The SES was established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. As of September 30, 1999, the SES had 6,871 members. The majority (6,205) of the SES members were in the career SES as of that date; the remaining 666 were in the noncareer SES. Career SES members are individuals with civil service status who are appointed competitively to SES positions that are below the top political appointees in the federal executive branch. The noncareer SES members are individuals who receive noncompetitive appointments to SES positions that usually involve advocating, formulating, and directing the programs and policies of the administration. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 also states that the policy of the federal government is to ensure equal employment opportunity in the workforce. To carry out this policy, the act calls for implementation of agency action through a continuing minority recruitment program designed to “eliminate underrepresentation of minorities in the various categories of civil service employment.” It further requires that EEOC establish guidelines for use by executive agencies in complying with this statutory requirement. According to EEOC’s October 6, 1987, directive, issued under this provision to aid agencies in their affirmative employment activities, women and minorities are fully represented when their percentage representation in the workforce at an agency equals or exceeds their percentage representation in an RCLF. An RCLF consists of the pool of individuals in the CLF that have the necessary skills and qualifications to perform the duties of the particular job or occupation. According to EEOC, it advises agencies to first compare their workforces with established broad occupational categories, such as administrative, technical and clerical, within the CLF. Then, agencies are to compare specific significant occupations within their overall workforce with the same broad CLF occupational categories to identify areas of possible underrepresentation for further analysis. For professional occupations that require advanced degrees and/or licenses, such as engineers, doctors, or attorneys, EEOC advises agencies to compare each of the professional occupations in their agencies with the corresponding occupations in the CLF. EEOC also said it advises agencies, in determining whether underrepresentation of minorities exists in the various levels of the workforce, to follow the guidance contained in the Department of Justice’s February 29, 1996, memorandum on affirmative action in federal employment. Among other things, that memorandum gives examples of comparative labor forces that agencies can use to determine whether minority groups are underrepresented in particular jobs. For example, the memorandum states that an agency would determine whether minorities were underrepresented in its workforce by comparing minority representation in the job at issue to the relevant or qualified labor pool in the CLF, rather than to the national CLF. The memorandum also indicates that where the job at issue cannot be precisely matched to a job in the CLF, an agency should use the qualified labor force that most closely matches its qualifications for the job at issue. For example, the memorandum states that an agency would determine whether minorities were underrepresented in its SES workforce by comparing the number of minority GS-15 employees it employs, and others with similar qualifications, to the number of minority SES members it employs. Comparisons with other labor forces are an important part of determining what further actions agencies need to take. However, even if women and minorities are not as well represented in the career SES when compared with other selected labor forces, this information alone would not be sufficient evidence to conclude that discrimination had occurred. In addition, it should not be concluded that affirmative employment efforts are no longer needed to further improve the representation of women and minorities in the career SES if the comparisons show they are as well or better represented in the SES as in other selected labor forces. To assess change in the career SES composition during the 1990s, we analyzed data obtained from OPM’s CPDF on the female and minority makeup of the career SES from fiscal year-end 1990 through 1999. We analyzed the data, by race/ethnicity and gender, to identify trends in the percentages of women and minorities employed in the career SES governmentwide and in each of 24 CFO agencies over the 10-year period. We did not independently verify the CPDF data on the SES for the years we reviewed. However, we reported in 1998 that governmentwide data from the CPDF for the key variables in this study (gender, race/ethnicity, GS-grade, pay plan, occupation, career status, agency, and personnel action) were 97 percent or more accurate. For the first part of our second objective, to determine the proportion of women and minorities appointed to the career SES annually over this 10- year period, we obtained and analyzed data from the CPDF for each fiscal year from 1990 through 1999. We excluded career SES appointments that were reinstatements into the career SES and transfers of career SES individuals from one agency to another (about 1 percent combined). For the second part of our second objective, to determine whether career SES appointments reflected the SES pipeline from which most new SES members were generally appointed, we obtained and analyzed data from the CPDF for each of 3 years (1990, 1995, and 1999). The 3 years represented the beginning, middle, and end of our overall review period. We compared the diversity of the career SES appointees with the diversity of the pipeline. Because data were not readily available on who actually applied for SES vacancies and because we could not clearly determine the workforces from which all career SES appointees came, we limited the pipeline analysis to career SES appointments of career GS-15 and equivalent employees from within the appointing agency. Over 90 percent of those appointed to the career SES from within an agency were career GS-15 and equivalent employees the year prior to their appointment and about 83 percent of all career SES appointments were from within an agency. Although we recognized that all GS-15 employees were not in managerial or supervisory positions, we selected the GS-15 workforce and its equivalent as the SES pipeline because we found that 25 percent of the GS-15 workforce appointed to the SES in fiscal year 1999 were not managers or supervisors in fiscal year 1998. To look at representation in the career SES compared with other labor forces, we calculated the proportions of women and minorities in the career SES, as of September 30, 1999, and compared the result with similarly calculated proportions of women and minorities in the six labor forces. The labor forces, which varied in the extent to which they were similar to the career SES in terms of occupation and salary, were the national CLF, excluding federal employees; an RCLF, excluding federal employees, that we developed; the federal executive branch career workforce as a whole; career federal employees in professional and administrative occupations; the GS-15 career workforce; and the Postal Service career executive corps. To provide data on the composition of and appointments to the noncareer SES, we obtained and analyzed governmentwide and agency-specific data from OPM’s CPDF. Data were obtained for each fiscal year from 1990 through 1999. We did our work in Washington, D.C., from January 2000 through January 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A more detailed description of the scope and methodology used to answer each of the objectives is provided in appendix II. The proportion of women and minorities in the career SES generally increased both governmentwide and in the 24 CFO agencies during the 1990 through 1999 period. The percentage of white women increased substantially while the percentage of white men declined. From fiscal years 1990 through 1999, the career SES varied in size from a high of 7,583 in 1992 to a low of 6,183 in 1998. While the number of career SES employees overall decreased, the number of women and minorities steadily increased over this 10-year period, as shown in figure 1. The number of women in the career SES governmentwide more than doubled from 626 in 1990 to 1,352 in 1999, while the number of men declined. The number of minorities increased from 487 as of September 30, 1990, to 807 by the end of fiscal year 1999. Figure 1 also shows that the number of white and male career SES members declined over the 10-year period but continued to make up the majority of the career SES workforce. Governmentwide, women and minorities became a greater proportion of the career SES workforce over the 1990 through 1999 period. The amount of growth that minorities experienced as a group was more modest than that of women. As shown in figure 2, the proportion of women in the career SES grew to 21.8 percent as of the end of fiscal year 1999, up 12 percentage points from the fiscal year-end 1990 rate of 9.5 percent. Minorities grew from 7.4 percent of the career SES as of September 30, 1990, to 13 percent as of September 30, 1999. The annual rate of increase for women and minorities in the career SES over the 10-year period was generally less than 1 percent. The highest annual rate of increase for women (2.4 percent) and minorities (1.1 percent) occurred between 1993 and 1994. The number of women and minorities in the career SES each fiscal year from 1990 through 1999 is shown in table III.1 of appendix III. Figure 3 shows the growth trends among the four minority groups— African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans— over the 1990 through 1999 period. African Americans increased from 4.6 percent as of September 30, 1990, to 7.8 percent as of September 30, 1999—a 3.2 percentage point increase over the 10-year period. The proportion of Native Americans in the career SES was 0.6 percent as of September 30, 1990, and from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1997, they consistently made up 0.8 percent of the career SES. By the end of fiscal year 1999, the proportion of Native Americans in the career SES had increased to 1.1 percent, resulting in a 0.5 percentage point increase over the 1990 through 1999 period. The proportion of Asian Americans and Hispanics in the career SES over the 1990 through 1999 period was slightly above the percentage of Native Americans. The extent of change in the composition of the career SES governmentwide varied when analyzed by gender and race/ethnicity combined. Governmentwide, white women experienced a higher percentage point change relative to each of the minority women groups over the 1990 through 1999 period. As figure 4 shows, the proportion of white women in the career SES increased more than 9 percentage points from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 17.6 percent in 1999. Although minority women also experienced some growth over the 1990 through 1999 period, the extent of change in their growth was substantially less than that of white women. African-American women increased about 2 percentage points over the 10-year period from nearly 1 percent in 1990 to 2.7 percent in 1999; Hispanic, Asian-American, and Native-American women each increased less than 1 percentage point. Minority women, as a group, made up 4 percent of the career SES workforce by the end of fiscal year 1999. The extent of change in the number of career SES women is shown by race and ethnicity in table III.2 of appendix III. Figure 4 also shows that over the 10-year period, differences existed between the proportion of white women and minority women in the career SES, and these differences became more pronounced in 1994 and continued to widen. As of September 30, 1990, the difference between white women and African-American women, the largest group of minority women, was 7 percentage points. By the end of fiscal year 1999, the difference had increased to about 15 percentage points. The proportion of white men, who made up the majority of the career SES workforce governmentwide over the 1990 through 1999 period, declined by 15 percentage points during this 10-year period from 84 percent in 1990 to 69 percent in 1999, as shown in figure 5. This decline in the percentage of white men can, in part, be attributed to their retirement and their replacement with more white women and minorities rather than with white men. African-American men increased 1.4 percentage points over the 10-year period from 3.7 percent in 1990 to 5.1 percent in 1999. Hispanic, Asian-American, and Native-American men each made up nearly 2 percent or less of the career SES workforce during the 1990 through 1999 period. The extent of change in the proportion of women and minorities in the career SES varied among the 24 CFO agencies over the 1990 through 1999 period. The proportion of women in the career SES increased over the 10- year period in each of the 24 agencies. The proportion of minorities in the career SES also increased over this 10-year period in all of the 24 agencies, except two—FEMA and State. As figure 6 shows, each of the 24 CFO agencies, and the federal government as a whole, had a higher proportion of women career SES members as of September 30, 1999, than in 1990. This figure also shows that OPM, which had a relatively small career SES workforce (38) as of the end of fiscal year 1999, had the highest proportion of women (42 percent) in its career SES workforce. Veterans Affairs, with 248 career SES members as of the end of fiscal year 1999, had the lowest proportion (13 percent) of women in its career SES. The number of career SES women in each of the 24 agencies from 1990 through 1999 is shown in table III.1 of appendix III. The percentage of women career SES members increased at each agency. There was a larger percentage-point increase at some agencies than at others, as figure 7 shows. The change ranged from 21-percentage points (Interior) to 5-percentage points (Veterans Affairs). There was even more variation across agencies when we examined trends in women by race and ethnicity. Details of that analysis are presented in table III.2 in appendix III. As shown in figure 8, the percentage of minority career SES employees increased over the 1990 through 1999 period at all of the 24 CFO agencies except two—FEMA and State. Figure 8 also shows that SBA, with 34 career SES members as of September 30, 1999, had the highest percentage of minorities in its career SES workforce. FEMA, which had 29 career SES members as of the end of fiscal year 1999, had the lowest percentage of minority career SES members. As with the change in the percentage of women, figure 9 shows that agencies differed in the extent of change in the percentage of minorities over this period. The amount of increase among minority career SES employees ranged from 0.2 percentage point at Veterans Affairs to 19 percentage points at SBA. The percentage of minorities declined by 0.8 percentage point and 1.8 percentage points at FEMA and State, respectively. For details on the number of career SES minorities at each of the 24 CFO agencies from 1990 through 1999 and on the extent of change in the number of minorities, see tables III.1 and III.3, respectively, in appendix III. The gender and racial/ethnic diversity of those appointed to the SES each year will, of course, affect the composition of the SES workforce. For fiscal years 1990 through 1999, annual appointments to the career SES included more women and minorities as the decade went on. The extent of diversity in SES appointments varied among the selected agencies. We also found that in comparing SES appointments to the GS-15 workforce, the pipeline from which almost all SES appointments came over the 3 years (1990, 1995, and 1999) that we reviewed, the percentage of women appointed to the SES was greater than the percentage of women in the GS-15 workforce for all 3 years. A higher percentage of minorities was appointed to the SES from the GS-15 workforce in 1 of 3 years, and the pattern of appointments compared with the pipeline was quite different across the minority groups. During the period from 1990 through 1999, the general pattern was an increase in women and minority SES appointments in the mid-1990s from a lower level in the early years of the decade. From 1990 through 1999, about 25 percent (1,298) of the 5,294 career SES appointments were women and 14.4 percent (763) were minorities. African Americans received 9 percent of the career SES appointments followed by Hispanics (2.6 percent), Asian Americans (1.7 percent), and Native Americans (1.2 percent). For details on the number of women, minorities as a whole, and minority groups appointed annually to the career SES over the 10-year period, see appendix IV. As shown in figure 10, the percentage of career SES appointees that were women increased from 17 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 1999. Minority appointments to the career SES increased from 9.5 percent in 1990 to 14.9 percent in 1999. Figures 11 and 12 show trends in appointments for women and men by race and ethnicity. In each year, the largest percentages of appointments were white women and white men. Of all appointments during this period, 19.8 percent were white women; 65.5 percent were white men. Figures 13 and 14 below show the percentage of career SES appointments that were women and minorities for each CFO agency and the government as a whole from 1990 through 1999. For details on the number of women and minorities appointed annually to the career SES in each agency and governmentwide, see table IV.1 in appendix IV. As part of our analysis of diversity in appointments to the SES, we compared the composition of actual SES appointments to the composition of the pipeline—the feeder group from which new SES members were appointed. We compared the percentages of women and minorities in the group appointed from GS-15 and its equivalent to the SES in a given year to the percentages of women and minorities in the GS-15 workforce as a whole for the year before. We made this comparison for 3 fiscal years (1990, 1995, and 1999), which covered the beginning, middle, and end of our review period. In each of these 3 years, the percentage of women appointed to SES from GS-15 was greater than the percentage of women GS-15 employees in the previous year. A similar pattern occurred for minorities in 1 of the 3 years, and the percentage was slightly lower in the other 2 years. (See fig. 15.) When we analyzed the minority percentages shown in figure 15 by gender, we found that the percentage of minority women increased steadily both in the GS-15 workforce as a whole (2 percent in 1989, 4 percent in 1994, and 5 percent in 1998) and in the GS-15 SES appointments (2 percent in 1990, 5 percent in 1995, and 6 percent in 1999). For minority men, the percentage in GS-15 increased (8 percent in 1989, 9 percent in 1994, and 10 percent in 1998), and the percentage of GS-15 SES appointees went from 7 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 1995 but was back at 7 percent in 1999. We also analyzed the minority appointment percentages by race and ethnicity (see fig. 16). The percentage of SES appointees was greater than or equal to the percentage in the feeder group, except for Hispanics in 1990 and for Asian Americans in all 3 years. We analyzed SES appointments of African Americans from GS-15 by gender during the 3 years (the smaller overall number of appointments makes such an analysis not meaningful for Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). The appointee percentage for African-American women was consistently greater than the feeder group percentage, and both percentages increased later in the decade. The appointment percentage for African-American men was substantially less in 1999 (3.2 percent) than in 1995 (6.8 percent); the feeder group percentage for African-American men was 3.1 percent in 1994 and 3.4 percent in 1998. We compared the SES to six labor forces, as shown in table 1 (see p. 31). The labor force to use as a benchmark to assess representation depends on the skills, experience, and qualifications required for the job or workforce being examined. Our comparison to the entire CLF places the race and gender composition of the SES into the broadest possible labor force context. By comparing SES diversity with our RCLF, the comparison is being made to individuals outside the federal workforce who are in occupations and whose income is equivalent to that of the SES. An RCLF is the pool of people in the CLF with the requisite skills and experience to perform the duties of the positions in their agencies. Comparing the SES workforce with the entire federal workforce and with the federal workforce in professional and administrative job categories parallels the CLF and RCLF comparisons but uses the federal labor force rather than the civilian workforce outside the federal government. The GS-15 workforce provides a useful basis for comparison because it is the primary feeder group for the SES. In addition to these comparisons, the Postal Service provides a comparison with an executive workforce that has qualification, skill, and experience requirements comparable to those of the SES. While we recognize that other benchmarks could also be used to assess the level of representation of women and minorities in the SES, none of our comparisons are definitive or conclusive about the level of diversity achieved. In making our comparisons to these six labor forces, we compared an employee group’s proportion in the SES with its proportion in the comparison labor force to determine the extent of parity. The extent of parity describes by gender and race and ethnicity how well employees were represented in the career SES workforce as of September 30, 1999, when compared with their representation in each of the selected labor forces. For example, if the percentage of women is the same in the career SES workforce as in the comparison labor force, the representation of women in the SES would be at parity with the representation of women in the comparison labor force and would be shown without shading in table 1. If the percentage of women in the SES is less than in the comparison labor force, their representation would be less than parity and would be shaded either light or dark gray in table 1, depending on the extent to which the SES percentage is below the comparison labor force percentage. As shown in table 1, the proportion of women and minorities in the career SES exceeded their proportion in our RCLF. But women and minorities were represented at lower rates when compared with the CLF; the federal executive workforce, as a whole; the portion of these workers in professional and administrative occupations; and the GS-15 workforce. The proportion of women in the Postal Service career executive corps was about the same as the proportion of women in the career SES. Minorities were represented in the career SES at a lower rate than they were in the Postal Service career executive corps. African Americans and Native Americans exceeded their percentages in our RCLF; Asian Americans did not. For Hispanics, the difference between their percentage in the SES workforce and their percentage in our RCLF was not statistically significant because the difference was so small that it could be due to sampling error or chance. Table 1 shows the representation rates for minorities in the remaining five labor forces. The table also shows that the percentages of men and whites in the career SES were below their percentages in our RCLF but exceeded their percentages in the CLF, overall federal workforce, federal professional and administrative workforce, and GS-15 workforce. The percentage of men in the career SES were slightly below their percentage in the Postal Service career executive corps. Whites were represented in the career SES at a higher rate than they were in the Postal Service career executive corps. We also compared the career SES workforce at each of the 24 CFO agencies to the same six labor forces. To the extent that we could, we tailored each labor force, except the CLF and Postal Service, to be similar to the makeup of each agency’s career SES workforce, because the mission of each of the agencies is different with a different occupational mix (see app. II). Although our comparisons showed variation among the 24 CFO agencies, the results were similar to those for the SES as a whole. We found that the percentages of women and minorities in most agencies’ career SES were above the percentages of women and minorities in agency-specific RCLFs that we developed. But the percentages of women and minority career SES employees were generally either below the percentages in the five remaining labor forces—the national CLF, overall agency workforce, agency professional and administrative workforce, agency GS-15 workforce, and U.S. Postal Service career executive corps—or else not significantly different from them. In contrast, the pattern for men and whites was usually higher percentages in the SES than in the CLF or the federal workforce comparisons but lower percentages in our RCLF. Comparisons of specific minority groups showed substantial variations across agencies but because of the small numbers, most of the differences were not statistically significant. For more details, see appendix V. The noncareer SES, like the career service, became more diverse in terms of gender and race/ethnicity during the period from 1990 through 1999. In 1990, women constituted 26.3 percent of the noncareer SES; in 1999, 40.4 percent of the noncareer SES were women. Similarly, 10.9 percent of the noncareer SES were minorities in 1990 and in 1999, it was 23.1 percent. The percentage of each minority group in the SES increased during this period. Appendix VI contains more detailed information on the composition of the noncareer SES governmentwide and at each of the 24 agencies each fiscal year over the 1990 through 1999 period. The proportion of women and minorities appointed to the noncareer SES increased from 1990 through 1999. The percentage of noncareer SES appointees that were women ranged from 26 percent in 1990 to 40 percent in 1999. The minority percentage of appointments ranged from about 13 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 1999. The percentage of appointments of each minority group increased, except for Native Americans. Appendix VII contains more detailed information on the noncareer SES appointments, showing appointments governmentwide and by agency each year over the 1990 through 1999 period. We provided a draft of this report to the Acting Director of OPM and the Chairwoman of EEOC for their review and comments. OPM and EEOC provided us written comments, which we reprinted in appendixes VIII and IX, respectively. OPM’s Acting Director said our assessment shows that diversity in the SES is moving in the right direction. He further commented that while our assessment shows improvement in SES diversity and indicates that OPM and agency initiatives in this area have been fruitful, OPM is convinced that continued improvement will require a commitment to reviewing and revising employment practices that foster diversity. OPM cited several initiatives that it believes have made a difference in fostering diversity in the SES. Details of these initiatives can be found in appendix VIII. EEOC’s Chairwoman expressed a variety of concerns about certain aspects of our methodology and possible interpretations of the report’s message. She said the SES analysis contained in this report ignores and rejects much of the traditional analysis that EEOC has used to assist agencies in their equal employment opportunity efforts. For example, she said we did not examine the potential barriers that may prevent qualified individuals in the pipeline from moving into the SES. Our objective was not to examine potential barriers that might limit equal access of women and minorities to the SES. As we pointed out in this report, our objective, among others, was to describe how the representation of women and minority employees in the career SES compared with other labor forces. EEOC said it advises agencies to use both the GS-14 and GS-15 labor forces when evaluating the representation of women and any particular minority groups in their SES workforces, because it believes the use of both grades is more appropriate since they are the feeder groups that eventually lead to the SES. However, we believe that our use of the GS-15 labor force only was appropriate because, as we pointed out in this report, we found it to be the primary feeder group into the SES in 1999 as well as in preceding years. The Chairwoman also said that of the six labor forces included in this report, EEOC finds our construction and use of an RCLF to be particularly problematic because of the manner in which we constructed it and the lack of recognition in this report of possible artificial barriers and discriminatory factors that may limit the presence of women and minorities in our RCLF. EEOC said it appears that we restricted our RCLF to occupations in the private sector that require particular expertise when the nature of the SES requires more broad-based leadership skills. As we explain in this report, our RCLF consists of the portion of nonfederal civilian workers in 1999 who were in occupations and earning salaries that corresponded as closely as possible to that of career SES employees. Our RCLF occupations include both management and professional/technical occupations because, as we stated in this report, 87 percent of the career SES workforce were in these types of occupations as of September 30, 1999. Furthermore, we are aware that discrimination and lack of opportunity would limit the number of women and minorities in top management positions in any benchmark labor force. We recognized in this report that our RCLF is not a perfect benchmark and that other benchmarks can be used to assess the representation of women and minorities in the SES. We also state that our RCLF was the closest match to the SES we could identify because data were not available to construct a direct comparison group. EEOC also opposes the use of representation indexes, which are the ratios that we calculated to present our comparison of the percentage of an employee group in the SES workforce to that same group’s percentage in the benchmark workforce (see table 1 and appendix V of this report). EEOC believes these indexes magnify the impact of imperfections and flaws in the benchmark used and imply conclusions that are misleading and inappropriate. As we explain in this report, we did statistical tests to determine whether the percentage comparisons were dissimilar enough to be unlikely due to imperfections and flaws in the benchmark data. We also noted in this report where differences in the compared percentages are not large enough to provide the confidence that they might not be due to imperfections and flaws in the benchmark data. We provide six different comparisons in this report, and because the results vary for each of them, we have drawn no conclusions. Furthermore, we have cautioned the reader about drawing conclusions from these results. The Chairwoman said EEOC is concerned that our use of aggregate data from 24 federal agencies may be statistically inappropriate and therefore result in misleading conclusions. She also said that appendix III of this report indicates that many of the 24 agencies have had problems in achieving diversity. We do not agree that aggregation of the data for the 24 agencies results in misleading conclusions, because we have clearly delineated our governmentwide and agency-specific findings. We provide full disclosure of governmentwide and agencywide numbers throughout this report. We also do not agree with EEOC’s statement that the data in appendix III of this report indicate many agencies have had problems achieving diversity if EEOC’s basis for saying this is the fact that some agencies had a smaller number of women and minorities than other agencies. The data in appendix III simply represent a statistical profile of the agencies’ SES workforces, and one should not conclude from these data alone that agencies with smaller numbers of women and minorities had problems achieving diversity in their SES workforces. In conclusion, EEOC stated that a reader of this report might get the impression that whites and men are underrepresented in the career SES and that women and minorities are overrepresented. We do not believe that a reader would get such an impression, as EEOC suggested, given that the results of the comparisons we present in table 1 of this report vary across the six different workforces. For example, the GS-15 workforce comparison, which is the primary feeder group into the SES, shows that whites and men are overrepresented and that women and minorities are underrepresented. Moreover, we caution the reader that none of the comparison labor forces, including our RCLF, can be seen as definitive or conclusive as to whether the level of diversity in the SES is sufficient. As agreed with your offices, unless you announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date of the report. At that time we will send copies of this report to the Acting Director of OPM and the Chairwoman of EEOC. We will also send copies to Representative Dan Burton and Representative Henry A. Waxman, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, respectively, Committee on Government Reform; Representative Joe Scarborough, Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform; Senator Fred Thompson and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, Committee on Governmental Affairs; Senator George Voinovich and Senator Richard Durbin, Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, Subcommittee on Oversight, Government Management, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs; and Senator Thad Cochran and Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs. We will make copies available to others upon request. The key contributors to this report are listed in appendix X. If you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-6806. Our first objective was to assess to what extent the composition of the career Senior Executive Service (SES) changed over the 1990 through 1999 period to include more women and minorities. We did so by obtaining data, by race/ethnicity and gender, on the number of career SES members employed governmentwide and at the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act as of September 30 of each year from 1990 through 1999. These data were obtained from the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), the database of federal employees maintained by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). We excluded from our study SES members who were either in limited-term or limited emergency appointments; 169 individuals were in such appointments as of September 30, 1999. We analyzed these data to identify the composition of the career SES as of the end of each fiscal year from 1990 through 1999. We also analyzed these data to identify trends in how much change occurred governmentwide and in the selected agencies in the percentages of women and minorities employed in the career SES over the 1990 through 1999 period. We did not independently verify the CPDF data on the SES for the years we reviewed. However, in a 1998 report, we found that governmentwide data from the CPDF for the key variables in this study— gender, race/ethnicity, general schedule (GS) grade, pay plan, occupation, career status, agency, and personnel action—were 97 percent or more accurate. For the first part of our second objective, to determine the proportion of women and minorities appointed to the career SES annually over this 10- year period, we obtained and analyzed data from the CPDF for each fiscal year from 1990 through 1999. We excluded career SES appointments that were reinstatements into the career SES and transfers of career SES individuals from one agency to another (about 11 percent combined). SES appointments in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an agency within the Department of Justice, are not included because the FBI does not submit personnel action data to the CPDF. For the second part of our second objective, to determine whether career SES appointments reflected the SES pipeline from which most new SES members were generally appointed, we obtained and analyzed data from the CPDF for each of 3 years (1990, 1995, and 1999). The 3 years represented the beginning, middle and end of our overall review period. We compared the diversity of the career SES appointees with the diversity of the pipeline. Because data were not readily available on who actually applied for SES vacancies and because we could not clearly determine the workforces from which all career SES appointees came, we limited the pipeline analysis to career SES appointments of career GS-15 and equivalent employees from within the appointing agency. Over 90 percent of those appointed to the career SES from within an agency were career GS-15 employees the year prior to their appointment and about 83 percent of all career SES appointments were from within an agency. Because we could not clearly determine the labor force (pipeline) for career SES appointments of individuals from outside an agency, we excluded nonfederal employees (about 10 percent of appointees) and federal employees from other agencies (about 7 percent of appointees). Similarly, because we could not clearly determine the labor force for career SES appointments of nonGS-15 federal employees and noncareer GS-15 employees within an agency, we excluded these two groups (about 8 percent) of appointees. In our analysis of appointment and pipeline data, we did not distinguish between GS-15 employees who had supervisory or managerial experience and those who did not have such experience. We did not make this distinction because we found that 25 percent of the GS-15 employees appointed to the SES in fiscal year 1999 were not managers or supervisors in fiscal year 1998. Our third objective entailed identifying how the representation of women and minority employees in the career SES governmentwide and in the 24 CFO agencies as of September 30, 1999, compared with other labor forces. On the basis of agreements reached with your staff, we compared the career SES to six labor forces to provide some context for the extent of diversity in the career SES. The six labor forces varied in the extent to which they were similar to the SES in terms of occupation, salary, and size. Table II.1 shows the size of the six labor forces used in our governmentwide comparisons. Number of employees 123.8 million 1.2 million 1.6 million 888,000 51,000 812 We included only employees receiving wages or salaries and excluded federal employees from the CLF and the RCLF that we constructed. The CLF was derived from the March 1999 Current Population Survey (CPS). Our RCLF was constructed based on the CLF to correspond to the career SES workforce as closely as possible in terms of salary and occupation. Because salary data collected for the CPS are only in ranges of dollars, we used the salary range of $100,000 and over as that most comparable to SES salaries. In addition to governmentwide comparisons of the career SES to each of the labor forces, we also assessed the diversity of each of the CFO agency career SES workforces separately. Because the mission of each of the CFO agencies is different with a different occupational mix, we compared the diversity of each agency’s career SES workforce to the diversity of its own agency total career workforce, its own career professional and administrative workforce, and its own career GS-15 workforce. We also compared the diversity of each agency’s career SES occupations to the diversity of corresponding occupations in a RCLF that we developed. However, in comparing the diversity of each agency’s career SES to the CLF and Postal Service, we did not tailor these labor forces to correspond to the SES occupational mix of each of the 24 agencies. We used a proxy RCLF and the GS-15 workforce as comparative groups. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice have provided agencies advice on assessing the extent of diversity in their SES workforces. EEOC said it has suggested that agencies look at their relevant feeder groups when assessing the level of representation of women and minorities in the SES or at any particular grade level, and in the case of the SES, it has suggested that agencies look at their GS-14 and GS-15 workforces. When an agency’s positions cannot be precisely matched to those in the CLF, Justice has advised agencies to compare their labor forces to those in other labor forces that have the qualifications to perform the duties of the positions in their agencies— such as comparing their SES with employees in their GS-15 workforce. We constructed an RCLF that consists of civilian workers employed in occupations and earning salaries similar to those in the SES. We recognize that our RCLF is not a perfect benchmark, and EEOC does not endorse it.However, our RCLF was the closest match to the SES we could identify in terms of occupations and salary level, because data were not available on level of responsibilities for those in the CLF. We also used the CLF as a comparative group, recognizing that it does not provide as comparable a workforce to the SES as one that includes workers with education, skills, experience, and age similar to the SES, because it includes workers with limited education, skills, and experience as well as workers as young as age 16. The Bureau of the Census conducts the CPS for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Because of the age of the CLF data from the 1990 decennial census, we used CLF data from the March 1999 CPS, the most recent data available at the time of our analyses, when it was statistically feasible to do so. We found that the CLF data from the 1999 CPS were statistically feasible for all racial/ethnic groups except Asian Americans and Native Americans. CLF data were not statistically reliable for Asian Americans and Native Americans because the CPS does not cover enough households to provide statistically sound projections for these two groups. Although the 1999 data were not reliable for these two groups, we used the data because the results of the 1999 CPS RCLF comparisons for Asian Americans and Native Americans indicated the same findings as the 1990 CLF comparisons for Asian Americans and Native Americans. Based on these similar findings, we believe the 1999 CPS RCLF comparisons are not misleading. To construct our governmentwide and agency-specific RCLF, we identified the occupations that accounted for a large proportion of the entire career SES as of September 30, 1999, as well as occupations that were small relative to the entire career SES workforce but relatively large within an agency’s career SES workforce (such as Correctional Administrators in the Department of Justice). This resulted in a total of 34 SES occupations that accounted for 87 percent of the career SES workforce as of the end of fiscal year 1999. We then identified, using a crosswalk used by EEOC, occupations in the CLF that corresponded as closely as possible to these SES occupations. Because the CPDF and the CPS do not use the same occupational categories, some CPS occupations included more than one CPDF SES occupation. This resulted in a total of 28 occupations in the CPS that were comparable to the 34 SES occupations identified in the CPDF. We extracted data from the CLF only for those salaried civilian workers in the 28 occupations with salaries of $100,000 and over, which were comparable to the base salaries of career SES members in 1999. These data were weighted to reflect the occupational composition of each agency. For example, if 50 percent of an agency’s SES were attorneys, then our RCLF that they were compared to also included 50 percent attorneys. We then calculated a representation index to measure the extent of parity between an employee group’s proportion in the SES and its proportion in the comparison labor force by dividing the career SES percentage for each employee group by the percentage for the same employee group in each of the selected labor forces and multiplying by 100. The extent of parity for a particular group can vary widely from one comparative labor force to another. However, none of the comparisons of the SES to the other labor forces, governmentwide or by agency, can be seen as definitive as to whether the SES corps is sufficiently diverse. We used shading to describe the extent of parity between employee group representation in the SES and comparative labor forces. Using appropriate statistical tests, we tested whether the proportions of women and minorities in the SES were significantly over or under (two- tailed test) their proportions in the six labor forces to determine whether the proportional differences were statistically significant. We used the two-standard deviation difference between compared proportions, as recommended by the Justice Department, as our test of significance. A difference of two-standard deviations indicates that the difference in proportions is very unlikely to be due to sampling error or chance. Such a sizable difference provides a strong basis for concluding that the differences are noteworthy. The results of our comparisons are statistically significant unless otherwise noted. To provide data on the noncareer SES, we obtained data from the CPDF. Specifically, we obtained data for each fiscal year from 1990 through 1999, on the composition of and appointments to the noncareer SES governmentwide and for the 24 CFO agencies. Because noncareer SES appointments are made at the discretion of the administration and are not subject to merit selection or to OPM approval, we did not include the noncareer SES in our pipeline or comparative labor force analyses. The following tables provide data on the number of women and minorities in the career SES at each of the 24 CFO agencies and governmentwide. Table III.1 shows the total number of career SES each year over the 1990 through 1999 period and how many of the career SES members were women and minorities. Tables III.2 and III.3 show, by race and ethnicity, the extent of change in the number of women and minorities, respectively, between 1990 and 1999. The following tables provide data on the appointments of women and minorities to the career SES at each of the 24 CFO agencies and governmentwide. Table IV.1 shows the total number of appointments to the career SES each year over the 1990 through 1999 period at each of the 24 CFO agencies and how many of the career SES members appointed were women and minorities. Tables IV.2 shows, by race and ethnicity, the number of minority group members appointed from 1990 through 1999 at each of the 24 CFO agencies. In tables V.1 through V.6, we compare, by gender, minority group, race, and ethnicity, the percentage of employees in the career SES at each of the 24 CFO agencies as of September 30, 1999, to the percentage of employees in the following labor forces to determine the extent of parity: the national CLF ( see table V.1); our agency-specific RCLFs—the proportion of employees in the overall CLF who were in occupations and had incomes equivalent to that of the career SES at each of the 24 CFO agencies (see table V.2); each agency’s total workforce (see table V.3); each agency’s workforce in professional and administrative occupations (see table V.4); each agency’s GS-15 workforce (see table V.5); and the U.S. Postal Service career executive corps (see table V.6). We used shading to illustrate the extent of parity between the career SES employee group percentages and the percentages for the same employee group in the comparative labor forces. To measure the extent of parity, we calculated a representation index by dividing the career SES percentage for each employee group by the percentage for the same employee group in each of the comparative labor forces and multiplying by 100. The results of our comparisons are statistically significant unless otherwise noted. Appendix II describes the tests we performed to determine whether proportional differences between the SES and the comparative labor forces were statistically significant. Table V.1: Comparison of Career SES Employee Groups in the 24 CFO Agencies as of September 30, 1999, to the Same Employee Groups in the National CLF CLF data obtained from the 1999 CPS for Asian Americans and Native Americans were not statistically reliable because the CPS does not cover enough households to provide statistically sound projections for these two groups. However, our comparisons for Asian Americans and Native Americans using CLF data derived from the 1999 CPS and from the 1990 Census indicated similar results. Therefore, we believe that the comparisons using CLF data from the 1999 CPS are not misleading. Table V.2: Comparison of Career SES Employee Groups in the 24 CFO Agencies as of September 30, 1999, to the Same Employee Groups in Our Agency-Specific RCLFs CLF data obtained from the 1999 CPS for Asian Americans and Native Americans were not statistically reliable because the CPS does not cover enough households to provide statistically sound projections for these two groups. However, our comparisons for Asian Americans and Native Americans using CLF data derived from the 1999 CPS and from the 1990 Census indicated similar results. Therefore, we believe that the comparisons using CLF data from the 1999 CPS are not misleading. 5AA?JA@ 5-5 AFOAA CHKFI )AHE?=I 0EIF=E?I )AHE?=I 9DEJAI -@K?=JE -2) .-) /5) )5) 5. 5*) 55) SES employee group percentage met or exceeded the percentage for the same employee group in the selected labor force. SES employee group percentage was either above, below, or the same as the percentage for the same employee group in the selected labor force, but the difference between the percentages was not statistically significant. SES employee group percentage was below the percentage for the same employee group in the selected labor force. 5AA?JA@ 5-5 AFOAA CHKFI )AHE?=I 0EIF=E?I )AHE?=I 9DEJAI -@K?=JE -2) .-) /5) )5) 5. 5*) 55) SES employee group percentage met or exceeded the percentage for the same employee group in the selected labor force. SES employee group percentage was either above, below, or the same as the percentage for the same employee group in the selected labor force, but the difference between the percentages was not statistically significant. SES employee group percentage was below the percentage for the same employee group in the selected labor force. The following tables provide data on the composition of the noncareer SES governmentwide and at each of the 24 CFO agencies. Table VI.1 shows for each year over the 1990 through 1999 period the overall size of the noncareer SES as well as the number of women, men, minorities, and whites. Table VI.2 shows the number of women and minorities for each year from 1990 through 1999 at each of the 24 agencies. The following tables provide data on the composition of the noncareer SES governmentwide and at each of the 24 CFO agencies. Table VII.1 shows for each year over the 1990 through 1999 period the total number of noncareer SES appointments as well as the number of women, men, minorities, and whites. Table VII.2 shows the total number of appointments to the noncareer SES each year over the 1990 through 1999 period at each of the 24 agencies and how many of the noncareer SES members appointed were women and minorities. Tables VII.3 shows the number of minority group members, by race and ethnicity, appointed from 1990 through 1999 at each of the 24 agencies. The following is GAO’s comment on EEOC’s attachments to its letter dated March 6, 2001. The data presented in EEOC’s two attachments are virtually identical to the data we present in our report, except for its data on the GS-14 and GS- 15 white collar workforces. In our report, we have explained that we excluded GS-14s a feeder group for our comparison to the SES, because GS-14s constituted only 1 percent of appointments to the SES as of the end of fiscal year 1999. In addition to the individual named above, Richard W. Caradine, Mary Y. Martin, Gregory H. Wilmoth, Steven J. Berke, Ellen T. Grady, William Trancucci, Michael R. Volpe, Sylvia L. Shanks, Thomas G. Dowdal, Katharine M. Raheb, and Jena Y. Sinkfield made key contributions to this report.

Summary: This report analyzes the gender and racial/ethnic diversity in the career Senior Executive Service (SES) governmentwide. GAO examines (1) whether the composition of the career SES changed during the 10-year period ending in fiscal year 1999 to include more minorities and women, (2) what proportion of women and minorities were appointed to the career SES annually during this 10-year period and whether the appointments reflected the SES "pipeline"--the group from which new SES members were generally appointed, and (3) how the representation of women and minority employees in the career SES as of fiscal year 1999 compared with other labor forces. GAO found that the representation of women and minorities in the career SES steadily increased during the 1990's, with the proportion of women going from 10 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 1999. Similarly, the percentage of minority members went from seven percent to about 13 percent. The vast majority of these appointments came from within the ranks of GS-15 employees. Women and minorities had a somewhat lower representation in the SES when compared to other labor forces.