment programs to eliminate the historical underrepresentation of women and minorities in the workforce. To determine where underrepresentation exists, MD-714 (and its predecessor) provide that federal agencies compare the percentage of a particular minority/gender group in an occupation or job category with the percentage of that same group in the CLF. MD-714 (and its predecessor) further provide that when the federal employment percentage is less than the CLF percentage, underrepresentation exists and should be addressed in the agency’s affirmative employment plan. Our analysis of agency compliance with requirements for affirmative employment planning is discussed in chapter 3. We used two approaches to analyze agency workforce data to determine the representation of women and minorities in the workforce. The first approach involved the use of a ratio-based technique to estimate the relative numbers of women and minorities in the agencies and also the numbers involved in certain personnel events in each year. The technique, which involves comparing ratios of numbers in differing occupational categories, grade levels, or EEO groups, enabled us to perform analyses that are useful for depicting the direction and magnitude of changes over time, and they are especially well suited to comparing the relative changes in workforce representation across groups of very different sizes. The second approach required comparisons to CLF data, a benchmark external to the agencies. To determine representation levels, we computed representation indexes using agency workforce data and national CLF data from the 1990 census. The indexes indicate the extent to which an EEO group is represented in a workforce as compared to that group’s representation in the CLF. The index can range from 0 to 100 plus, with 100 indicating full representation and lower numbers indicating underrepresentation. Generally, we found that the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State made progress towards improving the EEO composition of their workforces. The relative numbers of white women and minorities in the agencies’ workforces increased between 1984 and 1992. Moreover, the relative number of women and minorities in the agencies’ key white-collar jobs increased across all grade levels between 1984 and 1992. Also, the agencies hired and promoted women and minorities into key white-collar jobs in relative numbers that generally equalled or exceeded their relative numbers employed over the period reviewed. However, white and minority women in all agencies and minority men at Interior in 1992 separated at higher rates than white men. Underrepresentation of women and minorities—especially in key jobs—remained in these agencies. White women in all the agencies and minority women at Agriculture were underrepresented on an overall basis in the total and white-collar workforces in fiscal year 1992 when compared to the national CLF. Most EEO groups continued to be underrepresented in key white-collar jobs in relation to their representation in similar occupations in the CLF. Appendix I provides more data on the results of our analyses. The following sections focus on the relative changes in women and minority representation overall and in the agencies’ key jobs by grade level. In this section, we analyze overall changes in the numbers of women and minorities relative to the numbers of white men. This approach involves comparing ratios of employment numbers for differing EEO groups between 1984 and 1992. Figures 2.1 through 2.3 show that, in virtually all workforces at each agency, the numbers of white women and minorities employed increased relative to the number of white men. The increases were generally larger for white and minority women than for minority men. The relative numbers in these figures indicate, in each year, the number of white women, minority men, and minority women there were for every 100 white men. These relative numbers were calculated by dividing the number of employees in each protected EEO group by the number of white men, and multiplying by 100. Notwithstanding the increases in relative numbers, in both fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1992 white women and minorities were represented in lower relative numbers in the agencies’ key white-collar occupations and in the Department of State’s Foreign Service workforce than in the agencies’ total workforces. As seen in figures 2.1 through 2.3, this condition appears somewhat more pronounced for white and minority women than for minority men. We divided the relative number for the latest fiscal year (1992) by the relative number for the beginning fiscal year (1984) to express the amount of change that had occurred. A resulting ratio of 1.0 indicates no change in percentage or relative number; ratios greater than 1.0 indicate an increase in percentages or relative numbers, while numbers less than 1.0 indicate a decrease. Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 display these results. How much progress have the agencies made in improving the standing of women and minorities in their key job grade structure between fiscal years 1984 and 1992? The relative number of women and minorities in key white-collar jobs at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy, and in the State Department Foreign Service increased across all GS grades (i.e., GS grades 1 through 10, 11 through 12, and 13 through 15) over the period we reviewed. Women and minorities also made strides in the agencies’ SES ranks and in State’s Foreign Service top positions—Senior Foreign Service Officers and Chiefs of Mission—between fiscal years 1984 and 1992. However, as figures 2.4 through 2.7 and tables 2.4 through 2.7 show as of fiscal year 1992, women and minorities were still less well represented in the agencies’ middle and senior management levels (grades 13 and above) than in the lower levels of the agencies’ hierarchies. The relative numbers of white women and minorities at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy increased at every grade level. Increases in relative numbers were, at grade 15 and below in these three agencies, generally larger for white and minority women than for minority men. The only exception was for grades 1 through 10 at Navy, where the increase in the relative number of minority men was greater than that for white women. Among State’s Foreign Service employees, only white women increased in representation at all three grade levels. The percentage of minority men increased at grades 13 through 15 but decreased at grades 11 and 12, while the percentage of minority women increased at grades 1 through 10 and 13 through 15 but decreased at grades 11 and 12. The percentage of white men in the Foreign Service workforce decreased at all three grade levels. The relative numbers of white women and minority men either increased or, in the case of minority men and women at grades 11 to 12, remained virtually the same. In general, the relative numbers of white women and minorities in the SES and in the Department of State’s top Foreign Service positions—Senior Foreign Service Officers and Chiefs of Mission—increased between 1984 and 1992. The exception was minority men in State’s SES and Chiefs of Mission. (See table 2.8.) The size of the increases varied by agency and group. White women experienced the greatest gains in the SES level at all agencies except at Interior, where minority women showed the highest rate. However, as table 2.8 shows, white men continued to dominate the higher ranks of the agencies reviewed, accounting for 75 percent or more of the agencies’ top positions in 1992. We compared the EEO profiles of the four agencies’ workforces as of September 1992 with the EEO profile of the nation’s CLF in 1990 to determine if the agencies’ workforces were representative of the CLF. Using an index where less than 100 indicates underrepresentation, we found that certain EEO groups were often underrepresented on an overall basis (all occupations combined) and in key jobs in 1992 when compared to the CLF. The extent of underrepresentation, as discussed below, varied by agency and EEO group. White women in all four agencies, minority men at Agriculture and State, and minority women at Agriculture and Navy, were underrepresented in the total workforces of these agencies in 1992 when compared to 1990 CLF data. In the white-collar workforce, white women were underrepresented in the four agencies reviewed, while minority women were underrepresented only at Agriculture. The other groups were fully represented in both the total and white-collar workforces. See table 2.9 and figure 2.7. Our analysis of 49 key white-collar jobs (18 at Agriculture, 17 at Interior, and 14 at Navy) showed that women and minorities were underrepresented in many of the key jobs that we reviewed at these three agencies in relation to their representation in the CLF for those same occupations. Table 2.9 shows that white women, blacks, Hispanics, and Asian women were the groups most often severely underrepresented at the agencies reviewed. Thus far, we have analyzed changes in the percentages and relative numbers of women and minorities employed in the agencies, as of the end of fiscal years 1984 and 1992. Also for 1992, we compared agency workforces with the 1990 CLF. To better understand the agencies’ efforts to diversify their workforces, it is important to examine the personnel actions that bring employees into and out of the agencies’ workforces, and identify their advancement in the workforces at any point during those 2 years. This section focuses on some of these actions: hires, separations, and promotions. (These terms, as used in this report, are defined and more data on the results of our analyses are included in app. II.) Overall, agencies hired and promoted women and minorities at rates that would increase their share of the agencies’ workforces, but separation rates for certain EEO groups were high. This higher rate of separations limited the agencies’ overall progress in achieving a representative workforce. In general, all four agencies hired women and minorities into their key white-collar occupations or, at State, the Foreign Service workforce, in percentages and relative numbers that exceeded the percentages and relative numbers at which they were employed in fiscal years 1984 and 1992. (See tables II.1 through II.4.) For example, as table II.1 shows, Interior hired 43 white women for every 100 white men hired in fiscal year 1992 into the key white-collar workforce, when it had 26 white women employed per 100 white men. It hired 16 minority men for every 100 white men hired in fiscal year 1992 when there were 14 minority men per 100 white men in the workforce. In other words, white women and minority men at Interior were hired at rates that would (disregarding separations) have increased their relative numbers in the workforce. As tables II.1 through II.4 show, the exceptions in fiscal year 1984 were minority women at Interior and minority men and women at Agriculture, who were hired in key white-collar jobs in lower relative numbers than those at which they were employed. Similarly, in fiscal year 1992, the relative numbers of women and minorities who were hired in State’s Foreign Service did not exceed the relative numbers employed. As tables II.1 through II.4 also show, the relative numbers at which the agencies hired women and minorities were generally greater than the relative numbers at which members of these groups were separated from the agencies. This was true in fiscal year 1992 for women and minorities at all four agencies, except for white women at State. In 1984 the exceptions were minority women at Interior and minority men at Agriculture. However, tables II.1 through II.4 show that there were many instances in which the separation rates exceeded the rates at which women and minorities were employed. High separation rates for white women were apparent in all agencies except at State in fiscal year 1984, and in all four agencies in 1992. For example, 49 white women per 100 white men separated from Agriculture in fiscal year 1992, when there were 41 white women employed per 100 white men. The separation rates for minority women were high in fiscal year 1992 at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy. Interior was the only agency in which the relative number of minority men separating from key white-collar jobs exceeded the relative number employed in fiscal year 1992. These situations signal a pattern that if continued would be detrimental to continued progress to achieve a representative workforce. Promotions do not add or subtract from the workforce population, but can affect the distribution of different groups across the agencies’ grade structure. In fact, because considerably larger segments of the workforces were promoted in a given year than were hired or separated, promotions have the potential to make a considerably greater impact on the distribution of women and minorities than do either hires or separations. Our analysis showed that, in all four agencies, the relative numbers of white women and minority men and women promoted were greater than the relative numbers employed in key white-collar or Foreign Service jobs both in fiscal years 1984 and 1992. The only specific EEO groups with lower promotion rates than employment rates in fiscal year 1992 were Asian men at Interior and State and Native American men at Navy and State. In general, the four agencies we reviewed increased their employment of women and minorities between fiscal years 1984 and 1992. Even in those workforces in which the percentages of white women and minority men declined, the decreases were usually less than those of white men. Consequently, in almost all cases, the number of women and minorities increased relative to the numbers of white men. In fiscal year 1992, women and minorities (1) were represented in lower relative numbers in the agencies’ key jobs and in State’s Foreign Service jobs than in the agencies’ total workforces, (2) were often underrepresented when compared to the CLF, and (3) remained less well represented in higher grades than in lower grades. For the most part, women and minorities in the agencies reviewed experienced favorable hiring and promotion rates in fiscal years 1984 and 1992, which contributed to the increases in their employment numbers. That is, agencies hired and promoted women and minorities at rates that often exceeded their relative numbers employed. However, in three agencies (all except State), white and minority women were separated in relative numbers that exceeded the relative numbers at which they were employed in 1992. This was true also of minority men at Interior. These conditions limited agencies’ progress in diversifying their workforces. EEOC instructions provide that agencies should analyze their workforces to identify representation problems, causes, and actions needed to address them. The next chapter discusses how well agencies’ affirmative employment planning efforts followed EEOC instructions. The affirmative employment planning program analyses that the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State undertook for fiscal years 1988 through 1992 reporting cycle did not completely address all eight program elements included in EEOC’s MD-714 planning and reporting instructions. Several factors contributed to this condition. The agencies often lacked the data necessary to identify problems. According to agency EEO officials, senior managers were rarely involved in affirmative employment planning and saw the preparation of plans as something someone else (e.g., the EEO Director) was supposed to accomplish. Agencies’ affirmative employment planning program analyses efforts did not adhere to EEOC’s MD-714 directive in several ways. The agencies did not include the complete program analyses MD-714 instructs them to do to identify the fundamental causes of underrepresentation. In addition, those agencies that established numerical goals for improving EEO representation failed to relate them to specific underrepresentation problems as EEOC instructions provide. Under MD-714, the first step an agency should take to develop an affirmative employment multiyear plan is to do a comprehensive program analysis of eight program elements: workforce composition, recruitment and hiring, employee development, promotions, separations, discrimination complaints, organization and resources, and program evaluation. According to the MD-714, after conducting a program analysis of the affirmative employment program within the agency, problems and barriers shall then be identified. According to an EEOC memorandum on affirmative employment planning, agencies should maintain documentation to support their identification of barriers and development of objectives. None of the agency program analyses we reviewed fully addressed the eight program elements. Interior fully analyzed only one of the eight program elements; Agriculture, three; State, three; and Navy, two. None of the four agencies fully addressed four of eight program elements (recruitment and hiring, promotions, separations, and program evaluation). Handling discrimination complaints was the only program element that all four agencies fully analyzed. For example, the workforce composition component of Interior’s analyses did not address EEO representation levels by key jobs as required by MD-714. In addition, Interior combined all the women and minority groups in its grade level analysis. A breakdown of grade level data by EEO group is called for by MD-714. A breakdown by EEO group is particularly important at Interior because of its high concentration of Native Americans and underrepresentation of other EEO groups. An official from Interior’s Office of Equal Opportunity said that analyzing workforce data by key jobs and grade requires significant manual effort. He added that the department lacks the computer capability and staff resources to conduct detailed analyses. Only one of the four agencies’ analysis addressed all the relevant information on employee development programs. For example, two key training questions listed in MD-714 and not addressed in the agencies’ analyses were: “Has a survey of current skills and training of the agency’s workforce been conducted to determine the availability of employees from the EEO Groups, having skills required to meet agency staffing needs?” “Have studies been conducted on time-in-grade to determine the reasons for any differentials which may exist by minority status and sex?” EEOC stated that the program analysis questions in MD-714 are considered as guidance and not specific requirements. However, EEOC’s memorandum on federal affirmative employment planning dated January 21, 1988, suggests otherwise. The memorandum states that “The program analysis is the foundation upon which the agency’s entire plan will be based. Therefore, each agency should ensure that it performs a comprehensive assessment of how the agency’s efforts are directed toward the eight major program elements. The analysis must provide complete rationale for responses to the questions that follow each element. It is not necessary that the analysis be limited to just those questions.” The memorandum also states that agencies should maintain documentation which supports the agency’s identification of barriers and development of objectives. However, agency officials from two of the agencies we reviewed also said that they considered the questions in MD-714 as guidance rather than requirements that must be met. Agency officials also said that EEOC did not always ask agencies to provide comprehensive answers to the program analysis questions when it reviewed their plans. Another reason for the incomplete analysis of the program elements is that agencies did not fully analyze personnel event data (e.g., data on recruitment, hires, training, promotions, and separations). We discuss this issue later within this chapter. In prior reports we have recommended that EEOC expand the agency workforce analysis requirements to include (1) major occupation workforce data by grade level or grade groupings, and (2) analysis of hiring, training and development, promotion, and separation data. We believe that these additional analyses are critical to fully understanding the causes for trends in underrepresentation and overcoming barriers to achieving a representative workforce. We also have recommended that EEOC provide agencies with better guidance on what constitutes a major occupation and additional guidance on what to analyze. EEOC agreed with these recommendations and has addressed them in its proposed new management directive. MD-714 provides that agencies should examine their personnel and management policies, practices, and procedures to determine whether they limit or act as barriers to the representative employment of women and minorities. MD-714 instructs agencies to identify barriers in their multiyear affirmative employment plans and to provide narrative describing the barriers. While the agency plans we reviewed often acknowledged that agencies had made some progress in the areas of recruitment, hiring, and promotion of EEO groups, none included any explanation of the fundamental causes of underrepresentation where it existed. The State Department initiated studies to validate its procedures for examining and hiring Foreign Service employees partly in response to our 1989 report. Our report recommended, among other things, that the Secretary of State analyze personnel processes to determine (1) whether the Foreign Service written examination was a valid predictor of success, (2) why minorities and women were eliminated at a higher rate than white men by the final review panel process, and (3) why women and minorities were disparately assigned to certain functional work areas. The State Department has taken steps to address these first two recommendations. State’s multiyear plan acknowledged that the Foreign Service written exam had adversely affected EEO groups. According to the Director, Office of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment, the State Department is validating the requirements of Foreign Service positions and correlating them with the test used to determine whether revisions are needed. The Director said that the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures do not require that the agency automatically discard or change the exam; they only require that State determine whether the exam is a valid indicator of job performance. According to State officials, they have implemented, in 1994, a new system for assigning functional work areas which addresses the allegations of disproportionate assignment of women and minorities to certain areas. The affirmative employment plans we reviewed generally acknowledged that the agencies lacked information on employee skills and training. With the exception of the State Department, the plans did not say whether or not procedures were in place to ensure appropriate training opportunities were available to all employees. For example, the State Department’s multiyear affirmative employment plan stated that the agency lacked sufficient managerial and supervisory emphasis on the use of career training and employee development counseling opportunities. State’s plan also said that some supervisors do not have enough time to provide adequate career counseling due to performance of regular duties and many supervisors and employees were unaware of career ladders and the training needed to encourage upward movement. State’s plan listed specific actions to address these barriers, such as establishing mandatory EEO/supervisory training for supervisory personnel and a mentor program to provide additional career development information. Navy’s multiyear affirmative employment plan acknowledged the underrepresentation of women and minorities in engineering positions and cited that insufficient numbers are applying, but offered no explanation on the root causes of this problem. The agencies’ plans that we reviewed acknowledged the lack of data and analyses to identify barriers to promotion or entry into senior management positions. Finally, the agencies’ plans contained little if any discussion of the reasons employees separated from the agencies and whether institutional policies affected the retention of women and minorities. The section labelled “barriers” in the agencies’ plans dealt primarily with administrative program management issues, such as the need to provide managers with EEO awareness training and the need for EEO data collection and evaluation systems. While these are important aspects of the affirmative employment program, none of the multiyear plans focused on the root causes of underrepresentation or the specific remedies required to correct the problem. Agency personnel and EEO specialists at three of the four agencies we reviewed told us that the affirmative employment plans were deficient because they were treated as a paperwork requirement instead of as plans of action to be taken seriously by the agencies’ managers. Officials at the other agency we reviewed attributed the multiyear plan’s limitations mainly to data limitations. While the multiyear plans offered little information on the underlying causes of underrepresentation, our interviews with senior managers and EEO and personnel staff at the four agencies disclosed a number of barriers they said limited representative employment. At the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Navy, these included: senior managers’ apathy to their units’ affirmative employment goals and selecting officials’ stereotyped thinking (e.g., the beliefs that women do not want to travel on their jobs or cannot meet the physical work requirements of traditionally “men only” jobs); and absence of penalties for managers and supervisors who fail to maintain an environment free of discrimination. EEOC identified similar barriers and negative attitudes towards women and minorities in its 1990 on-site reviews of Interior’s and Navy’s affirmative employment programs. For example, EEOC’s report cited an interview with one senior manager who said that “minorities are not willing to reinvest their time and money into their careers.” This manager also said that “whites have the credentials and are more qualified than the minority applicants.” Regarding barriers to the entry of women and minorities into the Foreign Service, the former Director of the Office of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment at the State Department told us that women and minorities generally had not considered the Foreign Service as a career option early in their school training and thus frequently had not pursued the academic curriculum necessary to successfully complete the Foreign Service examination. This official said that the State Department was trying to address this barrier by providing more information to applicants on how to prepare for the Foreign Service exam. The State Department—which until recently had not extensively recruited women and minorities at the college level—also recognizes the need to increase recruiting efforts. While the establishment of numerical goals as an aid for achieving full representation is discretionary under MD-714, EEOC officials have said that such goal setting is one of a number of valuable management tools and a reflection of management’s commitment to overcoming underrepresentation. Goal setting also provides measurable objectives for managers when recruiting, hiring, and promoting staff. MD-714 states that numerical goals, when used, should have a reasonable relation to the extent of underrepresentation in the agencies’ workforces, the number of vacancies, and the availability of candidates. Three of the four agencies we reviewed established numerical goals in their multiyear affirmative employment plans as a means of improving the representation of women and minorities in their workforces. The Department of the Interior did not do so, although some of its agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, did establish numerical goals. The numerical goals that Agriculture and Navy established may have been misdirected because they were not based on the degree of underrepresentation of EEO groups in job categories and major occupations as MD-714 provides. For example, EEOC noted that Agriculture had set overall goals for women or minorities rather than for the specific EEO groups that were underrepresented. EEOC also found that Agriculture set numerical goals in occupational series that had no representation problems. In contrast, Agriculture established no numerical goals for certain EEO groups (e.g., Hispanics) that its affirmative employment plan identified as being severely underrepresented. Navy identified severe underrepresentation of women and minorities in science and engineering positions in its 1988 multiyear plan, but did not establish specific goals for increasing the number of women and minorities in these occupations until fiscal year 1993. Furthermore, while Navy’s 1988 multiyear plan established a departmentwide goal of increasing the employment of Hispanics by 5 percent, it did not outline specific actions needed to achieve this goal also until fiscal year 1993. In its 1990 report of Navy’s program, EEOC stated that it found no evidence that Navy was aggressively recruiting Hispanics. EEOC also said that Navy’s goal for increasing Hispanic representation was below the Hispanic representation in the CLF. Navy’s fiscal year 1992 accomplishment report and 1993 affirmative employment update indicate that Navy is beginning to plan activities to recruit and employ Hispanics (e.g., increased participation of Hispanics in cooperative programs and Junior Fellowship programs). The State Department has established numerical hiring goals for EEO groups in its Foreign Service and Civil Service. However, its multiyear plan did not include goals for the advancement of women and minorities into senior-level positions. Adequate, reliable data with which to identify EEO problems and their causes are clearly essential to building affirmative employment plans. The agencies we reviewed were unable to adequately analyze the barriers to the representative employment of women and minorities because for the most part they lacked the requisite data on recruitment, hiring, training, job assignments, promotions, and separations. Recruitment data, or applicant flow data as they are commonly known, refer to the gender, race, and ethnic origin of job applicants. None of the agencies we reviewed gathered applicant flow data on an agencywide basis. Applicant flow data are needed to determine whether an agency’s recruiting efforts are generating sufficient numbers of women and minority applicants. Hiring data accounts for the number of persons selected for the positions available. Agency officials said they lacked the data partly because they are unclear about EEOC’s requirements for collecting and analyzing personnel event data. We found that while the Uniform Guidelines require that agencies maintain data on recruitment, hiring, training and development, job assignments, promotions, and separations, MD-714 does not require that these data be collected, analyzed, and reported in the affirmative employment plans. Recognizing the importance of recruitment, hiring, promotion, and separations data, EEOC is revising its affirmative employment planning instructions to require agencies to collect, analyze, and report this information in the next affirmative employment planning cycle. Agencies also face practical difficulties in obtaining personnel event data. For example, EEO and personnel specialists we interviewed generally said that they lacked the computer capability to gather and analyze agencywide data on applicant flow, training, employee development, and separations. Developing the computer capability is an issue of priority that each agency has to examine itself since it takes time and money. Collecting applicant flow data has been a problem because agencies must get approval from appropriate sources for the use of a form designed to collect such data. As discussed in our October 1991 testimony, agencies no longer have a governmentwide form for gathering applicant flow data because OPM’s authorization for the use of a form specifically designed for that purpose expired in December 1983. In 1989, EEOC proposed a directive that would have required agencies to collect the data, but, at OPM’s request, did not issue the proposed directive. OPM made the request because at that time it was considering collecting these data governmentwide as part of its new effort to automate its hiring process. We recommended in October 1991 that OPM act in cooperation with EEOC to examine options for collecting and analyzing applicant flow data and take prompt appropriate action. In August 1994, an OPM official from the Office of the Director told us that OPM was still discussing with EEOC the alternatives for collecting the data. OPM also told us that it has discussed with EEOC the costs of developing an applicant flow system and that OPM will not proceed without EEOC’s support. However, in June 1995, the Director, OPM, stated that the agency was opposed to collecting applicant flow data because collecting this data is burdensome, ineffective, and costly. OPM also stated that agencies should be held accountable for their selections and not be allowed to use the composition of applicant pools as an excuse to deflect accountability from deciding officials. In July 1995, the Chairman, EEOC, disagreed with the Director of OPM’s views about the need for and collection of applicant flow data. The Chairman said that collection of applicant flow data is necessary to hold agency officials accountable. He also said collection of applicant flow data is required by regulation that is binding on both public and private sector employees. While EEOC’s draft revised management directive requires agencies to collect applicant flow data, EEOC still has not developed procedural guidance for collecting the data. If agencies continue to face difficulties in getting approval for the use of a form to collect applicant flow data, they may not be able to comply with EEOC’s proposed directive. MD-714 provides that a management team consisting of line management officials, EEO staff, personnel staff, and heads of other pertinent offices should meet to review and identify the agency policies, practices, and procedures that cause underrepresentation problems. However, the personnel and EEO officials and line managers we talked to said that their agencies’ affirmative employment multiyear plans and annual updates were prepared by personnel and/or EEO office staff at the departmental level with little or no input from line managers and senior officials.According to the officials we interviewed, line managers and senior officials with authority to make personnel decisions regarding employment, job assignments, training, promotions, and terminations were rarely involved in the process of identifying barriers and actions to improve the representation of women and minorities in their agencies. The agency officials we talked to also said that line managers and senior officials’ involvement, when it occurred, was limited to providing data or cursory review of draft plans prepared by the EEO or personnel staff offices. Our review of the agencies’ affirmative employment multiyear plans showed that senior officials and managers were not made responsible for implementing planned affirmative employment actions. For example, Interior’s multiyear affirmative employment plan assigned the responsibility for implementing the action items identified in the plan to the Offices of Equal Opportunity and/or Personnel. Senior officials, line managers, and supervisors were given no affirmative action tasks to carry out. EEO staff we talked to at Interior, Agriculture, and Navy characterized the affirmative employment plans as “administrative tasks” or “paper exercises” done to fulfill EEOC’s requirement that agencies submit a plan. They said that senior officials and line managers did not actively participate in preparing the plans. Navy and Interior EEO officials told us that senior officials and line managers in their agencies did not see affirmative employment as one of their key responsibilities because they were not held accountable for planning and carrying out affirmative action. Agency heads have been required for many years, by law and regulation, to establish programs to end discrimination and to promote affirmative employment. Accountability suggests that goals will be established, performance will be measured and reported, and that this information in turn will be used to monitor progress towards achieving the agencies’ EEO objectives. However, at present no formal mechanisms are in place to evaluate agency heads on the results of their agencies’ EEO/affirmative employment programs. The National Performance Review (NPR) recognized a need to hold federal top managers accountable for EEO/affirmative employment program outcomes and identified ways to address these needs. Specifically, the NPR called for charging “all federal agency heads with the responsibility for ensuring equal opportunity and increasing representation of qualified women, minorities, and persons with disabilities into all levels and job categories, including middle and senior management positions.” The NPR recommended, among other things, that the President mandate through an Executive Order that each agency head build EEO and affirmative employment elements “into the agency’s strategic business plan and include effective measurements for impact and change.” A draft of the Executive Order aimed at addressing this recommendation was under review in August 1995. Federal agencies may or may not have formal organizational strategic plans. However, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires that by September 30, 1997, the head of each agency submit to the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Congress a strategic plan containing a statement of goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals for the agency’s major functions and operations. The plan should also contain a description of the program evaluations used in establishing or revising general goals and objectives. This long-term strategic plan provides a framework for integrating human resources management issues—of which EEO and affirmative employment are a part—into the agencies’ organizational plans and strategies. It provides the basis for holding agency heads accountable for human resource management effectiveness. It is unknown how the current reexamination of federal affirmative action programs will affect the administration’s plans for holding agency heads accountable for results in EEO/affirmative employment programs. The multiyear affirmative employment planning program analyses we reviewed did not adhere to all of EEOC’s instructions. The planning analysis did not fully analyze program elements such as recruitment and hiring, promotions, employee development, and separations. Agency officials told us they did not collect personnel event data and analyze it as part of the process of identifying barriers to EEO, in part because they did not consider this to be a planning requirement. EEOC has not clearly stated what data and analyses the multiyear plans should contain and focused agencies’ attention on identifying the causes of underrepresentation problems. We have made a number of recommendations to EEOC in past reports for improving the guidance it provides to agencies. EEOC’s proposed management directive incorporates many of our past recommendations and, if implemented, would clarify agency affirmative employment responsibilities. Finally, the agency EEO officials we talked to said that senior officials and senior managers had little involvement in formulating their agencies’ multiyear affirmative employment plans and annual updates. Our review of these plans showed that the plans assigned them no specific affirmative employment responsibilities. Management participation in multiyear plan development and execution is a part of the affirmative employment planning process outlined in MD-714. While agency heads are responsible by law for implementing programs to eliminate the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the workforce, no formal mechanism is currently in place to hold them directly accountable for the success of those programs. The strategic plans required by GPRA provide a framework for integrating human resources management with agency business plans and strategies. These plans provide a vehicle for including affirmative goals and objectives in organizational plans and ultimately holding top managers accountable for EEO results. However, the strategic plans are not required until 1997. One way being considered to expedite this process is through the NPR recommendation that the President mandate through an Executive Order that each agency head build EEO and affirmative employment elements into his or her agency’s strategic business plans. It is unknown how the current reexamination of federal affirmative action programs will affect the administration’s plans for holding agency heads accountable for results in EEO/affirmative employment programs. OPM and EEOC did not provide sufficient oversight to ensure that agencies’ affirmative recruitment and employment programs were effectively correcting imbalances in their workforces. We found, for example, that OPM did not apply all the requirements set forth in regulations when reviewing FEORP plans. Moreover, while OPM increased the number of its on-site reviews in fiscal year 1993, these reviews provided only limited information on the success of agencies’ recruitment efforts. While EEOC’s on-site reviews addressed substantive issues, these reviews, prior to June 1993, were limited in number. According to EEOC officials, they revised their evaluation approach as of June 1993 to increase their frequency and number. 5 CFR 720.205 requires that an agency’s FEORP plan include: (1) annual determinations of underrepresented EEO groups and indexes for measuring progress in eliminating underrepresentation; (2) listings of occupational categories suitable for external and internal recruitment; (3) descriptions of recruitment programs established to increase women and minority candidates from internal and external sources; (4) descriptions of methods the agency intends to use to identify and develop women and minority candidates from each underrepresented group; (5) an indication of how these methods differ from and expand upon prior agency efforts; (6) the expected number of job vacancies to be filled in the current year and future years by grade or job category; (7) identification of knowledge, skills, and abilities that can be obtained at lower grade levels in the same or similar occupational series to prepare candidates from underrepresented EEO groups for higher job progression; (8) descriptions of planned efforts to identify jobs that can be redesigned to improve opportunities for women and minorities; and (9) priority listings for special recruitment activities. OPM did not use all of these requirements when reviewing agency affirmative recruitment plans. Officials from OPM’s former Office of Recruitment and Employment told us OPM considered a plan to be adequate if it (1) identified recruitment priorities by targeted groups, grade levels, and occupations; (2) described recruitment methods and sources; and (3) provided target dates for accomplishing recruitment activities. According to these officials, this information, along with the agencies’ accomplishment reports and OPM trend data on agencies’ employment profile, is sufficient for them to evaluate agencies’ FEORP activities. We reviewed the yearly FEORP plans prepared by Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State for fiscal years 1991 through 1993. These plans generally lacked information required in CFR 720.205. Specifically, the plans did not address items 5 through 8 listed above. These requirements were developed because they would contribute to a strong affirmative recruitment program. OPM increased its on-site FEORP program evaluations from an average of 5 on-site reviews per year over fiscal years 1989-1992 to 27 on-site reviews in fiscal year 1993, reaching its goal of reviewing at least one-third of the agencies covered by FEORP. According to OPM officials, the on-site reviews were not designed to set expectations or evaluate an agency’s progress in terms of recruiting numbers. Rather, their purpose was to provide agencies with information about OPM activities, answer questions, and suggest ways of improving the agencies’ affirmative recruitment programs. OPM officials said that OPM has used a “non-threatening” approach to administering the FEORP program. OPM officials stressed that EEOC bears the primary oversight responsibility for affirmative recruitment and employment and that OPM’s primary role is to provide technical assistance to help agencies develop innovative programs that will correct imbalances in their workforces. In 1990, at the request of the Office of Affirmative Recruiting and Employment, OPM’s Office of Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE) reviewed the FEORP program. ACE’s review covered agency FEORP activities at 185 major installations employing about 316,000 civilian employees.ACE’s review findings were similar to those included in the on-site reviews performed by the Office of Affirmative Recruiting and Employment—namely, that agencies were involved in a variety of efforts to increase the identification and outreach of women and minorities. However, ACE’s review also revealed that half of the installations-level personnel at these agencies were not familiar with their agencies’ FEORP plans and that installation personnel did not see connections between FEORP plans and affirmative employment program plans. One of OPM’s functions under FEORP is to help increase the number of women and minorities in applicant pools, at all grade levels. In principle, increased representation of women and minorities in applicant pools should eventually result in more hiring from these groups. However, OPM evaluations have not specifically examined the extent to which agency recruitment efforts have indeed increased the number of women and minorities in their applicant pools. OPM is responsible (under 5 CFR 720.203) for assisting agencies in determining whether applicant pools used in filling jobs in a category of employment where underrepresentation exists include sufficient candidates from any underrepresented groups. As discussed in chapter 3, neither the agencies nor OPM collect applicant pool data. Without these data, agencies and OPM cannot measure the effectiveness of affirmative recruitment efforts. According to officials in EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations, EEOC is responsible for overseeing about 121 federal agencies and more than 900 field installations. EEOC’s standard operating procedures for conducting on-site reviews, issued in 1990, stated that EEOC would target 23 agencies for review during the multiyear planning cycle, and the remaining agencies on a case-by-case basis. EEOC had completed 14 of the scheduled 23 on-site reviews between 1988 and June 1993. EEOC officials from the Office of Federal Sector Programs said EEOC had revised the scoping approach and, if its budget allowed, would be able to do more reviews each year. Subsequently, EEOC officials informed us that as of June 1995, the agency had completed 36 more on-site reviews. The officials explained that, while considerable staff resources and time were used in the past to examine a relatively small number of large complex departments such as Navy and Interior, EEOC’s revised approach focuses on components of large departments and small agencies. EEOC expects to reach a 60-day goal for completing an on-site review which, if achieved, would allow for more reviews in a given year. EEOC officials also said that with additional experience in conducting on-site reviews, EEOC will more likely schedule large and complex agencies for review. The Director of Affirmative Employment, Federal Programs, also said that his staff spends most of its time reviewing annual updates and accomplishment reports and providing written responses to the agencies, and less time on evaluating the effectiveness of the programs. EEOC, like other agencies, has faced the challenge of meeting expanded oversight responsibilities with limited staff resources. At the end of fiscal year 1993, EEOC had 36 employees monitoring the affirmative employment programs of 121 agencies and 900 field offices. EEOC officials from the Office of Federal Sector Programs said that their staffing levels have remained virtually unchanged since 1988. EEOC’s on-site reviews have addressed significant program issues. In addition to analyzing the changes in the employment and advancement of women and minorities, EEOC examined agency management support and accountability; program guidance, coordination, and monitoring; and agency practices. As a result, EEOC’s on-site reports contained numerous and significant recommendations. For example, EEOC’s report on the Department of the Interior’s affirmative employment program contained 43 specific recommendations for improvements in almost all aspects of Interior’s program. EEOC recommended, among other things, that Interior set specific objectives to address the underrepresentation of EEO groups, establish time frames for accomplishing objectives, and hold responsible officials accountable for their implementation. EEOC’s report on Navy’s program recommended that Navy address the underrepresentation of women and minorities in its SES and upper grade levels; evaluate its Merit Promotion Program for adverse impact on women, minorities, and people with disabilities; establish uniform EEO performance standards for managers and supervisors, including civilian affirmative employment and EEO responsibilities in military evaluation reports; and accelerate the separations analysis needed to address the high rate at which minorities and women are separated from Navy. Navy agreed to implement all of EEOC’s recommendations. EEOC generally followed the criteria it developed for evaluating the agencies’ programs. The criteria, as stated in MD-714, consists of evaluating an agency affirmative employment program on the basis of positive changes in the participation of EEO groups in the work force; successful hiring and internal movement activity; successful completion of the affirmative employment action plan; completeness and accuracy of required information; and effectiveness of the agency’s internal monitoring and evaluation system. Oversight of affirmative recruitment and employment programs helps to (1) ensure that agencies are taking the necessary steps to eliminate the underrepresentation of women and minorities as required by law, and (2) provide these agencies with meaningful feedback and assistance on how to improve their programs. We found that in reviewing agencies’ FEORP plans, OPM does not require agencies to follow all the requirements set forth in regulations. And, while OPM increased the number of its on-site reviews in fiscal year 1993, its reviews have not fully addressed the success of agencies’ recruitment efforts. Determining the effect of the recruitment program will require that OPM assist agencies in collecting and analyzing recruitment data. In October 1991, we recommended that OPM act in coordination with EEOC to examine options for collecting and analyzing applicant flow data and take prompt appropriate action. EEOC’s on-site reviews have addressed significant program issues but have been limited in number. As a result, many agencies were not getting critical information on how to improve their programs. EEOC has since increased the number of reviews, adding 36 reviews since June 1993. In a letter dated June 14, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Equal Opportunity) concurred with our findings and conclusions and provided updated information on the Navy’s affirmative employment efforts (see app. III). In a letter dated June 5, 1995, the Director of Interior’s Office of Equal Opportunity said that our analysis was useful and provided additional updated information (see app. IV). The Director of OPM, in a letter dated June 20, 1995, said that our report underscores the findings of the National Performance Review that there is duplication between the requirements and oversight roles of OPM and EEOC and that current requirements place too much emphasis on process rather than results (see app V). The Department of State’s Director of EEO and a personnel specialist from the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Personnel provided oral comments on a draft of this report in July 1995 meetings. Both provided technical suggestions that we have incorporated, where appropriate. In a letter dated July 7, 1995, the Chairman, EEOC, disagreed with our assertions that (1) federal agencies had not followed EEOC’s instructions in their analyses of affirmative employment programs and had submitted incomplete plans, and (2) EEOC had approved the incomplete plans, thereby indicating that EEOC was not providing the oversight necessary to ensure that the proper affirmative action program analyses were being done (see app. VI). In support of its position, EEOC articulated an interpretation of MD-714’s reporting requirements that was different from the one we had been provided by EEOC officials during the course of past reviews. According to the interpretation EEOC articulated in its comments, MD-714 provides agencies leeway in determining which program elements to report in their plans. Under this interpretation, we agree that the plans that our draft report had characterized as incomplete could instead be viewed as complete. We have revised the report to reflect this interpretation and to incorporate additional technical suggestions, as appropriate. A more important issue than the completeness of the plans is the underlying analyses upon which the plans are based. In its comments, EEOC said that the program analysis questions in MD-714 are also considered as guidance and not specific requirements. However, EEOC’s January 21, 1988, memorandum to federal agencies on affirmative employment planning says otherwise. The memorandum states that “The program analysis is the foundation upon which the agency’s entire plan will be based. Therefore, each agency should ensure that it performs a comprehensive assessment of how the agencies’ efforts are directed toward the eight major program elements. The analysis must provide complete rationale for responses to the questions that follow each element. It is not necessary that the analysis be limited to just those questions.” The memorandum also states that agencies should maintain documentation which supports the agency’s identification of barriers and development of objectives. Thus, while agencies need not report on all eight program elements in their plans, current MD-714 guidance requires that agencies use those elements in their analyses and maintain supporting documentation. Because reports may not include all of the relevant information, it is important for EEOC to perform on-site reviews which include evaluations of agencies’ program analyses. We believe that, as discussed in Chapter 4, EEOC’s increased rate of completed on-site reviews, if continued and done effectively, should help provide the necessary oversight for agency affirmative employment programs. On the issue of collecting data on job applicants, OPM’s and EEOC’s comments reflect different points of view. OPM said that it is opposed to collecting data from job applicants concerning their race and national origin because it believes that the collection of such data would be costly, ineffective, and a reporting burden. OPM also said that agencies should be held accountable for the compositions of their selections. In contrast, EEOC said that it believes the collection of applicant flow data is necessary to hold agency officials accountable and is also required by regulation. We have previously found that agencies frequently believed applicant flow data was useful and recommended reestablishing collection of that data.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the representation of women and minorities at the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture (USDA), Navy, and State as compared to the agencies' total workforce and the nation's civilian labor force (CLF); (2) these agencies' compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) affirmative employment planning instructions; and (3) the extent of EEOC and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversight of the agencies' affirmative employment and recruitment programs. GAO found that: (1) between 1984 and 1992, the relative number of women and minorities increased in each agency, but certain equal employment opportunity (EEO) groups were underrepresented overall, particularly in key and higher grade positions when compared to the CLF; (2) underrepresentation in key jobs was more pronounced for white and minority women than for minority men; (3) the underrepresented EEO groups varied by agency; (4) white men still occupied 75 percent or more of the agencies' senior executive service or equivalent positions; (5) although women and minorities were hired and promoted into key agency jobs in greater numbers than their workforce representation, they also separated from the agencies at higher rates; (6) the agencies' multiyear affirmative employment planning programs did not fully comply with EEOC directives because the agencies considered the directives to be only guidelines, they lacked certain personnel data, senior managers were not involved in the plans' preparation, the agencies did not take the plans seriously, and EEOC approved incomplete plans; (7) those agencies that set employment goals did not link them to any particular underrepresention problem; (8) there were no formal mechanisms to hold agency heads and senior managers accountable for their agencies' EEO programs; and (9) OPM and EEOC did not provide sufficient oversight to ensure that the agencies' affirmative employment programs effectively corrected their workforce imbalances.