EEOC FORM U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Headquarters Department of the Army Page 1 of 98 715-01 Part A - D For period covering October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. PART A Department or Agency Identifying Information 1. Agency Headquarters United States Army 1.a. 2 nd level reporting component 1.b. 3 rd level reporting component 1.c. 4 th level reporting component 2. Address 1225 S. Clark St., Suite 200 3. City, State, Zip Code Arlington VA 22202 VA 22202 4. CPDF Code 5. FIPS Code ARSA 8840 PART B Total Employment 1. Enter total number of permanent full-time and part-time employees 260,547 2. Enter total number of temporary employees 5,711 3. Enter total number employees paid from non-appropriated funds 29,879 4. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT [add lines B 1 through 3] 296,137 PART C Agency Official(s) Responsible For Oversight of EEO Program(s) 1. Head of Agency Official Title Hon. John McHugh, Secretary of the Army 2. Agency Head Designee Hon. Thomas Lamont, ASA Manpower & Reserve Affairs 3. Principal EEO Director/Official Official Title/series/grade Larry Stubblefield. DASA D&L ASA Manpower and Reserve Affairs 4. Title VII Affirmative EEO Program Official Mr. Michael Gautier, Director MD 715 5. Section 501 Affirmative Action Program Official Ms. Yolanda Maldonado, Acting IWD Director 6. Complaint Processing Program Manager Mr. Spurgeon Moore, Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Compliance and Review 7. Other Responsible EEO Staff PART D List of Subordinate Components Covered in This Report Subordinate Component and Location (City/State) CPDF and FIPS Codes United States Army Special Operations Command ARSP 2560 United States Army Test and Evaluation Command ARAT 8840
98
Embed
715-01 Part A - D · EEOC FORM U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT Headquarters Department of the Army Page 1 of 98 715-01
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 1 of 98
715-01 Part A - D
For period covering October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010.
PART A Department or Agency Identifying Information
1. Agency Headquarters United States Army
1.a. 2nd level reporting component
1.b. 3rd level reporting component
1.c. 4th level reporting component
2. Address 1225 S. Clark St., Suite 200
3. City, State, Zip Code Arlington VA 22202 VA 22202
4. CPDF Code 5. FIPS Code ARSA 8840
PART B Total
Employment
1. Enter total number of permanent full-time and part-time employees 260,547
2. Enter total number of temporary employees 5,711
3. Enter total number employees paid from non-appropriated funds 29,879
4. TOTAL EMPLOYMENT [add lines B 1 through 3] 296,137
PART C Agency
Official(s) Responsible
For Oversight of EEO
Program(s)
1. Head of Agency Official Title Hon. John McHugh, Secretary of the Army
2. Agency Head Designee Hon. Thomas Lamont, ASA Manpower & Reserve Affairs
3. Principal EEO Director/Official Official Title/series/grade
Larry Stubblefield. DASA D&L ASA Manpower and Reserve Affairs
4. Title VII Affirmative EEO Program Official
Mr. Michael Gautier, Director MD 715
5. Section 501 Affirmative Action Program Official
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado, Acting IWD Director
6. Complaint Processing Program Manager
Mr. Spurgeon Moore, Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Compliance and Review
7. Other Responsible EEO Staff
PART D List of
Subordinate Components Covered in This Report
Subordinate Component and Location (City/State) CPDF and FIPS Codes
United States Army Special Operations Command ARSP 2560
United States Army Test and Evaluation Command ARAT 8840
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 2 of 98
United States Military Academy ARMA 36071
United States Army Information Security Command ARAS 8840
Joint and DoD Activities ARJA 8840
United States Army Human Resources Command ARMP 8840
United States Army Joint Activities ARJA 8840
United States Army SHAPE ARJ1 8840
United States Army Pacific Command ARP1 3320
United States Army Military District of Washington ARMW 8840
United States Army Recruiting Command ARRC 5135
Field Operating Agencies of HQ DA and Secretary of the Army ARSB 8840
Staff Support Agencies, HQDA ARSS 8840
Joint and DoD Activities ARSJ 8840
United States Army South ARSO 7240
United States Army Training and Doctrine Command ARTC 5135
United States Army Corps of Engineers ARCE 8840
United States Army Materiel Command ARX1 3440
United States Army Network Enterprise Technology Command ARG6 6200
US Army DoD Agencies ARDF 8840
Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army ARCS 8840
United States Army Central Command ARCT 8280
United States Army Over Strength Command ARDM 8840
United States Army Office of the Secretary of the Army ARSA 8840
United States Army Criminal Investigation Command ARCB 8840
United States Army National Guard Bureau ARNG 8840
United States Army North AR5A 7240
US Army Europe and 7th Army ARE1 8840
US Military Entrance Processing Command ARAP 1600
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 3 of 98
US Army Medical Command ARMC 7240
US Army Acquisition Support Center ARAE 8840
US Army Forces Command ARFC 2752
US Army Accession Command ARAA 5135
U.S. Army Space And Missile Defense Command ARSC 3440
Eighth US Army ARP8 8840
United States Army Installation Management Command ARBA
8840
EEO FORMS and Documents Included With This Report
*Executive Summary [FORM 715-01 PART E], that includes:
*Optional Annual Self-Assessment Checklist Against Essential Elements [FORM 715-01PART G]
x
Brief paragraph describing the agency's mission and mission-related functions
x
*EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program [FORM 715-01PART H] for each programmatic essential
x
Summary of results of agency's annual self-assessment against MD-715 "Essential Elements"
x
*EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier [FORM 715-01 PART I] for each identified barrier
x
Summary of Analysis of Work Force Profiles including net change analysis and comparison to RCLF
x
*Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Advancement of Individuals With Targeted Disabilities for agencies with 1,000 or more employees [FORM 715-01 PART J]
x
Summary of EEO Plan objectives planned to eliminate identified barriers or correct program deficiencies
x
*Copy of Workforce Data Tables as necessary to support Executive Summary and/or EEO Plans
x
Summary of EEO Plan action items implemented or accomplished
x
*Copy of data from 462 Report as necessary to support action items related to Complaint Processing Program deficiencies, ADR effectiveness, or other compliance issues.
x
*Statement of Establishment of Continuing Equal Employment Opportunity Programs[FORM 715-01 PART F]
x *Copy of Facility Accessibility Survey results as necessary to support EEO Action Plan for building renovation projects
*Copies of relevant EEO Policy Statement(s) and/or excerpts from revisions made to EEO Policy Statements
*Organizational Chart x
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 4 of 98
715-01 Part E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of the Army (DA) is a component within the Department of
Defense. Army civilian employees work in a wide variety of positions and pay grades
around the world as part of the mission of the United States Army, as described in the Army
web site www.army.mil.
The Army’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program administers and
manages the Army’s civilian employment EEO and Civil Rights Program. The
mission/function of EEO practitioners and staff members is uniform throughout the
worldwide organization except in scope. The operating and tactical offices on installations
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) District EEO offices provide programmatic
support and services to Army activities and tenants. Major Army Commands (ACOMs),
Army Service Component Commands (ASCCs), and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs), EEO
staff provides strategic advice, technical support and oversight of the Commander’s EEO
program. Civilian personnel advisory services are provided on a regional basis as detailed
at http://www.cpocma.army.mil/.
During the reporting period, the position of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Army for EEO and Civil Rights became the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Diversity and Leadership. EEO Program Policy and Compliance remained intact, while
serving as a foundation for developing diversity and inclusion strategies, initiatives and
civilian workforce transformation.
All civilian employees, except for foreign local national employees, are included in
this report which covers the reporting period ending September 30, 2010. The data
provided in this report represents the workforce demographics of the Army civilian
workforce. Although the national Civilian Labor Force statistic is used for comparisons,
the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code used in this report is 8840
(Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland and Eastern West Virginia) because there is
no “national” FIPS. Furthermore, most of the Army Headquarters’ staffs and leadership are
located in this FIPS area.
Due to the size and complexity of the Army, its broad scope, mission and
organization, the report summarizes the Army EEO program in general terms. The
information provided in this report is an aggregated summary of the entire Department of
the Army. The individual recruitment actions and EEO program operations at the garrisons
The percentage of appropriated fund employees relative to the general national Civilian
Labor Force (CLF) is shown in figure 2. The percentage of White women, Hispanic or
Latino men and women are below the CLF; the representation of other EEO groups is
generally consistent with the CLF. Although the overall population has increased, the ratio
of change has not been extreme with the exception of the decrease of Hispanic or Latino
men and women. This overall evaluation does not take the place of more detailed
evaluations by occupational series and grades which may change the evaluation or the
impact of geographic dispersion of work centers.
EEO Groups FY 09 FY 10 General CLF
Change
White Men 44.95% 45.04% 39.00% 0.19%
White Women 23.76% 23.64% 33.70% -0.49%
Black Men 8.40% 8.42% 4.80% 0.17%
Black Women 9.43% 9.26% 5.70% -1.84%
Hispanic or Latino Men 3.70% 3.47% 6.20% -6.68%
Hispanic or Latino Women
2.05% 1.92% 4.50% -6.45%
Asian Men 2.18% 2.19% 1.90% 0.53%
Asian Women 1.83% 1.80% 1.70% -1.56%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men
0.25% 0.28% 0.10% 10.13%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women
0.23% 0.24% 0.10% 7.28%
American Indian or Alaska Native Men
0.60% 0.58% 0.30% -3.07%
American Indian or Alaska Native Women
0.38% 0.37% 0.30% -2.30%
Multiracial Men 1.26% 1.59% 0.80% 20.91%
Multiracial Women 0.99% 1.19% 0.80% 17.48%
Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 99.90% 34.30%
Figure 2
MODEL EEO PROGRAM SUMMARY
Element A. Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership:
Strength: Policy development, training and strategic communication of the Army’s
Diversity Strategy and the execution of a plan linked with the model EEO Program six
essential elements for broader application of diversity.
Element B. Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission
Strengths: The Headquarters, Department of the Army EEO program is aligned in
accordance with 29 CFR Part 1614. The EEO Director, the Assistant Secretary of the Army
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 8 of 98
(Manpower & Reserve Affairs) (ASA (M&RA), reports directly to the head of the Agency
(Secretary of the Army). The EEO program operates under the direct and personal
supervision of the ASA (M&RA), as depicted in Figure 3.
The participation of the HQ EEO staff in decision points aids in the integration of
EEO Program principles, objectives and requirements into standardized organizational
models/systems. This provides a foundation for resource analysis and determination that
becomes part of the permanent command and leadership structure as standardized or
institutionalized resources.
In August 2010 a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) for Diversity and
Leadership was appointed by the Secretary of the Army. This appointment is an elevation
in the status, visibility, agility and capability of the EEO Program, provides greater
authority to implement comprehensive action plans, policies and practice.
Organization Chart (As of 17 August, 2010)
Figure 3
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 9 of 98
Element C. Management and program accountability
Strengths:
Selection to the SES and awards issued to SES and senior leaders require review by Office of the General Counsel, the Office of The Judge Advocate General, the Inspector General and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Because of EEO program modernization, the HQ EEO staff in the Diversity and Leadership Office is able to make rapid qualitative and quantitative assessments of the Army program. Using the MD 715 Reporter and iComplaints, the HQ EEO staff is able to centrally perform detailed program evaluations and this capability is replicated at the command levels. This has reduced the cost of program evaluations. The implementation of the first Army wide on-line training module for the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act training is completed and future online EEO training modules are planned. To date 112, 321 have taken NO FEAR training as compared to 11, 763 civilian employees who took the training in FY 10. That represents an increase of over 100,000 employees receiving the training in FY 2010. In FY 2011, the Army will deploy the Equal Employment Opportunity Self Assessment Tool (EEOSAT), which will provide a customer relations management focus on the analysis tools currently provided by EEOC. The advantage of EEOSAT is that it analyzes the EEO program from the customer perspective to measure the impact of the delivery of EEO services. This application will be exported to the EEOC for use by other federal agencies and become part of the EEOC evaluation system. Managers and supervisors are rated on their support of the EEO program. The automated performance evaluation system includes specific objectives that measure individual managers’ support of EEO initiatives. Future initiatives are planned that will further standardize leadership support reporting.
Deficiency:
The review of disability accommodation decisions/actions is conducted locally; there is no capability of collecting data on reasonable accommodations requests Army wide. There is no agency-wide automated tracking system in place to bring visibility to these requests or to analyze the information. However, Army policy on Reasonable Accommodation was published in 2009 and this area is being addressed. Multiple entries for disability codes into DCPDS have not been completed. Employees with more than one disability cannot have more than one disability coded in DCPDS.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 10 of 98
Element D. Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination
Strength:
Agency policies and practices support program operations. The program infrastructure, as
expressed in Army regulations and policies, provides visibility to EEO programs and
practices. Redress methods are taught at New Employee Orientations for both civilian and
military personnel who include military and civilian supervisors and managers.
Element E. Efficiency
Strength:
The centralization of EEO systems using iComplaints and the MD 715 Reporter provides
global oversight of program operations by integrating metrics, data, and local information,
while supporting local context and knowledge sharing.
The Army’s ability to modernize its EEO program provides flexibility in the effort to achieve
the model EEO program. The usage rate of EEO systems by EEO users approaches 90% of
the more than 400 EEO careerists.
MD 715 metrics are integrated into overall command metric systems such as the Army
wide installation status reporting and resource modeling systems.
Access to HR data is provided through standard access procedures and EEO specific data
elements are integrated into DCPDS.
Employee training is monitored and the move to more standardized online modules
assures consistency and legal compliance. The movement away from the dependency on
collateral duty to full time support provides more substantial assets to the EEO process.
Deficiency:
The Army's complaint processing program generally operates at a high level of efficiency
and compliance with EEOC guidelines and procedures, however meeting processing
timelines for investigations continue to be a challenge.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 11 of 98
Element F. Responsiveness and Legal Compliance
Strengths:
EEO, HR, and Legal review of Army senior executive leaders’ performance awards with
recommendations to the Secretary of the Army for approval or denial.
Army’s EEO complaints are managed at each command’s programmatic level. The agency
authority for final agency decisions rests with the Office of the ASA(M&RA). The
operational report is included in the complaints analysis of this report.
FY 2010 462 REPORT ANALYSIS The number of informal and formal complaints filed against the Department of the
Army increased slightly during Fiscal Year 2010. 2,367 informal complaints were filed in
FY 2010, compared with 2,308 informal complaints in FY 2009; there were 1,320 formal
filings in FY 2010 as compared to 1,207 formal complaints filed in FY 2009.
Informal closures also increased, from 2,342 informal complaints closed during FY
2009 to 2,416 in FY 2010. The vast majority of Army pre-complaints continue to be closed
with the issuance of a Notice of Right to File a Formal Complaint; in FY 2010 only 12.3% of
informal complaints were settled as compared to 87.7% that closed with a Notice of Right
to File. The overall percentage of informal complaints which resulted in the filing of a
formal complaint remained around the 50% level, as it has for several years.
The top two issues raised in formal complaints process in FY 2010, as shown in
Figure 4, were harassment (non-sexual) and promotion/non-selection, the same as in the
A total of 1,301 formal complaints were closed by the Army in FY 2010, continuing the
trend of small increases in closures from the 1,196 cases closed during FY 2008 and 1,222
in FY 2009. Closure by settlement remained the most common type of formal closure at
41.5%, followed by dismissals at 19.6%. 12.7% of complaints were withdrawn. Final
Agency Orders with an Administrative Judge (AJ) Decision increased from 9.7% to 10.9%,
and while the total number of Final Agency Decisions (FADs) without an AJ decision varied
by only 2, the overall increase in closures led to a decrease in percentage from 17.7% in FY
2009 to 16.4% in FY 2010. The average days taken to issue a FAD without an AJ decision
was 59.47, just below the regulatory requirement of 60 days.
There were 6 findings issued by the Army with an AJ decision, in line with the
number of AJ findings received in FY 2009, and an additional 7 findings issued in merit
FADs without an AJ decision; however, findings overall accounted for only 1.0% of formal
FY 2010 closures. As seen in the new Part IVB of the report, the issues involved in findings
are varied and without any identifiable trend or commonality. The six merit FAD findings
involving race (black) and harassment (non-sexual) were related complaints from
individuals in the same organization and location – findings had been issued in 9 of these
related complaints in FY 2009, and the remainder of the complaints was settled in FY 2010.
That settlement, including compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees, accounts for much
of the $1.2 million dollar increase in monetary benefits paid in formal complaints as
reported in Part VII (please refer to the FY 2009 and FY 2010 reports for the Army Corps of
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 13 of 98
Engineers subcomponent). Setting those related findings aside, reprisal remained the most
common basis for a finding, followed closely by disability (physical) and race (black).
A total of 1,066 formal complaints were still open at the close of FY 2010. Nearly all
were either pending investigation (522) or pending a hearing before an Administrative
Judge (425). Of the 100 cases reported as pending the complainant’s post-investigative
election or a Final Agency Decision/Action the Army’s complaint tracking database
indicated that 49 complaints were pending the complainant’s election and 51 were pending
final action.
The Army completed 546 investigations in FY 2010, nearly 100 more than in FY
2009 (457 investigations), and in a reduced timeframe of 202.53 days on average as
compared to 213.67 days in the previous year. The percentage of Army investigations
considered timely also increased from 44.4% in FY 2009 to 52.7% in FY 2010. Notably,
those investigations which were completed in 180 days or less were actually concluded in
an average of 151.33 days, almost a full month below the regulatory requirement. Army
plans to analyze the data from these cases for trends or commonalities which may
contribute to the success of the investigative process. Best practices will be identified and
shared with other Army activities to reduce investigative timeframes in FY 2011.
The acceptance rate for ADR in pre-complaints increased slightly for the third
consecutive year, increasing from 50.5% in FY 2009 to 53.3% in FY 2010. This also
increased the ADR participation rate, though it remains very low with only 25.4% of all
closed informal complaints having entered the ADR process. ADR settlements also
increased slightly in FY 2010, with 223 pre-complaints in which ADR was accepted closing
with a settlement for an ADR resolution rate of 36.4% - identical to the resolution rate in
the previous fiscal year. In spite of these mild improvements ADR settlements totaled only
9.2% of all FY 2010 pre-complaint closures. ADR was offered in only 299 complaints in the
formal stage during FY 2010, and accepted in 194, for an acceptance rate of 64.9% and a
participation rate of 23% of all formal complaints filed2, which meant that 146 of those
2 These numbers were calculated out of Army’s own complaint tracking database, looking at all formal
complaints in which ADR was offered during FY 2010, regardless of their status at the end of the fiscal year. As of the FY 2006 462 reports, Part XI “Formal ADR Activities” only gives ADR participation data for those complaints which closed during the fiscal year. As this excludes all ADR activity during FY 2010 in complaints which did not close during the fiscal year, and includes ADR activity which took place in previous fiscal years in complaints which happened to close in FY 2010, most likely not as a result of any FY 2010 ADR activity, Army does not believe that Part XI as it is now composed accurately reflects the work of Army’s ADR programs in the formal stage during the course of FY 2010. Therefore, in order to evaluate the performance of Army’s ADR programs during FY 2010 for this MD 715 report, Army has relied on its
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 14 of 98
complaints, or 75.3%, were closed with a settlement, maintaining Army’s historically high
resolution rate for formal ADR but accounting for only 11.2% of all FY 2010 formal
closures. The Army continues to be concerned with the low number of complaints in which
ADR is offered and the high number of complainants rejecting offers of ADR, particularly in
the pre-complaint stage, and is currently working to finalize and implement an ADR policy
to encourage greater understanding and utilization of ADR in EEO complaints.
Overall, the Department of the Army’s complaints processing in FY 2010 showed
significant improvement in several key areas; the investigative process and the issuance of
merit FADs without an AJ decision. We are continuing to work to maintain this progress in
FY 2011.
In response to the growing need to resolve workplace disputes throughout Army,
the Army Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program Office, located in the Office of the
Army General Counsel, was established in 2008 to promote and encourage the use of ADR
techniques in Army workplace and contract disputes, through training and other initiatives.
During FY 10 the ADR Program Office conducted a variety of ADR/mediation training and
education programs to promote the use of early conflict resolution in workplace disputes,
including EEO complaints. Eight 40-hour Basic Mediation Courses were conducted at the
installation level to develop local collateral duty Army mediators and local ADR programs
to assist in workplace matters. The audiences for these courses included EEO and Human
Resource professionals, labor counselors, union officials and managers and employees
representing many career fields across the Army. Briefings for Garrison Commanders and
Leaders on the strategic use of ADR methods in workplace disputes to promote primary
mission accomplishment were also conducted at these installations.
During FY 10, the Army ADR Office developed and delivered ADR education
programs tailored to a variety of Army audiences to promote ADR utilization. The ADR
Program Office conducted four ADR briefings at the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center
and School for Army attorneys to promote the use of ADR methods in workplace disputes.
Five ADR briefings were conducted at the Army Civilian Human Resources Agency to
educate Army Human Resource professionals on the benefits of ADR and how to access
Army ADR resources for early dispute resolution. An ADR and negotiation course was
conducted at Army War College for Army Leaders to promote the strategic use of early
conflict resolution tools in EEO and other types of workplace disputes. The ADR Program
own database and calculations for the participation and resolution rates, and is not utilizing any of the data from Part XI of the FY 2010 462 report.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 15 of 98
Office website (www.adr.army.mil) also provides guidance and education on the use of
ADR techniques in EEO and other types of workplace disputes.
Program Evaluation Summary
The Army’s path to the model EEO program is measured in a number of ways. The
EEOC MD 715 self assessment requirements are provided on MD 715 Form G and
summarized in Table 1. The scores are the aggregation of all reporting Army offices and is
based on the six essentials for a Model EEO Program. Army EEO offices rate themselves and
scores are aggregated through the EEO reporting hierarchy. Overall, the scores indicate
that the Army is 94% compliant with MD 715 requirements; this assessment does not
account for command and local circumstances.
Army Wide Form G Scores By Essential Element
Office Fiscal
Year
A B C D E F Percent
Yes
ARMY 2009 95% 94% 90% 90% 91% 100% 93%
2010 92% 94% 90% 100% 91% 100% 94%
Median
94% 94% 90% 95% 91% 100% 94%
% Chg -3% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 93%
Table 1
Each year’s score is compared to previous years to determine the net difference expressed
as the median score between years. This quantifies the progress made between reporting
years. The six essential elements are listed followed by a discussion of the Army scores.
A. Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership B. Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission C. Management and program accountability D. Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination E. Efficiency; and F. Responsiveness and legal compliance.
The scores vary by command, but the Army wide scores indicate that the Army’s failure to publish and distribute an agency policy and provide a state of the agency briefing lowered the Army score by 3% for Essential Element A, Demonstrated Commitment From Agency Leadership. Improvements in the management of the data collection and complaints processing raised the score on Element D, Proactive Prevention of Unlawful
Discrimination, by 11%. Of all the essential elements, 58% of all deficiencies centered in Elements B, within the compliance indicator concerning sufficient budget support and Element E’s compliance indicator concerning staffing.
TRIGGERS
Within the statistical profiles of major EEO groups, the participation rate of White and African American men and women meets most statistical expectations compared to the CLF except where noted. With the exception of senior positions in the intelligence community, the participation rate of African American men in the senior executive service is at parity with the CLF. The workforce analysis that follows identified three major triggers:
1. The impact of the selection process on African American men in officials and
managers and professionals pay grade GS 12-15 to determine if there is
statistical significance between the referral and selection rates.
2. The lower than expected participation rates for Hispanic or Latinos based
upon the CLF in pay grades GS 12-15 and the senior executive service and the
impact of the senior executive service developmental process on Hispanic or
Latinos’ participation rates.
3. The lower than expected participation rates of women within individual EEO
groups based upon the CLF, in grades GS 12-15 and the senior executive
service.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 17 of 98
STRATEGY FOR FY 2011
The overarching strategy for FY 2011 will focus on the continuation of strategic
interactions with the Army staff, commands and total Army community. To that end, three
strategic objectives will be used to strengthen staff and command relationships that result
in continued progress in the implementation of a “Model EEO program”.
Continue to strategically communicate, market, train and educate Army
personnel on the Army Diversity Road Map as a management tool for senior
leaders, commanders, and the Army staff.
Improve goal oriented relationships with functional career program
managers, senior leader developers and other human capital officials to align
the Army’s human capital implementation guidelines in ways that strengthen
the value system to embed diversity into policy and practice.
Reinforce the professional development of diversity professionals to meet the transformation challenges identified.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 18 of 98
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 19 of 98
715-01 PART G
AGENCY SELF-ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST MEASURING ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Essential Element A: DEMONSTRATED COMMITMENT FROM AGENCY LEADERSHIP Requires the agency head to issue written policy statements ensuring a workplace free of discriminatory
harassment and a commitment to equal employment opportunity.
Compliance Indicator
EEO policy statements are up-to-date.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Was the EEO policy Statement issued within 6-9 months of the installation of the Agency Head? If no, provide an explanation. The Agency Head was installed on 9/29/2009. The EEO policy statement was not issued.
X
Policy letters are being coordinated with appropriate Army staff organizations.
During the current Agency Head's tenure, has the EEO policy Statement been re-issued annually? If no, provide and explanation.
X Policy letters are being coordinated with appropriate Army staff organizations.
Are new employees provided a copy of the EEO policy statement during orientation?
X
When an employee is promoted into the supervisory ranks, is s/he provided a copy of the EEO policy statement?
X
Compliance Indicator
EEO policy statements have been communicated to all employees.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Have the heads of subordinate reporting components communicated support of all agency EEO policies through the ranks?
X
Has the agency made written materials available to all employees and applicants, informing them of the variety of EEO programs and administrative and judicial remedial procedures available to them?
X
Has the agency prominently posted such written materials in all personnel offices, EEO offices, and on the agency's internal website? [see 29 CFR 1614.102(b)(5)]
X
Compliance Indicator Agency EEO policy is vigorously
enforced by agency management.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Are managers and supervisors evaluated on their commitment to agency EEO policies and principles, including their efforts to:
X
resolve problems/disagreements and other conflicts in their respective work environments as they arise?
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 20 of 98
address concerns, whether perceived or real, raised by employees and following-up with appropriate action to correct or eliminate tension in the workplace?
X
support the agency's EEO program through allocation of mission personnel to participate in community out-reach and recruitment programs with private employers, public schools and universities?
X
ensure full cooperation of employees under his/her supervision with EEO office officials such as EEO Counselors, EEO Investigators, etc.?
X
ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, harassment and retaliation?
X
ensure that subordinate supervisors have effective managerial, communication and interpersonal skills in order to supervise most effectively in a workplace with diverse employees and avoid disputes arising from ineffective communications ?
X
ensure the provision of requested religious accommodations when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship?
X
ensure the provision of requested disability accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship?
X
Have all employees been informed about what behaviors are inappropriate in the workplace and that this behavior may result in disciplinary actions? Describe what means were utilized by the agency to so inform its workforce about the penalties for unacceptable behavior.
X
Have the procedures for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities been made readily available/accessible to all employees by disseminating such procedures during orientation of new employees and by making such procedures available on the World Wide Web or Internet?
X
Have managers and supervisor been trained on their responsibilities under the procedures for reasonable accommodation?
X
Essential Element B: INTEGRATION OF EEO INTO THE AGENCY'S STRATEGIC MISSION Requires that the agency's EEO programs be organized and structured to maintain a workplace that is free
from discrimination in any of the agency's policies, procedures or practices and supports the agency's strategic mission.
Compliance Indicator
The reporting structure for the EEO Program provides the Principal EEO Official with appropriate authority and resources to effectively carry out a successful EEO Program.
Measure has been met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report
Measures Yes No
Is the EEO Director under the direct supervision of the agency head? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]
X
Are the duties and responsibilities of EEO officials clearly defined?
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 21 of 98
Do the EEO officials have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out the duties and responsibilities of their positions?
X
If the agency has 2nd level reporting components, are there organizational charts that clearly define the reporting structure for EEO programs?
X
If the agency has 2nd level reporting components, does the agency-wide EEO Director have authority for the EEO programs within the subordinate reporting components? If not, please describe how EEO program authority is delegated to subordinate reporting components.
X
Compliance Indicator
The EEO Director and other EEO professional staff responsible for EEO programs have regular and effective means of informing the
agency head and senior management officials of the
status of EEO programs and are involved in, and consulted on,
management/personnel actions.
Measure has been
met For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report
Measures
Yes No
Does the EEO Director/Officer have a regular and effective means of informing the agency head and other top management officials of the effectiveness, efficiency and legal compliance of the agency's EEO program?
X
Following the submission of the immediately preceding FORM 715-01, did the EEO Director/Officer present to the head of the agency and other senior officials the "State of the Agency" briefing covering all components of the EEO report, including an assessment of the performance of the agency in each of the six elements of the Model EEO Program and a report on the progress of the agency in completing its barrier analysis including any barriers it identified and/or eliminated or reduced the impact of?
X
Briefings for the ASA M&RA and Secretary the Army are being planned.
Are EEO program officials present during agency deliberations prior to decisions regarding recruitment strategies, vacancy projections, succession planning, selections for training/career development opportunities, and other workforce changes?
X
Does the agency consider whether any group of employees or applicants might be negatively impacted prior to making human resource decisions such as re-organizations and re-alignments?
X
Are management/personnel policies, procedures and practices examined at regular intervals to assess whether there are hidden impediments to the realization of equality of opportunity for any group(s) of employees or applicants? [see 29 CFR. Â 1614.102(b)(3)]
X
Is the EEO Director included in the agency's strategic planning, especially the agency's human capital plan, regarding succession planning, training, etc., to ensure that EEO concerns are integrated into the agency's strategic mission?
X
Compliance Indicator
The agency has committed sufficient human resources and
budget allocations to its EEO
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 22 of 98
Measures programs to ensure successful operation.
Yes No 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report
Does the EEO Director have the authority and funding to ensure implementation of agency EEO action plans to improve EEO program efficiency and/or eliminate identified barriers to the realization of equality of opportunity?
X
Are sufficient personnel resources allocated to the EEO Program to ensure that agency self-assessments and self-analyses prescribed by EEO MD-715 are conducted annually and to maintain an effective complaint processing system?
X
Army will conduct resource management study to ensure resource management levels meet anticipated mission requirements
Are statutory/regulatory EEO related Special Emphasis Programs sufficiently staffed?
Federal Women's Program - 5 U.S.C. 7201; 38 U.S.C. 4214; Title 5 CFR, Subpart B, 720.204
X
Hispanic or Latino Employment Program - Title 5 CFR, Subpart B, 720.204
X
People With Disabilities Program Manager; Selective Placement Program for Individuals With Disabilities - Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act; Title 5 U.S.C. Subpart B, Chapter 31, Subchapter I-3102; 5 CFR 213.3102(t) and (u); 5 CFR 315.709
X
Are other agency special emphasis programs monitored by the EEO Office for coordination and compliance with EEO guidelines and principles, such as FEORP - 5 CFR 720; Veterans Employment Programs; and Black/African American; American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American/Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander programs?
X
Compliance Indicator The agency has committed
sufficient budget to support the success of its EEO Programs.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Are there sufficient resources to enable the agency to conduct a thorough barrier analysis of its workforce, including the provision of adequate data collection and tracking systems
X
Is there sufficient budget allocated to all employees to utilize, when desired, all EEO programs, including the complaint processing program and ADR, and to make a request for reasonable accommodation? (Including subordinate level reporting components?)
X
Has funding been secured for publication and distribution of EEO materials (e.g. harassment policies, EEO posters, reasonable accommodations procedures, etc.)?
X
Is there a central fund or other mechanism for funding supplies, equipment and services necessary to provide disability accommodations?
X
Does the agency fund major renovation projects to ensure timely compliance with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards?
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 23 of 98
Is the EEO Program allocated sufficient resources to train all employees on EEO Programs, including administrative and judicial remedial procedures available to employees?
X
Is there sufficient funding to ensure the prominent posting of written materials in all personnel and EEO offices? [see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(b)(5)]
X
Is there sufficient funding to ensure that all employees have access to this training and information?
X
Is there sufficient funding to provide all managers and supervisors with training and periodic up-dates on their EEO responsibilities:
X
for ensuring a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, including harassment and retaliation?
X
to provide religious accommodations? X
to provide disability accommodations in accordance with the agency's written procedures?
X
in the EEO discrimination complaint process? X
to participate in ADR? X
Essential Element C: MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY This element requires the Agency Head to hold all managers, supervisors, and EEO Officials responsible for
the effective implementation of the agency's EEO Program and Plan.
Compliance Indicator
EEO program officials advise and provide appropriate assistance to managers/supervisors about the status of EEO programs within each managers or supervisor's area or responsibility.
Measure has been met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report
Measures Yes No
Are regular (monthly/quarterly/semi-annually) EEO updates provided to management/supervisory officials by EEO program officials?
X
Do EEO program officials coordinate the development and implementation of EEO Plans with all appropriate agency managers to include Agency Counsel, Human Resource Officials, Finance, and the Chief information Officer?
X
Compliance Indicator
The Human Resources Director and the EEO Director meet
regularly to assess whether personnel programs, policies,
and procedures are in conformity with instructions contained in EEOC management directives.
[see 29 CFR Â 1614.102(b)(3)]
Measure has been
met For all unmet measures, provide a
brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM
715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report
Measures
Yes No
Have time-tables or schedules been established for the agency to review its Merit Promotion Program Policy and Procedures for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in promotion opportunities by all groups?
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 24 of 98
Have time-tables or schedules been established for the agency to review its Employee Recognition Awards Program and Procedures for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in the program by all groups?
X
Have time-tables or schedules been established for the agency to review its Employee Development/Training Programs for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in training opportunities by all groups?
X
Compliance Indicator When findings of discrimination
are made, the agency explores whether or not disciplinary
actions should be taken.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Does the agency have a disciplinary policy and/or a table of penalties that covers employees found to have committed discrimination?
X
Have all employees, supervisors, and managers been informed as to the penalties for being found to perpetrate discriminatory behavior or for taking personnel actions based upon a prohibited basis?
X
Has the agency, when appropriate, disciplined or sanctioned managers/supervisors or employees found to have discriminated over the past two years? If so, cite number found to have discriminated and list penalty/disciplinary action for each type of violation.
X
Does the agency promptly (within the established time frame) comply with EEOC, Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Labor Relations Authority, labor arbitrators, and District Court orders?
X
Does the agency review disability accommodation decisions/actions to ensure compliance with its written procedures and analyze the information tracked for trends, problems, etc.?
X
Essential Element D: PROACTIVE PREVENTION Requires that the agency head makes early efforts to prevent discriminatory actions and eliminate barriers to
equal employment opportunity in the workplace.
Compliance Indicator Analyses to identify and remove
unnecessary barriers to employment are conducted throughout the year.
Measure has been met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report Measures Yes No
Do senior managers meet with and assist the EEO Director and/or other EEO Program Officials in the identification of barriers that may be impeding the realization of equal employment opportunity?
X
When barriers are identified, do senior managers develop and implement, with the assistance of the agency EEO office, agency EEO Action Plans to eliminate said barriers?
X
Do senior managers successfully implement EEO Action Plans and incorporate the EEO Action Plan Objectives into agency strategic plans?
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 25 of 98
Are trend analyses of workforce profiles conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?
X
Are trend analyses of the workforce's major occupations conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?
X
Are trends analyses of the workforce's grade level distribution conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?
X
Are trend analyses of the workforce's compensation and reward system conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?
X
Are trend analyses of the effects of management/personnel policies, procedures and practices conducted by race, national origin, sex and disability?
X
Compliance Indicator The use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) is encouraged by senior management.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Are all employees encouraged to use ADR? X
Is the participation of supervisors and managers in the ADR process required?
X
Essential Element E: EFFICIENCY Requires that the agency head ensure that there are effective systems in place for evaluating the impact and
effectiveness of the agency's EEO Programs as well as an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.
Compliance Indicator The agency has sufficient
staffing, funding, and authority to achieve the elimination of identified barriers.
Measure has been met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report Measures Yes No
Does the EEO Office employ personnel with adequate training and experience to conduct the analyses required by MD-715 and these instructions?
X
Has the agency implemented an adequate data collection and analysis systems that permit tracking of the information required by MD-715 and these instructions?
X
Have sufficient resources been provided to conduct effective audits of field facilities' efforts to achieve a model EEO program and eliminate discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act?
X
Is there a designated agency official or other mechanism in place to coordinate or assist with processing requests for disability accommodations in all major components of the agency?
X
Are 90% of accommodation requests processed within the time frame set forth in the agency procedures for reasonable accommodation?
X
Compliance Indicator
The agency has an effective complaint tracking and
monitoring system in place to
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 26 of 98
Measures increase the effectiveness of the agency's EEO Programs.
Yes No 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report
Does the agency use a complaint tracking and monitoring system that allows identification of the location and status of complaints and length of time elapsed at each stage of the agency's complaint resolution process?
X
Does the agency's tracking system identify the issues and bases of the complaints, the aggrieved individuals/complainants, the involved management officials and other information to analyze complaint activity and trends?
X
Does the agency hold contractors accountable for delay in counseling and investigation processing times? If yes, briefly describe how:
X Contractors are held accountable through the statement of work by each contracting office
Does the agency monitor and ensure that new investigators, counselors, including contract and collateral duty investigators, receive the 32 hours of training required in accordance with EEO Management Directive MD-110?
X
Does the agency monitor and ensure that experienced counselors, investigators, including contract and collateral duty investigators, receive the 8 hours of refresher training required on an annual basis in accordance with EEO Management Directive MD-110?
X
Compliance Indicator
The agency has sufficient staffing, funding and authority to comply with the time frames in accordance with the EEOC (29
C.F.R. Part 1614) regulations for processing EEO complaints of employment discrimination.
Measure has been
met For all unmet measures, provide a
brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM
715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report
Measures Yes No
Are benchmarks in place that compares the agency's discrimination complaint processes with 29 C.F.R. Part 1614?
X
Does the agency provide timely EEO counseling within 30 days of the initial request or within an agreed upon extension in writing, up to 60 days?
X
Does the agency provide an aggrieved person with written notification of his/her rights and responsibilities in the EEO process in a timely fashion?
X
Does the agency complete the investigations within the applicable prescribed time frame?
X See form H
When a complainant requests a final agency decision, does the agency issue the decision within 60 days of the request?
X
When a complainant requests a hearing, does the agency immediately upon receipt of the request from the EEOC AJ forward the investigative file to the EEOC Hearing Office?
X
When a settlement agreement is entered into, does the agency timely complete any obligations provided for in such agreements?
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 27 of 98
Does the agency ensure timely compliance with EEOC AJ decisions which are not the subject of an appeal by the agency?
X
Compliance Indicator
There is an efficient and fair dispute resolution process and
effective systems for evaluating the impact and effectiveness of
the agency's EEO complaint processing program.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures
Yes No
In accordance with 29 C.F.R. §1614.102(b), has the agency established an ADR Program during the pre-complaint and formal complaint stages of the EEO process?
X
Does the agency require all managers and supervisors to receive ADR training in accordance with EEOC (29 C.F.R. Part 1614) regulations, with emphasis on the federal government's interest in encouraging mutual resolution of disputes and the benefits associated with utilizing ADR?
X
After the agency has offered ADR and the complainant has elected to participate in ADR, are the managers required to participate?
X
Does the responsible management official directly involved in the dispute have settlement authority?
X
Compliance Indicator
The agency has effective systems in place for maintaining and evaluating the impact and
effectiveness of its EEO programs.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Does the agency have a system of management controls in place to ensure the timely, accurate, complete and consistent reporting of EEO complaint data to the EEOC?
X
Does the agency provide reasonable resources for the EEO complaint process to ensure efficient and successful operation in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(a)(1)?
X
Does the agency EEO office have management controls in place to monitor and ensure that the data received from Human Resources is accurate, timely received, and contains all the required data elements for submitting annual reports to the EEOC?
X
Do the agency's EEO programs address all of the laws enforced by the EEOC?
X
Does the agency identify and monitor significant trends in complaint processing to determine whether the agency is meeting its obligations under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act?
X
Does the agency track recruitment efforts and analyze efforts to identify potential barriers in accordance with MD-715 standards?
X
Does the agency consult with other agencies of similar size on the effectiveness of their EEO programs to identify best practices and share ideas?
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 28 of 98
Compliance Indicator
The agency ensures that the investigation and adjudication
function of its complaint resolution process are separate
from its legal defense arm of agency or other offices with
conflicting or competing interests.
Measure has been
met For all unmet measures, provide a
brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM
715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report
Measures
Yes No
Are legal sufficiency reviews of EEO matters handled by a functional unit that is separate and apart from the unit which handles agency representation in EEO complaints?
X
Does the agency discrimination complaint process ensure a neutral adjudication function?
X
If applicable, are processing time frames incorporated for the legal counsel's sufficiency review for timely processing of complaints?
X
Essential Element F: RESPONSIVENESS AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE This element requires that federal agencies are in full compliance with EEO statutes and EEOC regulations,
policy guidance, and other written instructions.
Compliance Indicator Agency personnel are
accountable for timely compliance with orders issued by EEOC Administrative Judges.
Measure has been met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report Measures Yes No
Does the agency have a system of management control to ensure that agency officials timely comply with any orders or directives issued by EEOC Administrative Judges?
X
Compliance Indicator
The agency's system of management controls ensures
that the agency timely completes all ordered corrective action and submits its compliance report to
EEOC within 30 days of such completion.
Measure has been
met For all unmet measures, provide a
brief explanation in the space below or complete and attach an EEOC FORM
715-01 PART H to the agency’s status report
Measures Yes No
Does the agency have control over the payroll processing function of the agency?
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service is the proponent for issuing compensation.
Are there steps in place to guarantee responsive, timely, and predictable processing of ordered monetary relief?
X
Are procedures in place to promptly process other forms of ordered relief?
X
Compliance Indicator Agency personnel are
accountable for the timely completion of actions required to
comply with orders of EEOC.
Measure has been
met
For all unmet measures, provide a brief explanation in the space below or
complete and attach an EEOC FORM 715-01 PART H to the agency’s status
report Measures Yes No
Is compliance with EEOC orders encompassed in the performance standards of any agency employees? If so, please identify the employees by title in the comments section, and state how performance is measured.
X
The authority for enforcement of EEOC
orders resided with the ASA M&RA under
10 USC 3016.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 29 of 98
Is the unit charged with the responsibility for compliance with EEOC orders located in the EEO office? If not, please identify the unit in which it is located, the number of employees in the unit, and their grade levels in the comments section.
X
Have the involved employees received any formal training in EEO compliance?
X
Does the agency promptly provide to the EEOC the following documentation for completing compliance:
Attorney Fees: Copy of check issued for attorney fees and /or a narrative statement by an appropriate agency official, or agency payment order dating the dollar amount of attorney fees paid?
X
Awards: A narrative statement by an appropriate agency official stating the dollar amount and the criteria used to calculate the award?
X
Back Pay and Interest: Computer print-outs or payroll documents outlining gross back pay and interest, copy of any checks issued narrative statement by an appropriate agency official of total monies paid?
X
Compensatory Damages: The final agency decision and evidence of payment, if made?
X
Training: Attendance roster at training session(s) or a narrative statement by an appropriate agency official confirming that specific persons or groups of persons attended training on a date certain?
X
Personnel Actions (e.g., Reinstatement, Promotion, Hiring, Reassignment): Copies of SF-50s
X
Posting of Notice of Violation: Original signed and dated notice reflecting the dates that the notice was posted. A copy of the notice will suffice if the original is not available.
X
Supplemental Investigation: 1. Copy of letter to complainant acknowledging receipt from EEOC of remanded case. 2. Copy of letter to complainant transmitting the Report of Investigation (not the ROI itself unless specified). 3. Copy of request for a hearing (complainant's request or agency's transmittal letter).
X
Final Agency Decision (FAD): FAD or copy of the complainant's request for a hearing.
X
Restoration of Leave: Print-out or statement identifying the amount of leave restored, if applicable. If not, an explanation or statement.
X
Civil Actions: A complete copy of the civil action complaint demonstrating same issues raised as in compliance matter.
X
Settlement Agreements: Signed and dated agreement with specific dollar amounts, if applicable. Also, appropriate documentation of relief is provided.
X
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 30 of 98
715-01 PART H
EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program
FY 2010 ESSENTIAL ELEMENT E - EFFICIENCY AR
STATEMENT of MODEL PROGRAM ESSENTIAL ELEMENT DEFICIENCY:
Requires that the agency head ensure that there are effective systems in place for evaluating the impact and effectiveness of the agency's EEO Programs as well as an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.: Deficiency: Department of the Army regulations require completion of investigations of formal complaints of discrimination within 180 days of the date the formal complaint was filed; the Army average in FY 2010 was 202.53 days.
OBJECTIVE: To average less than 180 days for the completion of an investigation
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director, EEO Compliance and Complaints Review
DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED: 12/1/2010
TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:
12/1/2011
PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
Revision of the Army regulation governing complaints processing, incorporating improved processes and best practices which resulted in reductions in processing time.
12/1/2011
REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
Army’s average investigation processing time decreased from 213.67 days in FY 2009 to 202.53 in FY 2010. Notably, the 43% of Army investigations which were completed in less than 180 days were actually concluded in an average of 151.33 days, nearly a full month below the regulatory requirement. Army is currently evaluating the data behind this statistic for best practices which could be expanded Army-wide. Staffing shortages at the Department of Defense, Investigations and Resolutions Division continue to negatively impact the timely availability of investigators. Also, the revised regulation has been delayed by additional Army organizational changes. As both situations are remedied, we hope to gradually increase the use of successful procedures and complete the revisions to the regulation.
12/6/2010
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 31 of 98
715-01 PART I
EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier
FY 2010, AR
STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A POTENTIAL BARRIER:
The relationship between African-American men being referred for selection and their selection rate, the less than expected application rate of white women based upon the CLF, and the lower than expected number of Hispanic or Latino men and women based upon the CLF not only in the specific job categories, but in the applicant pool
BARRIER ANALYSIS The selection rate for African American men is lower than for groups that had a lower rate of applications and referrals. In addition, the application rate for Hispanic or Latino men and women is less than expected based upon the CLF
STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER:
Barrier not identified until analysis of selection rates have been conducted at the operational level
OBJECTIVE: Determine if there is significance in the selection rate between EEO groups in pay grades 12-15 overall.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
DASA D&L
DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED:
10/1/2010
TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:
9/30/2011
PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
Operational offices will use the applicant pool data and the form I worksheet to determine if there are significant differences in selection rate of EEO groups in grades GS 12-15
5/26/2011
Brief FCRs on proposed action items to address barriers identified. 8/30/2011
Develop Army strategy to address barriers identified. 10/7/2011
REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 32 of 98
715-01 PART I
EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier
FY 2010, AR
STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A POTENTIAL BARRIER:
The population data indicates that while pay plan ES shows a more diverse demographic, that the intelligence play plans do not reflect the same diversity shown in the ES pay plan.
BARRIER ANALYSIS Although ES positions comprise the largest group of senior executives, and dominated by non minority men, with the exception of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander men and women, every EEO group is represented. However, The senior positions in the intelligence community (IE and IP) have seven White women and one Hispanic or Latino man within its 47 positions; the majority of positions are held by non minority men. As figure 38 indicates, that 73% of the positions in pay plan ES are held by non minority men, that 82% of the positions in IE are held by non minority men.
STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER:
Barriers specifically not identified.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the senior level appointment process to include a range of policies that impact the feeder group developmental process to determine the barriers to a greater degree of senior level diversification
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: DASA D&L, CLSMO, HR G1
DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED:
10/1/2010
TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:
8/30/2011
PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
Review the senior leader development process to determine the impact that the current policies have on the selection process.
08/30/2011
REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 33 of 98
715-01 PART I
EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier
FY 2010, AR
STATEMENT OF CONDITION THAT WAS A TRIGGER FOR A POTENTIAL BARRIER:
The selection rate for African American men is lower than for groups that had a lower rate of applications and referrals. In addition, the application rate for Hispanic or Latino men and women is less than expected based upon the CLF which will require analysis of the outreach process to identify barriers within the application process.
BARRIER ANALYSIS The number of application submissions from Hispanic or Latino men is 107,752 less than expected based upon the CLF while the number of application submissions from Hispanic or Latino women was 89,410 less than expected. The number of application submissions from Asian men as 11,505 more than expected based upon the CLF, while the number of applications from Asian women was 16, 566 less than expected. The number of applications submitted by American Indian or Alaska Native men and women was 2,497 and 4,719 less than expected based upon the CLF.
STATEMENT OF IDENTIFIED BARRIER:
Barrier not identified
OBJECTIVE: Increase the number of applications received from women and Hispanic or Latinos. Ensure selection process is fair for all applicants.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
DASA D&L, CHRA
DATE OBJECTIVE INITIATED:
10/5/2011
TARGET DATE FOR COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE:
10/5/2011
PLANNED ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
Operational EEO offices examine applicant data to determine if there are selection process issues impacting EEO groups.
5/30/2011
Use midterm reports to develop strategies to address global issues discovered. 7/30/2011
REPORT OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS and MODIFICATIONS TO OBJECTIVE: TARGET DATE (Must be specific)
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 34 of 98
715-01 PART J
Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Advancement of Individuals
With Targeted Disabilities
Part I
Department of Agency Information
1. Agency 1. Headquarters United States Army
1.a. 2nd Level Component 1.a.
1.b. 3rd Level or lower 1.b.
Part II Employment Trend and
Special Recruitment
for Individuals
With Targeted
Disabilities
Enter Actual Number at the ...
... beginning of FY. ... end of FY. Net Change
Number % Number % Number %
Total Work Force 250,942 100.00% 266,183 100.00% 15,241 6.07%
* If the rate of change for persons with targeted disabilities is not equal to or greater than the rate of change for the total workforce, a barrier analysis should be conducted (see below).
1. Total Number of Applications Received From Persons With Targeted Disabilities during the reporting period.
12,085
* If the rate of change for persons with targeted disabilities is not equal to or greater than the rate of change for the total workforce, a barrier analysis should be conducted (see below).
2. Total Number of Selections of Individuals with Targeted Disabilities during the reporting period.
109
Part III Participation Rates In Agency Employment Programs
Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, and Advancement of Individuals With Targeted Disabilities
Part IV Identification and Elimination
of Barriers
Army has not met goals for individuals with targeted disabilities. Training, education and awareness of hiring authorities and outreach programs continues as a major programmatic activity.
Part V Goals for Targeted
Disabilities
Develop Plan IAW Executive Order 13548 and execute. Continue to train, educate and inform officials regarding opportunities to address hiring challenges and how to utilize designated hiring authorities and outreach programs. Focus on the integration of support for transitioning wounded service members from active duty to civilian employment. Assess how to capture, annotate and report successful accommodations in the transition process along with identifying active duty members who can stay on active duty as a result of accommodations and technology.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 36 of 98
Appendix A
Definitions
The following definitions apply to Management Directive 715:
Applicant: A person who applies for employment.
Applicant Flow Data: Information reflecting characteristics of the pool of individuals
applying for an employment opportunity.
Barrier: An agency policy, principle, practice or condition that limits or tends to limit
employment opportunities for members of a particular gender, race or ethnic background
or for an individual (or individuals) based on disability status.
Disability: For the purpose of statistics, recruitment, and targeted goals, the number of
employees in the workforce who have indicated having a disability on a Office of
Personnel Management Standard Form (SF) 256. For all other purposes, the definition
contained in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 applies.
Civilian Labor Force (CLF): Persons 16 years of age and over, except those in the
armed forces, who are employed or are unemployed and seeking work.
EEO Groups: Members of groups protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and
other Federal guidelines. Includes: White Men, White Women, Black Men, Black Women,
Hispanic or Latino Men, Hispanic or Latino Women, Asian Men, Asian Women, American
Indian or Alaska Native Men, American Indian or Alaska Native Women, and Persons with
Disabilities.
Employees: Members of the agency's permanent or temporary work force, whether full
or part-time and whether in competitive or excepted service positions.
Employment Decision: Any decision affecting the terms and conditions of an
individual's employment, including but not limited to hiring, promotion, demotion,
disciplinary action and termination.
Feeder Group or Pool: Occupational group(s) from which selections to a particular job
are typically made.
Federal Categories (Fed9):
The nine job category titles are:
- Officials and Managers - Occupations requiring administrative and managerial
personnel who set broad policies, exercise overall responsibility for execution of these
policies, and direct individual offices, programs, divisions or other units or special
phases of an agency's operations. In the federal sector, this category is further
broken out into four sub-categories: (1) Executive/Senior-Level,(2)Mid-Level,(3)
First-Level and (4)Other . When an employee is classified as a supervisor or
manager, that employee should be placed in the Officials and Managers category
rather than in the category in the crosswalk that they would otherwise be placed in
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 37 of 98
based on their OPM occupational code. Those employees classified as supervisors or
managers who are at the GS-12 level or below should be placed in the First-Level
sub-category of Officials and Managers, those at the GS-13 or 14 should be in the
Mid-Level sub-category and those at GS-15 or in the SES should be in the
Executive/Senior-Level sub-category. An agency may also choose to place
employees who have significant policy-making responsibilities, but do not supervise
other employees, in these three sub-categories. The fourth sub-category, called
"Other” contains employees in a number of different occupations which are primarily
business, financial and administrative in nature, and do not have supervisory or
significant policy responsibilities. For example, Administrative Officers (OPM Code
0341) are appropriately placed in the "Other” sub-category.
- Professionals - Occupations requiring either college graduation or experience of
such kind and amount as to provide a comparable background. Includes: accountants
and auditors, airplane pilots and navigators, architects, artists, chemists, designers,
YE Scientific& Engineering Cg-Technician/Support Pay Schedule 329 0.67%
3 Occupations requiring administrative and managerial personnel who set broad policies,
exercise overall responsibility for execution of these policies, and direct individual offices, programs,
divisions or other units or special phases of an agency's operations. In the federal sector, this category
is further broken out into four sub-categories: (1) Executive/Senior-Level, (2) Mid-Level,(3) First-Level and (4) Other.
4 Occupations requiring either college graduation or experience of such kind and amount as to
provide a comparable background. Includes: accountants and auditors, airplane pilots and navigators, architects, artists, chemists, designers, dietitians, editors, engineers, lawyers, librarians, mathematicians, natural scientists, registered professional nurses, personnel and labor relations specialists, physical scientists, physicians, social scientists, teachers, surveyors and kindred workers
YN Investigative & Protective Services Cg-Supervisor/Manager Pay Schedule 952 1.94%
YP Standard Cg-Student Educational Employment Program (Seep) 629 1.28%
Sum: 49,122
Figure 7
The demographic analysis of this report will be focus on employees in the
appropriated fund general schedule or equivalent pay groups. The demarcation between
temporary and permanent employees, while set in policy, is transparent in today’s civilian
workforce. The implementation of policy and programs is such that regardless of an
employee’s career status, all members of the civilian workforce are affected by the
implementation of civil rights policy and therefore will have access to EEO services.
GENERAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICANT POOL
The number of job applications received was approximately 4,917,802 and
delineated by Race and Ethnicity Indicators as shown in figure 8 below. The majority of
applications were submitted by white men and women followed by African American men
and women and Hispanic or Latino men and women. The number referred followed this
pattern.
Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected
White Men 1,743,475 300,523 10,324
White Women 856,147 124,880 5,719
African American Men 358,810 79,851 2,021
African American Women 437,199 84,618 2,358
Hispanic or Latino Men 197,152 32,322 543
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 46 of 98
Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected
Hispanic or Latino Women 131,891 17,642 808
Asian Men 104,943 19,297 404
Asian Women 67,037 11,103 367 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men 6,943 1,829 90 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women 7,746 1,548 59 American Indian or Alaska Native Men 12,256 3,217 142 American Indian or Alaska Native Women 10,034 2,261 88
Multiracial Men 522,108 72,991 1,027
Multiracial Women 462,061 47,469 682
Total Population 4,917,802 799,551 24,632 Figure 8
The comparison of the percentage of employees and percentage of application
submission and referral rate to the general CLF, as shown in figure 9, indicates that with
the exception of Hispanic or Latino men and women, most of the members of the other EEO
groups submit job applications at a rate less than their corresponding CLF. The selection
rate is more closely aligned to the employee population percentage even though the
difference between the application rate and referral rate for the largest EEO groups is
approximately 2%.
Group - FY 10 CLF Employees Applicants Referred Selected
White Men 39.00% 45.04% 35.45% 37.59% 41.91%
White Women 33.70% 23.64% 17.41% 15.62% 23.22%
African American Men 4.80% 8.42% 7.30% 9.99% 8.20%
African American Women 5.70% 9.26% 8.89% 10.58% 9.57%
Hispanic or Latino Men 6.20% 3.47% 4.01% 4.04% 2.20%
Hispanic or Latino Women 4.50% 1.92% 2.68% 2.21% 3.28%
Asian Men 1.90% 2.19% 2.13% 2.41% 1.64%
Asian Women 1.70% 1.80% 1.36% 1.39% 1.49%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men
0.10% 0.28% 0.14% 0.23% 0.37%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women
0.10% 0.24% 0.16% 0.19% 0.24%
American Indian or Alaska Native Men
0.30% 0.58% 0.25% 0.40% 0.58%
American Indian or Alaska Native Women
0.30% 0.37% 0.20% 0.28% 0.36%
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 47 of 98
Group - FY 10 CLF Employees Applicants Referred Selected
Multiracial Men 0.80% 1.59% 10.62% 9.13% 4.17%
Multiracial Women 0.80% 1.19% 9.40% 5.94% 2.77%
Total Population 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Figure 9
When the number of applications submitted is compared to the CLF to determine the
number of applications and referrals expected from each EEO group, the number of
submissions from white men is slightly less than expected at 174, 468 while the number of
application submissions from white women is 801,152 less than expected. The data in
figure 10 shows that the number of submissions from African American men and women
surpasses expectations compared to the CLF. The number of application submissions from
Hispanic or Latino men is 107, 752 less than expected while the number of application
submissions from Hispanic or Latino women was 89, 410 less than expected. The number
of application submissions from Asian men as 11,505 more than expected, while the
number of applications from Asian women was 16, 566 less than expected. The number of
application submissions from Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander men and women
was 2,000 applications more than expected, while the number of applications submitted by
American Indian or Alaska Native men and women was 2,497 and 4,719 less than expected.
Selection rates were not subjected to the comparison with the CLF as selection rates are
outside of the definition of the CLF and in addition should represent a randomized process.
Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected Expected to Apply
Expected to be Referred
White Men 1,743,475 300,523 10,324 1,917,943 311,825
White Women 856,147 124,880 5,719 1,657,299 269,449
African American Men 358,810 79,851 2,021 236,054 38,378
African American Women 437,199 84,618 2,358 280,315 45,574
Hispanic or Latino Men 197,152 32,322 543 304,904 49,572
Hispanic or Latino Women 131,891 17,642 808 221,301 35,980
Asian Men 104,943 19,297 404 93,438 15,191
Asian Women 67,037 11,103 367 83,603 13,592
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men
6,943 1,829 90 4,918 800
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women
7,746 1,548 59 4,918 800
American Indian or Alaska Native Men
12,256 3,217 142 14,753 2,399
American Indian or Alaska 10,034 2,261 88 14,753 2,399
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 48 of 98
Group - FY 10 Applicants Referred Selected Expected to Apply
Expected to be Referred
Native Women
Multiracial Men 522,108 72,991 1,027 39,342 6,396
Multiracial Women 462,061 47,469 682 39,342 6,396
Total Population 4,917,802 799,551 24,632
Figure 10
The analysis of data indicating the percentage of those applications that were
referred shows that overall the median percentage of the applications submitted that were
referred for selection was 17.81%. Comparatively, 17.24 % of applications submitted by
white men were referred for selection, while 14.59% of the applications submitted by
White women were referred for selection. Of the EEO groups with large populations,
African American men and women had the highest rate of applications submitted that were
referred with 22.25% and 19.35% respectively. The submission to referral rate for
Hispanic or Latino men and women were below the median rate of 17.81%.
The overall median percentage rate that applications that were referred resulted in
selection was 0.20%. The percentage of those who applied for positions and were referred,
as shown in figure 11, indicates that of the EEO groups with the larger populations, that
African American men and women who applied for positions were referred at a higher rate
than members of the other large EEO groups. The data shows that 22.25% of the
applications received from African American men and 19.35% of African American women
were referred for selection when compared to the overall median rate of 17.81%.
Comparatively, women in larger EEO groups that applied were referred at a rate less than
men within the same EEO group.
Group - FY 10 Applied - Referred
Referred - Selected
White Men 17.24% 3.44%
White Women 14.59% 1.90%
African American Men 22.25% 0.67%
African American Women 19.35% 0.78%
Hispanic or Latino Men 16.39% 0.18%
Hispanic or Latino Women 13.38% 0.27%
Asian Men 18.39% 0.13%
Asian Women 16.56% 0.12%
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander Men
26.34% 0.03%
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 49 of 98
Group - FY 10 Applied - Referred
Referred - Selected
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander Women
19.98% 0.02%
American Indian or Alaska
Native Men
26.25% 0.05%
American Indian or Alaska
Native Women
22.53% 0.03%
Multiracial Men 13.98% 0.34%
Multiracial Women 10.27% 0.23%
Total Population
Figure 11
The median rate of applications that were referred to the selection process was
0.20%. The percentage of applications referred to the selection process from white men
was 3.44% as figure 11 indicates, followed by white women. Even though 22.5% of
applications from African American Men and women were the highest of any of the large
EEO groups, the applications referred for selection were 0.67% and 0.78% respectively.
The difference in the rates between White men and African American men was 2.76% and
1.12% between White women and African American women. The difference was greater
for other members of the larger EEO groups and White men and women even though the
average rate among the larger EEO groups was 1.05%.
Summary
The general applicant pool data infers that if the percentage of applications received
from EEO groups is within or greater than the expected parameters of the CLF, then the
overall Army population will begin to reflect the CLF. Adverse impact analysis was not
performed because the context within which the selection process occurred is controlled
by local not Army wide circumstances. There appears to be no barriers to the general
applicant data except that the selection rate data requires greater data mining in order to
find out if there are any underlying issues.
GS 12-15 POPULATION ANALYSIS
The GS 12 – 15 data analysis is provided because this grade group constitutes the
primary professional path for movement into the primary leadership population. The
analysis will include an analysis of the GS 12-15 population and associated data groups to
include applicant pool data, supervisory levels to determine global issues if they are
present. Following the general analysis, a more specific analysis will be provided for GS 12-
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 50 of 98
15 for the officials and managers and professionals categories respectively, since the
population in these categories are the largest.
The percentage of employees in pay grades GS 12-15 are shown in figure 12. The
largest EEO groups in this category in grades GS 12-15 are White men and women,
followed by African Americans and Hispanic or Latino men and women.
Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 CLF White Men 49% 55% 58% 63% 39.00%
White Women 23% 21% 20% 19% 33.70%
African American Men 7% 7% 6% 5% 4.80%
African American Women 7% 6% 5% 4% 5.70%
Hispanic or Latino Men 3% 2% 2% 2% 6.20%
Hispanic or Latino Women 2% 1% 1% 1% 4.50%
Asian Men 3% 3% 3% 3% 1.90%
Asian Women 2% 1% 1% 1% 1.70%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men
1% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%
American Indian or Alaska Native Men
1% 1% 0% 0% 0.30%
American Indian or Alaska Native Women
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.30%
Multiracial Men 2% 2% 1% 1% 0.80%
Multiracial Women 1% 1% 1% 0% 0.80%
Total Population 100% 100% 100% 100%
Figure 12
When compared to the CLF, figure 13 shows how each EEO group compares with
the CLF by grade. At grade 12, the population of White women, Hispanic or Latino men and
women are less than expected, while the population the other EEO groups in pay grade 13
are as expected. From grade 13 to grade 15, the evaluation of the populations by grade and
compared to the CLF changes, except for White men; that population remains as expected
while the population expectations of other EEO groups change depending on the pay grade.
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 51 of 98
CLF Evaluation
Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15
White Men As Expected As Expected As Expected
As Expected
White Women Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
African American Men As Expected As Expected Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
African American Women As Expected Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Hispanic or Latino Men Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Hispanic or Latino Women
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Asian Men As Expected As Expected As Expected
As Expected
Asian Women Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men
As Expected As Expected As Expected
Less Than Expected
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women
As Expected As Expected Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
American Indian or Alaska Native Men
As Expected As Expected As Expected
As Expected
American Indian or Alaska Native Women
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
As Expected
Multiracial Men As Expected As Expected As Expected
Less Than Expected
Multiracial Women Less Than Expected
As Expected Less Than Expected
Less Than Expected
Figure 13
Based on the distribution of EEO groups using the CLF, the expected population is
also shown in figure 14. The number of White men would expectedly be smaller while the
number of employees in other EEO groups would expectedly be larger or smaller,
depending on the pay grade. At the GS 12 level, the number of White women and Hispanic
or Latino men and women would be larger if the population matched the CLF while the
population of other EEO groups would be smaller.
Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Expected 12 13 14 15
White Men 16,511 13,300 5,188 1,908 13,147 9,505 3,487 1,179
White Women 7,761 5,105 1764 576 11,360 8,214 3,013 1,019
African American Men
2,508 1,709 570 140 1,618 1,170 429 145
African American 2,504 1,535 472 109 1,921 1,389 510 172
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 52 of 98
Group - FY 10 12 13 14 15 Expected 12 13 14 15
Women
Hispanic or Latino Men
1,047 585 205 60 2,090 1,511 554 187
Hispanic or Latino Women
508 262 85 31 1,517 1,097 402 136
Asian Men 1,034 749 269 81 640 463 170 57
Asian Women 520 304 105 34 573 414 152 51
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men
201 43 18 4 34 24 9 3
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women
44 25 10 3 34 24 9 3
American Indian or Alaska Native Men
186 138 39 15 101 73 27 9
American Indian or Alaska Native Women
107 48 16 5 101 73 27 9
Multiracial Men 517 384 127 43 270 195 72 24
Multiracial Women 261 186 74 14 270 195 72 24
Total Population 33,709 24,373 8942 3023 33,675 24,349 8,933 3,020
Figure 14
Statistics reflecting the number of employees in particular categories on an Army-
wide basis does not account for local conditions that impact recruitment and retention
strategies. For example, although the Army population of Hispanic or Latino employees is
less than expected based upon the CLF, this evaluation does not reflect local conditions
found in other Army locations. This means that coordinated Army-wide strategies related
to recruitment and retention of Hispanic or Latino men and women has to include the
impact of local hiring conditions. To demonstrate this point, the sample of Hispanic or
Latino employee populations shown in figure 15 reflects the variation in local populations
of Hispanic or Latino employees in the locations shown. The CLF for locations in Texas and
New Mexico have a higher CLF than employees in Georgia, and therefore different
strategies might need to be employed in each state. Even within the same state, the CLF
populations vary widely. These illustrate a need to increase the visibility of local issues
because the culmination of those issues impacts coordinated Army-wide efforts.
Group Location Population Percentage CLF
Hispanic or Latino Men Ft Sam Houston, TX 732 9.57% 25.4%
Ft. Bliss, TX 599 16.21% 15.9%
White Sands Missile Range, NM
589 31.16% 21.0%
Ft. Benning, GA 81 2.48% 1.9%
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 53 of 98
Group Location Population Percentage CLF
Hispanic or Latino Women
Ft Sam Houston, TX 651 8.51% 22.3%
Ft. Bliss, TX 423 11.44% 11.5%
White Sands Missile Range, NM
181 9.58% 18.0%
Ft. Benning, GA 74 2.26% 1.6%
Figure 15
The over arching strategy will be to identify locations that have the greatest challenges and
provide policy and programmatic assistance towards the model program goals expressed
in the six essential elements.
SUPERVISORS
The overall population of supervisors in pay grades GS 12-15 is depicted in figure
16. This population includes supervisors in all EEOC categories and is not limited to the
officials and managers category. The general CLF is used since the population includes
more than officials and managers or professionals. White men comprise the largest EEO
population of supervisors in grades 12 – 15, followed by White women and African
Americans, Hispanic or Latino men and women as well as members of other EEO groups.
Percentage 12 13 14 15 Totals CLF GEN
White Men 51% 56% 61% 65% 57% 39.00%
White Women 20% 21% 19% 18% 20% 33.70%
African American Men 10% 7% 6% 5% 7% 4.80%
African American Women
6% 5% 4% 4% 5% 5.70%
Hispanic or Latino Men
4% 3% 2% 2% 3% 6.20%
Hispanic or Latino Women
1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4.50%
Asian Men 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1.90%
Asian Women 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1.70%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Men
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Women
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.10%
EEOC FORM
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT
Headquarters Department of the Army Page 54 of 98
Percentage 12 13 14 15 Totals CLF GEN
American Indian or Alaska Native Men
1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0.30%
American Indian or Alaska Native Women
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.30%
Multiracial Men 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0.80%
Multiracial Women 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0.80%
Total Population 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Figure 16
The number of supervisors expected by comparing the total supervisory population to the
general CLF is shown in figure 17. The variation by pay grade indicates that a variety of
career program issues have to be analyzed with the respective career program managers in
order to determine which barriers exist and can be acted on.