The Federal Workforce
Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation Gao ID: GAO-06-832 August 17, 2006Hispanic representation in the federal workforce has historically been lower than in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Understanding factors affecting representation is important to developing and maintaining a high-quality and inclusive workforce. In this report, GAO identifies and analyzes factors affecting Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, examines oversight roles of EEOC and OPM, and provides illustrations of selected federal agencies' efforts with respect to Hispanic representation. GAO constructed a multivariate logistic regression model, with advice from experts, to determine how factors affected the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal versus nonfederal workforce. GAO's analyses are not intended to and do not show the existence or absence of discrimination in the federal workforce.
U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. Our statistical model showed that when accounting for citizenship, required for most federal employment, Hispanics were nearly as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF excluding federal employees). In addition, the federal workforce has a greater proportion of occupations that require higher levels of education than the CLF. When we compared citizens with similar levels of education, Hispanics were more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce. Other factors in our model, including age, gender, race, veteran's status, English proficiency, and geography (state where employed), had a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being in the federal workforce. In addition to reporting and comparing representation levels overall and in subsets of the federal workforce to the CLF, EEOC and OPM require that agencies analyze their own workforces. However, the CLF benchmarks of representation that EEOC, OPM, and the agencies use do not differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore do not identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to work for the federal government. Where these analyses identify differences in representation, EEOC, for example, requires agencies to determine if there are barriers to participation and develop strategies to address them. OPM provides resources and guidance to assist agencies in implementing human capital strategies. Through these efforts, OPM has promoted the use of student employment programs as a source of qualified candidates. Analyzing agency use of these programs, including the extent to which agencies convert participants to permanent employment, could provide OPM with valuable information to assist agencies in maximizing the use of these programs in their strategic workforce planning. The agencies we reviewed use a variety of approaches to address Hispanic representation, including recruiting at colleges and universities with large Hispanic populations, publicizing employment opportunities in Hispanic media, reaching out to Hispanic communities and Hispanic-serving organizations, and using student employment, internship, career development, and training programs. For example, the U.S. Air Force partners with vocational-technical schools to develop aircraft maintenance technicians, and staff at selected National Aeronautics and Space Administration facilities mentor and tutor students to encourage careers in science, technology, engineering, and math.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-832, The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-832
entitled 'The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance
Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation' which was released
on September 20, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
August 2006:
The Federal Workforce:
Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic
Representation:
GAO-06-832:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-832, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce has historically been
lower than in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Understanding factors
affecting representation is important to developing and maintaining a
high-quality and inclusive workforce. In this report, GAO identifies
and analyzes factors affecting Hispanic representation in the federal
workforce, examines oversight roles of EEOC and OPM, and provides
illustrations of selected federal agencies‘ efforts with respect to
Hispanic representation. GAO constructed a multivariate logistic
regression model, with advice from experts, to determine how factors
affected the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the
federal versus nonfederal workforce. GAO‘s analyses are not intended to
and do not show the existence or absence of discrimination in the
federal workforce.
What GAO Found:
U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of
the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce. Our statistical model showed that when accounting
for citizenship, required for most federal employment, Hispanics were
nearly as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal
workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF
excluding federal employees). In addition, the federal workforce has a
greater proportion of occupations that require higher levels of
education than the CLF. When we compared citizens with similar levels
of education, Hispanics were more likely than non-Hispanics to be
employed in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce.
Other factors in our model, including age, gender, race, veteran‘s
status, English proficiency, and geography (state where employed), had
a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being
in the federal workforce.
In addition to reporting and comparing representation levels overall
and in subsets of the federal workforce to the CLF, EEOC and OPM
require that agencies analyze their own workforces. However, the CLF
benchmarks of representation that EEOC, OPM, and the agencies use do
not differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore do
not identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to
work for the federal government. Where these analyses identify
differences in representation, EEOC, for example, requires agencies to
determine if there are barriers to participation and develop strategies
to address them. OPM provides resources and guidance to assist agencies
in implementing human capital strategies. Through these efforts, OPM
has promoted the use of student employment programs as a source of
qualified candidates. Analyzing agency use of these programs, including
the extent to which agencies convert participants to permanent
employment, could provide OPM with valuable information to assist
agencies in maximizing the use of these programs in their strategic
workforce planning.
The agencies we reviewed use a variety of approaches to address
Hispanic representation, including recruiting at colleges and
universities with large Hispanic populations, publicizing employment
opportunities in Hispanic media, reaching out to Hispanic communities
and Hispanic-serving organizations, and using student employment,
internship, career development, and training programs. For example, the
U.S. Air Force partners with vocational-technical schools to develop
aircraft maintenance technicians, and staff at selected National
Aeronautics and Space Administration facilities mentor and tutor
students to encourage careers in science, technology, engineering, and
math.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that EEOC and OPM take citizenship into account when
comparing federal workforce representation to the CLF to provide a more
complete picture of, and reasons for, differences in representation. In
comments on a draft of this report, EEOC said citizenship data are
important but EEOC did not address GAO‘s recommendations. OPM provided
minor technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate, but did
not otherwise comment on the report or recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-832].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact George H. Stalcup at
(202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Citizenship and Education Had the Largest Effect on Hispanic
Representation in the Federal Workforce:
EEOC and OPM Have Taken Steps in Their Oversight Roles to Address
Hispanic Representation:
Agencies Take Steps to Recruit and Develop Hispanics in the Federal
Workforce:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Affecting Hispanic
Representation in the Federal Workforce:
Data Sets Used:
Methodology:
The Difference between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of
Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce:
The Effect of Citizenship on the Difference between Hispanics' and Non-
Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the
Nonfederal Workforce:
Effect of Remaining Factors among Citizens on the Difference between
Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal
Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce:
Effect of All Factors Considered Simultaneously on the Difference
between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the
Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce:
Additional Explanatory Analyses:
Limitations:
Appendix III: Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. Citizens and
Nationals:
Appendix IV: Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade and Federal
Occupation:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Citizens 18
and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000:
Table 2: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Residents
18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000:
Table 3: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among Non-U.S.
Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000:
Table 4: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens and Noncitizens, and
Odds and Odds Ratios Derived from Them, 2000:
Table 5: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens Only, and Odds and Odds
Ratio Derived from Them, 2000:
Table 6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of
Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Citizens Being Employed in the Federal
Workforce After Controlling for Different Factors:
Table 7: Hispanic Representation in the Federal Workforce by Pay Plan
and Grade, 1990-2005:
Table 8: Hispanic Representation in the 2000 CLF and 2000-2005 Federal
Workforce by Federal Occupation:
Figures:
Figure 1: Composition of Federal Workforce and CLF by EEOC's Nine
Occupational Categories, 2000:
Figure 2: Hispanic Representation in the Permanent Federal Workforce,
CLF, and among U.S. Citizens in the CLF, 1994-2005:
Abbreviations:
ACE: American Council on Education:
ACS: American Community Survey:
ASEC: Annual Social and Economic Supplement:
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics:
CFO: Chief Financial Officer:
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations:
CLF: Civilian Labor Force:
CPDF: Central Personnel Data File:
CPS: Current Population Survey:
CSC: Civil Service Commission:
CSRA: Civil Service Reform Act:
DDCDP: District Director Candidate Development Program:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DOL: Department of Labor:
DRB: Disclosure Review Board:
EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity:
EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
FCIP: Federal Career Intern Program:
FEORP: Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Recruitment Program:
FNS: Food and Nutrition Service:
HACU: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities:
HCAAF: Human Capital Accountability and Assessment Framework:
LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens:
MBA: Masters of Business Administration:
MD: Management Directive:
MSPB: Merit Systems Protection Board:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NCLR: National Council of La Raza:
NSPS: National Security Personnel System:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PATCOB: Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, Other White-
Collar, and Blue-Collar:
PMF: Presidential Management Fellows:
PUMS: Public Use Microdata Sample:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
SCEP: Student Career Experience Program:
SES: Senior Executive Service:
SL/ST: Senior Level/Senior Technical:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
USAF: United States Air Force:
USPS: United States Postal Service:
August 17, 2006:
Congressional Requesters:
Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the Civilian Labor Force
(CLF),[Footnote 1] with their representation having increased from 8.5
percent in 1990 to 12.6 percent in 2005. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) have reported that Hispanic representation in the federal
workforce has also increased, but remains lower in the federal
workforce than in the CLF. For 2005, OPM reported that Hispanics were
7.4 percent of the federal workforce, up from 5.3 percent in
1990.[Footnote 2]
Previous studies have identified factors that can affect Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce but generally did not assess
the extent to which these factors influence representation.
Understanding how the factors affect Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce is important to guiding agency efforts, under the
leadership of OPM and EEOC, to develop approaches to recruit, develop,
and retain a high-quality workforce that uses the talents of
individuals from all segments of society. In this report, prepared in
response to your request, we (1) identify and analyze the factors that
are affecting Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, (2)
examine the steps that EEOC and OPM, in their oversight roles, are
taking related to Hispanic representation, and (3) illustrate the
efforts within selected federal agencies related to Hispanic
representation. We will also be providing additional data on Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce under separate cover.
In accomplishing our objectives, we interviewed federal agency
officials and representatives from Hispanic-serving organizations and
reviewed previous studies to identify factors that can affect Hispanic
representation. To determine the effect of these factors on Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce, we constructed a multivariate
logistic regression model using 2000 Decennial Census data.[Footnote 3]
Logistic regression analysis is a very common and widely accepted
approach to analyze outcomes that have two possibilities (such as being
in the federal vs. nonfederal workforce) when the interest is in
determining the net effects of multiple factors that may be related to
one another. We used the model to measure the extent to which the
identified factors that could be reliably measured affected the
likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal
workforce, as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. In developing the
model, we obtained the opinions of experts identified by the National
Academy of Sciences as well as officials from EEOC, OPM, the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and the Census Bureau. We also obtained the experts'
views on the preliminary results of our analyses. Our analyses are not
intended to and do not show either the existence or absence of
discrimination against Hispanics or any other group in the federal
workforce. Our analyses are at an aggregate level encompassing all
occupations governmentwide and do not reflect factors that affect
representation within individual agencies, individual occupations,
different geographic areas, or any other subsets of the federal
government.
To examine the steps that EEOC and OPM have taken in their oversight of
Hispanic representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and
policies relating to Hispanic representation in the federal workforce;
interviewed EEOC and OPM officials; reviewed relevant documents; and
analyzed data on Hispanic representation governmentwide.
To illustrate the efforts related to Hispanic representation within
federal agencies, we selected five agencies--the U.S. Air Force (USAF),
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Small Business
Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration (SSA)--
representing different employee populations, geographic locations, and
concentrations of jobs by grade level and occupational categories. We
interviewed representatives from the selected agencies and reviewed
relevant documents. We also reviewed documents provided by and spoke
with officials from the White House Initiative on Educational
Excellence for Hispanic Americans. We conducted our work from October
2004 to June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. The details of our objectives, scope, and
methodology are in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of
the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce. Our
statistical model showed that after accounting for citizenship,
Hispanics were nearly as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the
federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of
the CLF excluding federal employees). Citizenship is required for most
federal employment and, in 2005, 99.7 percent of executive branch
employees were U.S. citizens or nationals. In addition, a greater
proportion of federal occupations require higher levels of education
than in the CLF. Our statistical model showed that, as a result, when
we compared citizens with similar levels of education, Hispanics were
16 percent or 1.16 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed
in the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Other
factors in our model, including age, gender, race, veteran's status,
English proficiency, and geography (state where employed), had a more
limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being
employed in the federal workforce. When all factors were considered,
our analyses showed that Hispanic citizens were 24 percent or 1.24
times more likely than non-Hispanic citizens to be employed in the
federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Our analyses did
not account for differences across and within individual agencies, by
grade and pay level, occupational category, individual occupation,
geographic location, or any other subset of the federal workforce.
In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM compare and
report representation levels overall and in subsets of the federal
workforce and require that agencies conduct analyses of their own
workforces. EEOC, for example, requires that agencies compare
representation of racial, ethnic, and gender groups in major
occupations to representation in similar occupations in the CLF. Where
these analyses identify differences in representation, EEOC requires
agencies to determine if there are barriers to participation and, if
so, develop strategies to address them. However, the CLF benchmarks
that EEOC, OPM, and agencies use to compare representation do not
differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore do not
identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to work
for the federal government. Such information can help to provide a more
complete picture of where differences in representation may exist. OPM
provides guidance and resources to assist agencies in implementing
human capital strategies. Through these efforts, OPM has promoted broad
outreach to all segments of society and has promoted establishing
relationships with colleges and universities and the use of student
employment programs as a source of qualified candidates. Analyzing data
on agency use of student employment programs, including conversion
rates of participants to permanent employment, could provide OPM with
valuable information to assist agencies in incorporating student
employment programs into their strategic workforce planning as they
seek to recruit and develop talented employees to support agency
missions; ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and
administrative needs; and achieve a diverse, quality workforce.
The agencies we reviewed used a variety of approaches to address
Hispanic representation at their agencies. These approaches included
recruiting at colleges and universities with large Hispanic
populations, publicizing employment opportunities in Hispanic media,
reaching out to Hispanic communities and Hispanic-serving
organizations, and using student employment, internship, career
development, and training programs. For example, the USAF partnered
with vocational-technical schools to develop aircraft maintenance
technicians and NASA staff mentored and tutored students to encourage
careers in science, technology, engineering, and math.
We recommend that the Chair of EEOC and the Director of OPM take
citizenship into account in their comparisons of federal workforce
representation to the CLF. We also recommend that the Director of OPM
provide additional tools for agencies to assess the effectiveness of
student employment programs, such as conversion rates to permanent
employment by racial/ethnic group.
We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney
General, and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for
their review and comment. DOJ and the Department of Commerce had no
comments. In its written comments, EEOC said it found the report to be
a useful addition to the ongoing examination of Hispanic representation
in the federal workforce and plans to use the report as a resource.
EEOC agreed that citizenship data are important. However, EEOC did not
specifically address our recommendation that it take citizenship into
account in its comparison of federal workforce representation to the
CLF. EEOC also said that while citizenship data are a useful benchmark
for broad trending, more refined analyses are necessary, including
analyses of applicant pools and participation rates for specific
occupations. OPM provided minor technical comments but did not
otherwise comment on the report or our recommendations.
Background:
For more than 35 years, the federal government has implemented
authorities--applicable to various demographic groups and some specific
to Hispanics--calling for agencies to ensure equal opportunity in the
federal workplace. EEOC and OPM or its predecessor agency, the Civil
Service Commission (CSC), have leadership roles in furthering these
authorities. Signed in 1969, Executive Order No. 11478, Equal
Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, stated that it is the
policy of the U.S. government to provide equal opportunity in federal
employment. Later, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act
of 1972, which extended to federal workers the protections of title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination
on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. This
law requires each federal department and agency to prepare plans to
maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity and
establish training and education programs. Pursuant to this and other
authorities, EEOC establishes equal employment program standards,
monitors federal agencies' compliance with equal employment opportunity
laws and procedures, and reviews and assesses the effectiveness of
agencies' equal employment programs. EEOC has carried out its
responsibilities by issuing regulations and management directives
providing guidance and standards to federal agencies for establishing
and maintaining effective programs of equal employment opportunity.
The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 established the merit
principles governing employment in the federal workforce. The first
merit principle states:
Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate
sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of
society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on
the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and
open competition which assures that all receive equal
opportunity.[Footnote 4]
The CSRA also created the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program
(FEORP) to carry out the government's policy to ensure equal employment
opportunity. The act required OPM to evaluate and oversee agency
programs and issue implementing regulations for the program. These
regulations provide that recruitment processes prepare qualifiable
applicants (those who have the potential but do not presently meet
valid qualification requirements) for job openings through development
programs.
Programs specific to Hispanics include the 16-Point Program for Spanish-
Speaking citizens, established in 1970, which outlined steps agencies
should take to ensure equal opportunity in federal employment for
Hispanics. In 1997, OPM implemented the 9-Point Plan calling for
agencies to recruit greater numbers of qualified Hispanic Americans for
federal service and improve their opportunities for management and
senior executive positions. More recently, Executive Order No. 13171,
Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government, signed in 2000, provides
that agencies, among other actions, (1) develop recruiting plans for
Hispanics and (2) assess and eliminate any systemic barriers to the
effective recruitment and consideration of Hispanics. The order
requires OPM to take the lead in promoting diversity to executive
agencies and for the director of OPM to establish and chair an
Interagency Task Force on Hispanic employment in the federal government
to review best practices, provide advice, assess overall executive
branch progress, and recommend further actions related to Hispanic
representation.[Footnote 5]
As an indicator to Congress and the President of the government's
progress toward ensuring equal employment opportunity, both EEOC and
OPM, in their oversight roles, analyze and report on governmentwide and
agency workforce data. The most recent data show that in September
2005, Hispanics constituted 7.4 percent of the permanent federal
workforce while making up 12.6 percent of the CLF. While both EEOC and
OPM report these data annually, neither agency has assessed on a
governmentwide level the factors contributing to the differences in
Hispanic representation between the two workforces.
Citizenship and Education Had the Largest Effect on Hispanic
Representation in the Federal Workforce:
Citizenship and educational attainment had the most effect on the
likelihood of Hispanics' representation in the federal workforce,
relative to the nonfederal workforce.[Footnote 6] Other measurable
factors in our statistical model--gender, veteran's status, race,
English proficiency, age, disability status, school attendance
(enrolled or not enrolled), employment status (full or part-time), and
geography (state where employed)--had a more limited or almost no
effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being in the federal
workforce.[Footnote 7] When we analyzed the effect of all the factors
simultaneously, we found that, among citizens, Hispanics were 24
percent or 1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in
the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. (See app. II
for a detailed discussion of the steps we took to conduct our analyses
and our results.)
Effect of Citizenship:
Our analysis showed that citizenship had the greatest effect of the
factors we analyzed on Hispanics' representation in the federal
workforce. We analyzed the effect of citizenship before analyzing any
other individual factor because of long-standing policy and practice to
restrict federal government hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals--99.7
percent of federal executive branch employees were U.S. citizens or
nationals in 2005. (See app. III for a discussion of the federal
government's policy and practice on the employment of citizens.) Before
accounting for the effect of citizenship, Hispanics 18 and older were
30 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be employed (i.e.,
represented) in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal
workforce. However, when we analyzed the likelihood of only citizens 18
and older being employed in the federal workforce, we found that
Hispanics were 5 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be employed
in the federal workforce compared to their representation in the
nonfederal workforce.
Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that Hispanics had lower
citizenship rates than other racial/ethnic groups, with the exception
of Asians who had similar rates. In 2000, of those 18 and older in the
combined federal and nonfederal CLF, 65 percent of the Hispanics were
U.S. citizens compared with 95 percent of blacks, 96 percent of whites,
65 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and 96
percent of American Indians/Native Alaskans. Additionally, Hispanic
immigrants have lower naturalization rates than other immigrant groups.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 27 percent of the adult foreign-
born Hispanic population in the United States were naturalized citizens
in 2004 compared with 54 percent of the adult foreign-born non-Hispanic
population.
Hispanic-serving organizations have undertaken citizenship initiatives.
For example, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
encourages legal residents of the United States to become citizens and
reports that it conducts a national drive to have those eligible for
citizenship apply for and attain citizenship.
Effect of Education:
After citizenship, education had the largest effect on Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce. We compared Hispanic and non-
Hispanic citizens with similar levels of education. We limited our
examination of the effect of education to citizens because citizenship
is a basic qualification for most federal employment. As discussed
above, among citizens, Hispanics were 5 percent less likely to be
employed in the federal government. After accounting for education,
Hispanic citizens were 1.16 times or 16 percent more likely than
similarly educated non-Hispanic citizens to be in the federal workforce
than the nonfederal workforce.
The federal workforce contains a greater percentage of occupations that
require higher levels of education than the CLF. EEOC divides
occupations in the federal workforce and the CLF into nine categories,
including among others professionals, operatives, and laborers. For
example, in 2000, the year in which EEOC data on the CLF are based,
occupations in the professional category--those occupations, such as
lawyers, engineers, accountants, and registered nurses, requiring
either college graduation or experience of such kind and amount as to
provide a comparable background--constituted 29 percent of the federal
workforce versus 18 percent of the CLF. Conversely, occupations in the
operatives (semiskilled workers) and laborers (unskilled workers)
categories, which generally do not require high education levels,
constituted 3 percent of the federal workforce compared to 16 percent
of the CLF. Figure 1 shows the composition of the federal workforce and
the CLF by EEOC's occupational categories.
Figure 1: Composition of Federal Workforce and CLF by EEOC's Nine
Occupational Categories, 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of the 2000 Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) and
the Census 2000 Special EEO File.
Note: Federal workforce percentages do not reflect individuals that
could not be classified into categories, and CLF percentages do not
reflect individuals that were unemployed.
[End of figure]
Our analyses showed that the likelihood of being a federal worker
increased with higher levels of education. A person with some college
was 1.7 times more likely to be a federal worker than a person with
only a high school diploma, a person with a bachelor's degree was 2.2
times more likely, and a person with more than a bachelor's degree was
2.7 times more likely. OPM reported that in 2004, 42 percent of federal
workers had a bachelor's degree or higher. In addition, approximately
60 percent of new permanent hires to the federal government in 2005 had
at least some college--20 percent with some college, 23 percent with a
bachelor's degree, and 17 percent with more than a bachelor's degree.
Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that regardless of citizenship
status, Hispanics overall have lower educational attainment than other
groups, with non-U.S. citizens having the lowest levels of educational
attainment. Among citizens in the CLF 18 and older, as table 1 shows,
Hispanics had a higher percentage of those without a high school
diploma--26.4 percent--and lower percentage of those with a bachelor's
degree or higher--15.4 percent--than most other racial/ethnic groups.
Table 1: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Citizens 18
and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000:
Percent.
Less than high school diploma;
Hispanic: 26.4;
White: 10.1;
Black: 18.0;
Asian: 10.5;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 12.5;
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 17.6.
High school diploma;
Hispanic: 27.0;
White: 27.9;
Black: 30.7;
Asian: 15.8;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 33.1;
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 29.6.
Some college;
Hispanic: 31.2;
White: 33.2;
Black: 34.5;
Asian: 29.7;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 37.0;
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 37.3.
Bachelor's degree;
Hispanic: 10.6;
White: 18.8;
Black: 11.5;
Asian: 28.3;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 12.4;
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 10.1.
Graduate degree;
Hispanic: 4.8;
White: 10.1;
Black: 5.3;
Asian: 15.7;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 5.0;
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 5.3.
Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.
[End of table]
When noncitizens were included, as table 2 below shows, the proportion
of Hispanics with less than a high school diploma increased and the
proportion having bachelor's degree or higher decreased.
Table 2: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Residents
18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000:
Percent.
Less than high school diploma;
Hispanic: 39.0;
White: 11.3;
Black: 18.4;
Asian: 13.2;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 15.3;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 19.3.
High school diploma;
Hispanic: 24.2;
White: 27.5;
Black: 30.5;
Asian: 15.8;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 32.4;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 29.2.
Some college;
Hispanic: 24.6;
White: 32.6;
Black: 34.2;
Asian: 25.8;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 35.4;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 36.3.
Bachelor's degree;
Hispanic: 8.2;
White: 18.5;
Black: 11.5;
Asian: 27.4;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 12.0;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 9.9.
Graduate degree;
Hispanic: 4.0;
White: 10.1;
Black: 5.4;
Asian: 17.9;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 4.9;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 5.3.
Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.
[End of table]
Educational attainment for Hispanics 18 and older in the CLF who were
not citizens was lower compared with those who were U.S. citizens.
Table 3 shows that, among Hispanics in the CLF who were not U.S.
citizens, 62.8 percent had less than a high school diploma while 6.2
percent had a bachelor's degree or higher.
Table 3: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among Non-U.S.
Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000:
Percent.
Less than high school diploma;
Hispanic: 62.8;
White: 39.9;
Black: 26.2;
Asian: 18.4;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 32.9;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 54.9.
High school diploma;
Hispanic: 19.0;
White: 20.2;
Black: 26.3;
Asian: 15.8;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 27.8;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 20.4.
Some college;
Hispanic: 12.0;
White: 18.1;
Black: 28.4;
Asian: 18.4;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 25.3;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 14.7.
Bachelor's degree;
Hispanic: 3.6;
White: 11.5;
Black: 12.2;
Asian: 25.7;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 9.8;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 6.1.
Graduate degree;
Hispanic: 2.6;
White: 10.3;
Black: 6.8;
Asian: 21.8;
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 4.2;
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 3.9.
Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.
[End of table]
In addition to having lower educational attainment levels than other
racial/ethnic groups, there were differences in Hispanics' educational
patterns. For example, Hispanics have enrolled in 2-year colleges at a
higher rate than other racial/ethnic groups. According to data reported
in the American Council on Education's Minorities in Higher Education,
Twenty-First Annual Status Report, 2003-2004, 59 percent of Hispanics
enrolled in postsecondary institutions are enrolled in community
colleges, compared to 37 percent of whites, 43 percent of blacks, 41
percent of Asians, and 50 percent of American Indians. In addition,
Hispanics are less likely than other groups to complete a bachelor's
degree. According to data from the National Center for Education
Statistics' National Educational Longitudinal Study beginning in
1988,[Footnote 8] by age 26, 47 percent of white students who had
enrolled in postsecondary education had completed a bachelor's degree
compared to 23 percent of Hispanics--lower than other racial/ethnic
groups.[Footnote 9]
The federal government and Hispanic-serving organizations have
implemented initiatives to address gaps in Hispanics' educational
achievement. In October 2001, Executive Order No. 13230 created the
President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans, within the U.S. Department of Education, to examine issues
related to the achievement gap between Hispanic Americans and their
peers. The commission issued an interim report in September 2002, The
Road to a College Diploma: The Complex Reality of Raising Educational
Achievement for Hispanics in the United States, and a final report in
March 2003, From Risk to Opportunity: Fulfilling the Educational Needs
of Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century. The commission's final
report, concluding its work, contained six recommendations, which
encompassed the entire education continuum, from early childhood
through postsecondary, as well as federal accountability and
coordination and research. According to the White House Initiative on
Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, which provided the staff
support and assistance to the commission and continues to work within
the Department of Education, it is taking steps to implement the
commission's six recommendations and is working with the Department of
Education, other federal agencies, and public and private
organizations.
In addition to federal government initiatives, Hispanic-serving
organizations also have ongoing efforts to improve the educational
attainment of Hispanics. According to LULAC, the organization has 16
counseling centers whose mission is to increase educational
opportunities and attainment for Hispanic Americans through the
development and implementation of programs in Hispanic communities
throughout the United States. LULAC also reports that it provides
educational counseling, scholarships, mentorships, leadership
development, and literacy programs. According to its Web site, the
National Council of La Raza (NCLR) works to build and strengthen
community-based educational institutions, to improve the quality of
instruction for Hispanic students, and to more effectively involve
Hispanic families in the education of their children. NCLR reports that
its education program services and activities are targeted to over 300
affiliated organizations while its education policy work addresses
national issues in public education. NCLR also reports that it cochairs
the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national
organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for
Latinos living in the United States and Puerto Rico. Other
organizations such as the Hispanic College Fund also work to provide
college scholarships for Hispanic youth.
EEOC and OPM Have Taken Steps in Their Oversight Roles to Address
Hispanic Representation:
In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM report
representation levels of racial, ethnic, and gender groups overall and
in subsets of the federal workforce and require that agencies conduct
analyses of their own workforces. However, the benchmarks that EEOC,
OPM, and agencies use to compare federal workforce representation
levels to the CLF do not differentiate between citizens and
noncitizens, and therefore do not identify how citizenship affects the
pool of persons qualified to work for the federal government. Where
differences in representation occur, such as within occupations or by
grade, agencies are to determine if there are barriers to participation
and, if so, develop strategies to address any barriers. OPM provides
human resource guidance and resources to agencies to assist agencies in
implementing these strategies.
EEOC and OPM Reports on the Federal Workforce:
In its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, prepared pursuant to its
oversight responsibilities, EEOC provides data on the representation of
racial, ethnic, and gender groups, including Hispanics, compared to the
CLF overall, by senior pay and average grade level, and for selected
agencies with 500 or more employees. To make its comparisons, EEOC uses
the Census 2000 Special EEO File, which provides workforce data on the
CLF. The Census 2000 Special EEO File is a special tabulation
constructed by the U.S. Census Bureau according to the specifications
of, and under a reimbursable agreement with, a consortium of agencies-
-EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and the Department of Labor (DOL). The Special EEO
File, which has been prepared every 10 years since 1970 based on the
Decennial Census, serves as the primary external benchmark to compare
the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of each employer's workforce
to its available labor market. The datasets on the Census 2000 Special
EEO Tabulation present data on race and ethnicity cross-tabulated by
other variables such as detailed occupations, occupational groups,
gender, worksite geography, residence geography, education, age, and
industry. Data are available at the national level and by state,
metropolitan area, county, and place.[Footnote 10]
However, the Census 2000 Special EEO File data does not include
citizenship data. According to a Census Bureau official, at DOJ's
request, the Census 2000 Special EEO File specifications originally
included citizenship data for metropolitan statistical areas in four
states for persons in the CLF 20 to 34 years of age, with 4 or more
years of high school, by race and ethnicity. Because of narrow data
specifications, concerns were raised about the privacy of Census
respondents and the request was withdrawn. The consortium and Census
are planning the 2010 Special EEO File, which will be based on 5 years
(2005-2009) of American Community Survey (ACS) data--which is replacing
the long form of the Decennial Census. Subsequent to the completion of
our audit work, EEOC sent a letter requesting that the Census Bureau
review the possibility of including citizenship data in the 2010
Special EEO File. According to the Census Bureau, citizenship data can
be included but at an additional cost to consortium members based on
the extent of data requested (e.g., geographic or occupational
specificity) and amount of staff and programming resources to produce
the requested data. In addition, the Census Bureau said that the extent
of geographic or occupational specificity of citizenship data could be
limited based on the risk of disclosing the identity of a respondent.
Census Bureau officials also noted that because the 2010 Special EEO
File will be based on a 5-year roll up of annual ACS data, current
plans are to produce an updated Special EEO File every 5 years.
OPM also presents data on Hispanic representation in its reports to the
President under Executive Order No. 13171 and to Congress under the
FEORP. In its Annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in
the Federal Government, prepared pursuant to Executive Order No. 13171,
and in Statistical Information on Hispanic Employment in Federal
Agencies, OPM has included data on Hispanic representation overall, for
each agency, by pay plan/group, and among new hires.[Footnote 11] The
FEORP report compares overall representation levels in the federal
workforce to the CLF and provides representation levels by pay group,
in occupational categories, and within each agency. OPM also uses the
Census 2000 Special EEO File when comparing representation of women and
minorities within agencies to the relevant CLF (the labor force
comprising only the particular occupations for the particular agency)
for its FEORP report. However, in making comparisons of the demographic
composition of the overall federal workforce to the CLF for the FEORP
and the statistical reports on Hispanic employment, OPM has used the
Current Population Survey (CPS). By using the CPS, OPM reports more-
current CLF data than EEOC's and reflects the changing composition of
the CLF. At the time of our review, OPM was benchmarking to the
September 2005 CPS, which showed Hispanic representation in the CLF to
be 12.6 percent. In its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, EEOC
uses the 2000 Special EEO File as its benchmark showing Hispanic
representation in the CLF to be 10.7 percent. Although using the CPS
enables OPM to report more-current data on Hispanic representation in
the CLF, OPM does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens in
its analysis of the CPS data.
Figure 2 shows Hispanic representation in the permanent federal
workforce compared to the CLF with and without noncitizens from 1994 to
2005, based on data from the CPS and OPM. These data show how
citizenship affects the pool of Hispanics eligible for federal
employment and that, when only citizens are considered in the CLF,
Hispanic representation in both the federal workforce and CLF is more
comparable.
Figure 2: Hispanic Representation in the Permanent Federal Workforce,
CLF, and among U.S. Citizens in the CLF, 1994-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: OPM's Hispanics in the Federal Government, A Statistical
Profile, for 1994 federal workforce data, and OPM's Fifth Annual Report
to the President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government for
1995-2004 federal workforce data. Gao's analysis of the Current
Population Survey (CPS), 1994-2002 Annual Demographic File and CPS,
2003-2005 Annual Social and economic Supplemental for the CLF data.
Note: Prior to 1994, citizenship was not a variable in the CPS.
[End of figure]
EEOC and OPM Guidance on Workforce Analyses:
EEOC's Management Directive 715 (MD-715) provides guidance and
standards to federal agencies for establishing and maintaining
effective equal employment opportunity programs, including a framework
for agencies to determine whether barriers to equal employment
opportunity exist and to identify and develop strategies to mitigate
the barriers to participation. EEOC defines barriers as agency
policies, principles, or practices that limit or tend to limit
employment opportunities for members of a particular gender, race, or
ethnic background, or based on an individual's disability status. EEOC
requires agencies to report the results of their analyses annually.
The initial step is for an agency to analyze its workforce data with
designated benchmarks. As part of this analysis, in addition to
comparing the overall workforce to the CLF, EEOC instructs agencies to
compare major (mission-related and heavily populated) occupations to
the CLF in the appropriate geographic area in order to get a more
accurate picture of where differences in representation may exist and
to guide further analysis. Agencies may use the Census 2000 Special EEO
File and the Census 2000 EEO Data Tool, which allows agencies to tailor
the Special EEO File data in accordance with EEOC instructions. In
their analyses, agencies may find that Hispanic representation in some
of their major occupations is higher than in similar occupations in the
CLF, but lower in others. Similarly, our review of data on the 47
occupations with 10,000 or more federal employees showed that Hispanic
representation was higher in the 2005 federal workforce than the 2000
CLF in 22 of those occupations and lower in 25.[Footnote 12] (See app.
IV.) EEOC also instructs agencies to analyze workforce data by grade
level, applicants, new hires, separations, promotions, career
development programs, and awards to identify where there may be
barriers to participation. With respect to grade level, our review of
data on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce showed that
Hispanics are more highly represented in the lower grade levels than in
higher grade levels (see app. IV). Our review was based on descriptive
data and did not take into account citizenship, education, or other
factors that can affect an individual's placement in the federal
government.
When numerical measures indicate low representation rates, EEOC
instructs that agencies conduct further inquiry to identify and examine
the factors that contributed to the situation revealed by the data.
Below is an example from EEOC's MD-715 instructions of such an analysis
to determine the existence of limits or barriers to participation.
An agency has uncovered a lack of Black women in its program analyst
occupation at the grade 13 level and above. However, below the grade 13
level the program analyst occupation is quite diverse, including a
significant number of Black females. Further examination of the matter
reveals that several years ago the agency instituted a requirement that
program analysts hold a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree
in order to be promoted to the grade 13 level or above. Few internal
candidates, and none of the Black female program analysts employed by
the agency, hold an MBA. Therefore, the agency was recruiting higher
level program analysts from a local business school with a student
population comprised of primarily White males. Over time, program
analysts at the grade 13 and above did not reflect the racial diversity
of the program analysts at the lower grade levels.
First, the agency should re-visit the issue of whether the skill set
represented by an MBA is available by some alternative means such as
years of work experience in certain areas. This experience might be
substituted for holding an MBA in rendering an applicant qualified for
consideration for a higher-graded position. If it is determined that
the agency's requirement for an MBA is in fact job-related and
consistent with business necessity, the agency should consider whether
other alternatives exist which will have less impact on a particular
group. Most obviously, the agency could recruit MBAs from other schools
with more diverse student populations. In addition, the agency might
consider steps it could take to facilitate its own lower-graded
employees obtaining MBAs.
Under OPM's FEORP regulations and guidance under the Human Capital
Accountability and Assessment Framework (HCAAF), agencies are also to
analyze their workforces. Under FEORP, agencies are required to
determine where representation levels for covered groups are lower than
the CLF and take steps to address them. Agencies are also required to
submit annual FEORP reports to OPM in the form prescribed by OPM. These
have included (1) data on employee participation in agencywide and
governmentwide career development programs broken out by race, national
origin, gender, and grade level and (2) a narrative report identifying
areas where the agencies had been most successful in recruiting,
hiring, and formal training of minorities and women, and how they were
able to achieve those results. The HCAAF, according to OPM, fuses human
capital management with merit system principles and other civil service
laws, rules, and regulations and consists of five human capital systems
that together provide a consistent, comprehensive representation of
human capital management for the federal government. According to
recently proposed regulations, each system consists of standards
against which agencies can assess their management of human capital and
related metrics.[Footnote 13] The HCAAF practitioners guide outlines
suggested performance indicators reflecting effective practices in
meeting these standards. One suggested performance indicator, for
example, is that agencies have systems that track and analyze workforce
diversity trends in mission-critical occupations in order to
continually adjust the agency's recruitment and retention strategy to
its current state of need.
OPM Assistance to Agencies:
OPM provides assistance to agencies in recruiting Hispanics as part of
broad-based recruitment efforts and developing employees onboard
through (1) governmentwide outreach and recruitment initiatives; (2)
providing information on student employment programs; (3) disseminating
information on leading practices; and (4) providing guidance on
training and development of employees.
Governmentwide Outreach and Recruitment Initiatives:
In 2003 and 2004, OPM held recruitment fairs in cities across the
country, including those with high concentrations of Hispanics, such as
Los Angeles, San Antonio, Tucson, Miami, and New York. Additionally, in
2005, OPM participated in 25 career fairs sponsored by others including
LULAC, the National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives, and the
University of New Mexico. Under its Veteran Invitational Program,
launched in 2004, OPM has conducted career fairs, visited military
installations and veterans' medical facilities, and provided
information on employment opportunities for veterans on its Web site.
In 2004, OPM signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the American GI-
Forum--an organization that works on behalf of Hispanic veterans--in
support of Executive Order No. 13171.
OPM has also taken steps to improve the USAJOBS Web site, the federal
government's official source for jobs and employment information. As
part of its Recruitment-One Stop Initiative, launched in 2003, OPM
reports that the Web site contains improved search capability options,
a more user-friendly resume builder, and a streamlined job application
process. USAJOBS also links to OPM's Student Jobs Web site, which
contains listings of federal student employment positions, and e-
scholar, a listing of federal educational scholarships, fellowships,
grants, internships, apprenticeships, and cooperative programs offered
by federal departments and agencies and partnering organizations. The
USAJOBS Web site provides information in both English and Spanish.
Student Employment Programs:
According to OPM, student employment programs can help agencies recruit
and develop talented employees to support agency missions;
ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and
administrative needs; and achieve a diverse, quality
workforce.[Footnote 14] OPM assists agencies on the use of student
employment programs by issuing regulations and providing technical
assistance through its Web site. There are three federal student
employment hiring programs that can lead to noncompetitive conversion
to permanent employment--the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP),
Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP), and Presidential Management
Fellows Program (PMF).
Under SCEP, agencies may hire students as interns while they are
pursuing high school diplomas or equivalent vocational or technical
certificates, and associate's, bachelor's, graduate, or professional
degrees. Upon completion of their degree program and SCEP requirements,
agencies may noncompetitively convert participants to permanent
employment. Recently revised SCEP regulations allow agencies to credit
up to 320 hours of the 640 hours of career-related work experience
required for conversion from active duty military service or from
comparable nonfederal internship, work-study, or student volunteer
programs where work is performed at federal agencies.[Footnote 15]
Comparable work experience can include those internships sponsored by
the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities' (HACU) National
Internship Program. The regulations also permit agencies to waive up to
320 SCEP hours of required work experience for students who have
demonstrated exceptional job performance and outstanding academic
achievement.
Under FCIP, agencies may appoint individuals to 2-year internships in
entry-level positions that would lend themselves to internal formal
training/developmental programs.[Footnote 16] After 2 years, if program
requirements are met, an agency can noncompetitively convert them to
competitive civil service status. OPM issued final regulations on FCIP
in 2005.[Footnote 17]
The Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program is a 2-year
internship program open to students who have completed graduate degree
programs, been nominated by their school officials, and passed OPM's
assessment. In 2005, OPM issued final regulations implementing
Executive Order No. 13318, issued in 2003,[Footnote 18] removing the
cap on the number of PMF appointments, providing agencies greater
flexibility in promoting fellows, and establishing training and
development requirements.[Footnote 19]
Other organizations have also realized that various intern programs
provide valuable recruitment sources. According to the Partnership for
Public Service, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to revitalizing
public service, internship programs such as SCEP provide agencies a
pool of diverse, tested, and easy-to-hire potential employees.[Footnote
20] Yet, the Partnership found that very few are drawn from the pool
into permanent federal jobs. On the basis of the Partnership's analysis
of the rates at which SCEP program participants are converted to
permanent federal employment, agencies may not be realizing the full
potential of this program. The Partnership reported that in 2001,
agencies converted 17 percent of SCEP participants to permanent federal
employment, and in 2000, 11 percent. In contrast, the Partnership's
report stated that more than 35 percent of interns in the private
sector accepted jobs with the companies for which they interned.
While OPM has reported data on SCEP participants governmentwide by
racial/ethnic group in its Fact Book and on SCEP new hires by agency in
its statistical reports on Hispanic employment, OPM does not report
demographic data on SCEP participants by agency and on FCIP and PMF
participants governmentwide or by agency, or rates of conversion to
permanent positions for SCEP, FCIP, and PMF either governmentwide or by
agency. According to OPM, data on conversions to permanent employment
by racial/ethnic group for SCEP and FCIP are available from the Central
Personnel Data File (CPDF). Currently, OPM does not analyze these data.
Similar data are available for the PMF. Analyzing data on conversion
rates could provide OPM with valuable information on agencies that
appear to be maximizing their use of these programs as well as those
that are not fully utilizing them. With this information, OPM could
then provide assistance to agencies to help them incorporate student
employment programs into their strategic workforce planning as they
seek to recruit and develop talented employees to support agency
missions; ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and
administrative needs; and achieve a diverse, quality workforce. Such
information from OPM could also enable agencies to perform more
complete assessments of their programs.
Leading Practices:
OPM disseminates leading-practices information through the reports it
issues pursuant to FEORP and Executive Order No. 13171 and through the
Interagency Task Force on Hispanic employment, chaired by the Director
of OPM. In its annual FEORP reports, OPM presents a summary of agency
practices on workforce planning, recruitment and outreach, mentoring,
and career development based on the information agencies submit to OPM
in their annual FEORP reports. In its Annual Report to the President on
Hispanic Employment, OPM presents what agencies report as effective
recruitment, outreach, career development, and accountability
practices. To prepare the reports pursuant to the order, OPM annually
asks agencies to submit information concerning steps taken related to
these areas. OPM also shares information on leading practices at
meetings of the Interagency Task Force. Through this guidance, OPM
promotes broad outreach to all groups and encourages agencies to
establish relationships with colleges and universities as a means to
attract qualified candidates.
Training and Development:
Once onboard, training and development programs can assist employees in
further developing skills and helping them qualify for higher-level
positions. OPM provides guidance to agencies on its training and
development Web page and has issued regulations on training and
development tools available to agencies, such as academic degree and
other employee training programs. In 2004, OPM finalized
regulations[Footnote 21] on a training provision of the Chief Human
Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act),
which expanded agency authority to pay or reimburse employees for the
cost of academic degree training when such training contributes
significantly to meeting an identified agency training need, resolving
an identified agency staffing problem, or accomplishing goals in an
agency's human capital management strategic plan.[Footnote 22]
Agencies Take Steps to Recruit and Develop Hispanics in the Federal
Workforce:
The five agencies in our review have taken a variety of approaches to
address issues concerning Hispanic representation in their workforces,
particularly in competing for a limited number of qualified candidates
and addressing Hispanic representation at higher levels. At NASA, where
Hispanics represented 5.3 percent of the workforce in 2005, one of the
major occupations is aerospace engineering.[Footnote 23] There,
Hispanics represented 5.0 percent of aerospace engineers, according to
EEOC's Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, 2004. In the CLF,
Hispanics represented 4.6 percent of aerospace engineers, according to
the Census 2000 Special EEO File. NASA said it must compete with the
private sector for the pool of Hispanics qualified for aerospace
engineering positions, which is often attracted by more-lucrative
employment opportunities in the private sector in more-preferable
locations. FNS, where Hispanics represented 7 percent of the workforce
in 2005,[Footnote 24] reports that its ability to successfully recruit
Hispanics was affected by low Hispanic representation in areas where
some of its regional offices are located. Similarly, the USAF, with 7.4
percent of its workforce Hispanic in 2005, also reported difficulties
in recruiting Hispanics at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton,
Ohio, where Hispanics represent approximately 2 percent of the local
CLF, according to the USAF. Moreover, the USAF attributes, in part, the
decrease in overall Hispanic representation levels (from 7.7 percent in
2000 to 7.4 percent in 2005) to the closure of Air Force bases in the
southwestern United States where Hispanics were more highly represented
than at other bases. Finally, agencies also reported that Hispanic
representation in mid-and upper-level positions was an issue they were
addressing. While both SSA, where Hispanics represented 12.5 percent of
the workforce in 2005, and the SBA, where Hispanics represented 10.8
percent in 2005, reported success recruiting Hispanics for lower-level
positions, each noted that Hispanic representation in certain mid-or
upper-level positions was lower.
Steps Agencies Have Taken:
The agencies reported using a variety of approaches that enhanced their
ability to recruit and develop Hispanic employees. These included
outreach to the Hispanic community and Hispanic-serving organizations,
including participating in conferences sponsored by LULAC and others;
recruiting at Hispanic-Serving Institutions--defined by statute as an
eligible institution having an undergraduate enrollment of at least 25
percent Hispanic full-time students and at least 50 percent of the
institution's Hispanics students qualifying as low income;[Footnote 25]
sponsoring interns through the HACU National Internship Program; use of
student employment programs such as SCEP and FCIP; advertising in both
English-and Spanish-language Hispanic media; and career development and
training programs. Below we describe some of the specific approaches
agencies in our study used to recruit and provide training and
development opportunities for Hispanics. While data on the outcomes are
limited and we have not assessed the effectiveness of these programs,
the agencies reported that these approaches have enhanced their ability
to recruit and develop qualified Hispanics.
Outreach to the Hispanic Community:
NASA--Part of NASA's strategy to recruit Hispanics centers on
increasing educational attainment, beginning in kindergarten and
continuing into college and graduate school, with the goal of
attracting students into the NASA workforce and aerospace community.
NASA centers sponsor, and its employees participate in, mentoring,
tutoring, and other programs to encourage Hispanic and other students
to pursue careers in science, engineering, technology, and math. For
example, the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama, annually
sponsors a Hispanic Youth Conference attended by students from across
Alabama that includes workshops on leadership development and pursuing
NASA career fields and provides opportunities to establish mentoring
relationships. NASA also provides grants to fund educational support
programs including in locations where there are high concentrations of
Hispanics. For example, the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field,
California, provided a grant for the development and implementation of
a K-12 technology-awareness program designed to expose students to NASA
and higher education through competitive team activities based on key
aeronautic concepts. The program has been implemented in schools
throughout California that have a high percentage of Hispanic students.
Various centers also participate in high school and college internship
programs, such as the Summer High School Apprenticeship Research
Program where high school students spend 8 weeks working with engineers
on scientific, engineering, mathematical, and technical projects. NASA
centers also provide scholarships and research grants. For example,
Ames provides scholarships to Hispanic college students at a community
college and the Dryden Flight Research Center sponsors fellowships for
students in engineering and science to continue their graduate studies.
In addition, NASA has recently developed the Motivating Undergraduates
in Science and Technology scholarship program designed to stimulate a
continued interest in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics.
USAF--To reach potentially qualified Hispanics from all areas of the
country, the USAF outreach strategy focuses on partnering and improving
working relationships with Hispanic-serving organizations at the
national, regional, and local levels. At the national level, the USAF
has established relationships with professional, educational, and broad-
based Hispanic-serving organizations. For example, it signed a
memorandum of understanding with LULAC agreeing to collaborate on,
among other things, increasing USAF career opportunities. Through the
Department of Defense partnership with HACU, the USAF participates in a
national working group that meets semiannually to develop initiatives
to expand recruitment at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. At the local
and regional levels, the USAF has a variety of outreach efforts that
involve both providing information to, and gaining feedback from, the
Hispanic community. It works with organizations to educate potential
employees on the application process. For example, Kirtland Air Force
Base in New Mexico has sponsored "train the trainer" workshops with
area organizations, high schools, and colleges and universities. The
USAF also participates in programs working directly with local
students, such as serving as mentors for Hispanic students. In
addition, the USAF regularly provides vacancy announcements to, and has
ongoing dialogues with, local Hispanic community organizations.
Use of Student Hiring Authorities:
NASA--During fiscal year 2004, NASA implemented the corporate college
recruitment initiative using FCIP hiring authority to recruit
individuals to mission-critical positions. As part of this strategy,
NASA participates in recruitment events at colleges and universities
and conferences around the country, which it selects based on academic
programs, diversity of attendee population, or involvement in NASA
research. For each recruitment site, it invites academic institutions
within reasonable geographical proximity, allowing it to maximize
opportunities to reach students at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In
fiscal year 2004, 15 Hispanic-Serving Institutions participated from
Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, New York, Puerto Rico, and
Texas, which included universities with well-established engineering,
science, and technology curricula. Prior to each event, NASA publishes
event-specific vacancies and encourages students to apply in advance in
order to create a pool of applicants from which to schedule interviews
at the site. NASA reported that it was most successful in competing for
top talent and filling critical competency positions at the earliest
possible time when it extended job offers at the recruitment site or
within 30 days after the conclusion of the recruitment visit.
USAF--The USAF uses student employment programs to attract Hispanics
and other qualified applicants for positions ranging from those
requiring training at the vocational-technical schools to the graduate
level. The USAF--which employs approximately half of the federal
government's civilian aircraft maintenance workers--has implemented the
"Grow Your Own" aircraft maintenance program at three of its Texas
bases. In partnership with vocational-technical schools, the program
includes both on-the-job training and classroom education. It provides
the USAF with a pool of trained candidates to replace retiring federal
employees and a vehicle to increase Hispanic representation. Students
are initially appointed through SCEP, and upon completion of the
educational program and 640 hours of career-related work, students may
be converted to permanent employment within 120-days without further
competition.
Using FCIP authority, the USAF hires recent college graduates into its
PALACE Acquire and Copper Cap internship programs. The Copper Cap
program is designed to train college graduates as contract specialists
by assigning them to work with professional contracting officers. The
PALACE Acquire program fills a variety of positions in approximately 20
career fields including logistics, civilian personnel, scientists and
engineers, criminal investigator, intelligence specialists, public
affairs, and education specialists. Participants may be promoted in 1-
year intervals up to a certain level based on satisfactory or
successful performance and are eligible for student loan repayment and
tuition assistance for graduate school.
Career Development Programs:
SBA--The SBA's District Director Candidate Development Program (DDCDP)
is designed to recruit and develop a diverse group of highly qualified
and trained managers at the General Schedule grade 13, 14, and 15
levels to fill district director positions on a noncompetitive basis as
they become vacant. At the SBA, district director positions are key
managerial career positions responsible for providing agency services
to the small business community. The program is a 6-to 18-month
development program and candidates who are competitively selected for,
and successfully complete, the DDCDP program are eligible for
noncompetitive selection for a period of 3 years from the time they
have successfully completed the program.
FNS--Since 2000, FNS has sponsored the Leadership Institute, which is a
15-month full-time leadership training program. The program focuses on
five core competencies: leading change, leading people, achieving
results, business acumen, and building coalitions/communications.
Participants, who are competitively selected from grades 11-14, attend
core seminars on such topics as leading teams, problem solving, and
decision making and participate in individual and team projects. As of
February 2006, there were 98 graduates from five classes.
SSA--SSA sponsors national, headquarters, and regional career
development programs for employees in grades 5 to 15. At the national
level, the Leadership Development Program is an 18-month program
designed to provide employees in grades 9 to 12 with developmental
experiences through placement in designated trainee positions. The
Advanced Leadership Program is an 18-month program designed to provide
employees in grades 13 and 14 experience to become future agency
leaders through rotational assignments, training, and other
developmental experiences. Upon successful completion of these
programs, participants receive a 3-year Certificate of Eligibility for
a onetime, noncompetitive promotion, used at the discretion of SSA
management. SSA also has a 12-to 18-month Senior Executive Service
Candidate Development Program to prepare individuals in grade 15 or
equivalent to assume senior executive-level responsibilities and
develop their executive core qualifications. For employees in grades 5
through 8, SSA offers career development programs in its Office of
Central Operations based in Baltimore and Office of Disability
Adjudication and Review, which has regional and local hearing offices
throughout the country. These, as well as other regional and
headquarters component career development programs, are modeled after
its three national programs for which employees are competitively
selected.
Educational Assistance Programs:
USAF--The USAF provides a variety of opportunities for current
employees to increase their educational attainment through tuition
assistance and degree completion programs, in-residence and distance-
learning educational programs, and long-term academic programs. Its
tuition assistance program covers mission-related coursework for
designated positions toward degrees at a higher-level than the employee
has already attained. Employees attend courses on a voluntary off-duty
basis. Degree completion programs offer selected employees in
designated career fields the opportunity to complete their degree
during duty hours on a full-or part-time basis. In addition, the USAF
also provides opportunities for employees to earn graduate degrees from
its academic institutions, such as the Air Force Institute of
Technology. Moreover, its professional military education programs--
such as the Squadron Officer College and Air War College--are available
for civilian employees depending upon grade level. These programs are
offered in residence and by correspondence. Both provide opportunities
for participants to earn credits toward degree programs.
The USAF has obtained the recommendations on college credit for these
and other courses and training programs from the American Council on
Education's (ACE) College Credit Recommendation service. ACE is an
association of approximately 1,800 accredited, degree-granting colleges
and universities as well as higher-education-related associations,
organizations, and corporations. It reviews training programs and
courses offered by government agencies and corporations and other
training providers at the providers' request and makes recommendations
concerning the type of academic credit, if any, appropriate for the
program. Approximately 1,200 accredited colleges or universities have
agreed to consider ACE recommendations for courses, apprenticeship
programs, and examinations, including community colleges and
universities such as the University of California at Berkeley, George
Washington University, and Indiana University, Bloomington.[Footnote
26] ACE has also recommended credit for various courses from NASA's
Academy of Program and Project Leadership that may be used toward a
graduate degree.
Agencies Identify Lessons-learned in Addressing Hispanic
Representation:
In response to our inquiry, the agencies included in our review
reported three primary lessons important to the success of their
efforts--commitment of agency leadership, taking a strategic workforce
planning approach, and working with the Hispanic community:
* Commitment of agency leadership: Agencies reported that their
programs were most successful when agency leadership was committed to
addressing Hispanic representation. As we found in our prior work on
diversity management, leaders and managers within organizations are
primarily responsible for the success of diversity management because
they must provide the visibility and commit the time and necessary
resources.[Footnote 27] For example, SSA included diversity as part of
its strategic and human capital plans and developed an agencywide
marketing and recruitment strategy to address the representation of any
underrepresented group, including Hispanics. Additionally, it tracks
the outcomes of its recruitment and hiring initiatives.
* Strategic workforce planning: Agencies also recognized the importance
of taking a strategic workforce planning approach in their efforts to
recruit a diverse workforce. Strategic workforce planning addresses two
critical needs: (1) aligning an organization's human capital program
with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals and (2)
developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and
retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals.[Footnote 28] For
example, NASA's recruitment strategy focuses on both developing the
pipeline to fill its mission-critical occupations by encouraging
students to pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and
math and attracting graduates into the NASA workforce and aerospace
community. Additionally, SSA developed a business case for bilingual
public contact employees in its field offices and bicultural employees
in policy-making staff positions in its regional offices and
headquarters components. Similarly, FNS said it began to realize the
need for bilingual professionals, and as a result, has advertised
positions requiring fluency in Spanish.
* Working with Hispanic communities: Finally, agencies told us that it
is important to work with Hispanic communities to understand one
another's needs and find mutually beneficial solutions. The USAF at
Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has taken steps in
this regard. In this geographic area where Hispanics represented 41.6
percent of the population according to the 2000 Census, the base has an
alliance with the local public schools and colleges and universities to
ensure that it is providing career and mentoring opportunities for area
students and that schools are producing a pipeline of qualified
students to meet base needs. Base representatives also work with the
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on issues pertaining to Hispanic
communities.
Conclusions:
Providing federal agencies with benchmarks that consider citizenship
would allow agencies to get a more accurate picture of differences in
representation levels and more effectively identify and address
barriers to equal employment opportunity. Current CLF benchmarks do not
include citizenship; however, two annual official data sources--the CPS
and ACS--are available that would allow EEOC and OPM to separate
citizens and noncitizens in analyzing federal workforce representation
by racial, ethnic, and gender groups. Additionally, agencies analyze
their workforces using the Census Special EEO Files prepared at the
direction of the consortium of agencies--EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and DOL.
Although the 2000 Special EEO File did not contain citizenship data,
EEOC and DOJ have expressed interest in and the need for including such
data in the 2010 Special EEO File but must address issues including
cost and privacy.
As part of their barrier analyses, where representation differences
between occupations in their workforces and similar ones in the CLF
exist, agencies are to determine whether the qualifications established
for those occupations are appropriate. Additionally, agencies are
required to determine whether they have considered all sources of
qualified individuals. OPM currently provides guidance to federal
agencies on recruiting at colleges and universities. Because the
majority of Hispanics enrolled in postsecondary education attend
community colleges and vocational schools, identifying effective
outreach practices to such schools could help those agencies that have
occupations requiring the education and training provided at these
institutions to meet workforce needs and further equal employment
opportunity. OPM already shares effective recruiting practices through
its Annual Report to the President under Executive Order No. 13171.
OPM has recognized the importance of student employment programs, in
particular SCEP, in providing a unique opportunity for agencies to
recruit students from high school through graduate school, depending on
agencies' needs. These programs not only serve as a mechanism to
address future federal workforce needs, they offer students the
incentive to complete their education as well. OPM has provided data on
SCEP new hires in its statistical reports on Hispanic employment and
SCEP participants governmentwide in its Fact Book. While data on
conversation rates for SCEP and FCIP are available from the CPDF, OPM
does not analyze these data by agency or governmentwide. Such analyses
could provide OPM with valuable information to help agencies maximize
their use of these programs as part of their overall strategic
workforce planning. Additionally, such information from OPM could
enable agencies to perform more complete assessments of their programs.
While federal agencies are taking steps to address Hispanic
representation issues, as an employer, the federal government is
limited in its ability to address the effects of citizenship and
education on Hispanic representation throughout the federal workforce.
As these are multifaceted issues, developing strategies to address them
will require partnerships between Hispanic-serving organizations,
federal agencies, state and local governments, educational
institutions, and other interest groups.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Director of OPM and the Chair of EEOC do the
following:
* Include citizenship in their annual comparisons of representation in
the federal workforce to the CLF. To help ensure consistency, both
agencies should agree upon a single source of citizenship data.
* Work with other Consortium agencies and the Census Bureau to
incorporate citizenship data into the 2010 Census Special EEO File and
incorporate such data into analyses under MD-715, FEORP, and Executive
Order No. 13171.
We recommend that the Director of OPM do the following:
* Assess the extent of participation by racial and ethnic groups in
student employment programs--SCEP, FCIP, and PMF--to help agencies
maximize the use of these programs in their overall strategic workforce
plan. This effort should include:
* analyzing participation in, and conversion rates to, permanent
positions from these programs and:
* reporting governmentwide and agency-specific demographic data for the
different racial and ethnic groups reflecting participation in, and
rates of conversion to, permanent employment from these programs. These
data are in addition to the data already reported on these programs in
its reports, such as in its statistical reports on Hispanic employment
and in the Fact Book.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney
General, and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for
their review and comment. In an e-mail, DOJ said it had no comments. In
a written response, the Department of Commerce said it had no comments.
(See app. V.) In its written comments, EEOC said it found the report to
be an extremely interesting and useful addition to the ongoing
examination of Hispanic representation in the federal workforce and
indicated its plans to use the report as a resource. EEOC agreed that
citizenship data are an important aspect that appears applicable not
only to Hispanics, but to other census population groups as well. In
this regard, EEOC has requested that the Census Bureau review the
possibility of including citizenship data in the 2010 Special EEO File.
The availability of citizenship data would enhance the analyses
required under MD-715. However, EEOC did not address our recommendation
that it include citizenship data in its annual comparisons of
representation in the federal workforce to the CLF, which can be based
on currently available CPS or ACS data. EEOC also said that while
citizenship data are a useful benchmark for broad trending, more
refined analyses are necessary, including analyses of applicant pools
and participation rates for specific occupations. EEOC also said that
analysis of the on-board federal workforce, such as analysis of
promotions and participation in career development, employee
recognition, and awards programs, is important in assessing equality of
opportunity. We agree with EEOC that more refined analyses are
necessary to assess equality of opportunity. EEOC's comments are
reprinted in appendix VI. OPM provided minor technical comments via e-
mail, which we incorporated as appropriate, but did not otherwise
comment on the report or our recommendations.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. We will then send copies of this report to the
Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney General, the Secretary
of Commerce, and other interested parties. Copies will be made
available to others upon request. This report will also be available at
no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9490. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Staff who made major contributions to this report
are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
George H. Stalcup Director, Strategic Issues:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Danny K. Davis:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Grace Flores Napolitano:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) identify and analyze the factors that are
affecting Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, (2) examine
the steps that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in their oversight roles, are
taking related to Hispanic representation, and (3) illustrate the
efforts within selected federal agencies related to Hispanic
representation.
To answer our first objective, we interviewed representatives from
Hispanic-serving and other relevant organizations,[Footnote 29] and
federal agency officials; reviewed previous studies; and obtained the
opinions of experts identified by the National Academy of Sciences to
identify possible factors that affect Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce. Next, we researched available data sources that
included sufficiently detailed data on Hispanic ethnicity, employer
(federal or nonfederal), and the identified factors that could be
reliably measured. We concluded that the 2000 Decennial Census Public
Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent File was the best data source for
our purposes. We conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses of data
from the 2000 Decennial Census PUMS to determine the effect of the
identified factors that could be reliably measured in this dataset on
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. Our methodology and
results of these analyses are more specifically described in appendix
II. We obtained opinions on our methodology from EEOC, OPM, the Census
Bureau, and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The experts identified by
the National Academy of Sciences also reviewed and provided comments on
both our methodology for conducting these analyses and our preliminary
results. Our analyses are not designed to prove or disprove
discrimination in a court of law like analyses conducted by EEOC or
DOJ, nor do they establish whether the differences would require
corrective action by any federal agency. Rather, our analyses use a
standard statistical method designed to provide information at an
aggregate level about factors that explain levels of Hispanic
representation in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal
workforce.
To determine steps EEOC and OPM have taken related to Hispanic
representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, executive
orders, policies, guidance, program information, and reports issued
related to Hispanic representation in the federal government. At EEOC,
we met with officials and representatives, including from its Office of
Federal Operations, Office of General Counsel---Research and Analytic
Services, and Office of Legal Counsel. At OPM, we met with officials,
including from the Human Capital Leadership and Merit System
Accountability Division, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, and
the Office of General Counsel.
To illustrate the efforts of federal agencies, we selected five Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies or their subagencies of different
sizes, geographic locations, concentrations of jobs by grade level, and
OPM's occupational categories.[Footnote 30] They were the United States
Air Force, Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small
Business Administration, and Social Security Administration. We
provided written questions and document requests to agency officials
and reviewed the responses received from each of the five agencies. We
also had discussions at each agency with officials that oversee offices
and programs related to Hispanic representation. We also reviewed
documents provided by, and spoke with officials from, the White House
Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans.
In addition, we analyzed Hispanic representation in the federal
workforce governmentwide (1) compared to the Civilian Labor Force
(CLF), including and excluding noncitizens; (2) in federal occupations
compared to similar occupations in the CLF;[Footnote 31] and (3) by pay
plan/grade.
* To compare Hispanic representation in the federal workforce
governmentwide[Footnote 32] to the CLF, we used data from 1994 to 2005.
For the federal workforce, we used data reported by OPM on the
permanent federal workforce. For the CLF, which includes both permanent
and nonpermanent employees, we analyzed the March supplements to the
Current Population Survey (CPS)--the 1994-2002 Annual Demographic Files
and the 2003-2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplements
(ASEC).[Footnote 33]
* To compare Hispanic representation in federal occupations to similar
occupations in the CLF, we selected the occupations which in September
2004 had 10,000 or more federal employees, 47 occupations in total (see
app. IV). For this analysis, we included both permanent and
nonpermanent federal employees for comparability to the CLF. For
Hispanic representation in these occupations in the federal workforce,
we analyzed the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) for 2000-2005. For
Hispanic representation in these occupations in the CLF, we analyzed
the Census 2000 Special EEO File, which was created from the 2000
Census.[Footnote 34] To determine occupations that are similar in the
CLF and the federal workforce, we used the crosswalk for 2000 provided
to us by EEOC to match federal occupations with similar occupations in
the CLF.
* To examine Hispanic representation by grade governmentwide, we
analyzed 1990-2005 CPDF data for permanent and nonpermanent employees
in groupings of General Schedule grades 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12, separately
for grades 13, 14, and 15, and separately for those in the Senior
Executive Service, in Senior Level/Senior Technical positions, and
under the Executive Schedule. (See app. IV.)
We believe the CPDF, CPS, and Census 2000 Special EEO File are
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study. Regarding the
CPDF, we have previously reported that governmentwide data from the
CPDF for the key variables in this study--race/Hispanic origin,
occupation, and pay plan/grade--were 97 percent or more
accurate.[Footnote 35] We believe the CPDF data are sufficiently
reliable for purposes of this study. Regarding the CPS, to assess the
reliability of its data, we reviewed the technical documentation for
these data files, including the coding and definition of variables of
interest, the procedures for handling missing data, coding checks, and
imputation procedures for missing data. We also interviewed Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) staff about how federal employment and race/
ethnicity are reported and imputed and to determine how this would
affect our analyses. We considered the response rate, allocation rate
(or the rate at which responses are imputed for unanswered questions),
and size of confidence intervals. Because the CPS had a very high
response rate, a low allocation rate, and narrow confidence intervals,
the 1994-2005 CPS data were sufficiently reliable. Regarding the Census
2000 Special EEO File, although we and others have cited a number of
limitations of Census 2000 data, we believe these data are sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this study (see app. II for a full
description of what we did to assess the reliability of Census data).
We conducted our work from October 2004 to June 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Affecting Hispanic
Representation in the Federal Workforce:
This appendix describes our analyses of factors that are affecting
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. We included those
factors identified by representatives of Hispanic-serving
organizations, agency officials, outside experts, and previous studies,
which could be reliably measured in the data set we used. These factors
were citizenship, gender, education, veteran's status, race, English
proficiency, age, disability status, in-school status, employment
status (full-or part-time), and geography (state where employed). To
assess the effect of these factors on Hispanic representation in the
federal workforce, we analyzed how these factors affect the likelihood
of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce
as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. We used logistic regression
models to estimate likelihood of federal employment. This is a widely
accepted method of analyzing dichotomous or binomial outcomes--like
being in the federal versus nonfederal workforce--when the interest is
in determining the effects of multiple factors that may be related to
one another. In developing the model, we solicited the opinions of
experts identified by the National Academy of Sciences as well as
officials from OPM, EEOC, DOJ, and the Census Bureau. We also sought
the experts' views on the preliminary results of our analysis.[Footnote
36]
Data Sets Used:
We analyzed data from the 2000 Decennial Census Public Use Microdata
Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent File because it (1) included variables needed
for our analyses and (2) had the largest sample size of the datasets
containing the variables in our analyses.[Footnote 37] To confirm our
results, we also analyzed data from the 2004 American Community Survey
(ACS) because it contains more recent data. In this appendix, however,
we present only the results using the PUMS data because its larger
sample size makes it less prone to sampling error than the ACS
data.[Footnote 38] In addition, the results of the analyses of the ACS
data were largely consistent with the results using the PUMS data.
To assess the reliability of the PUMS and ACS, we reviewed the
technical documentation for these data files, including the coding and
definition of variables of interest, the procedures for handling
missing data, coding checks, and imputation procedures for missing
data. We also interviewed Census Bureau staff about how federal
employment and race/ethnicity are reported and imputed and to determine
how this would affect our analyses. We considered the response rate,
allocation rate (or the rate at which responses are imputed for
unanswered questions), and size of confidence intervals. Because PUMS
and ACS both had a very high response rate, a low allocation rate, and
narrow confidence intervals, the 2000 PUMS and 2004 ACS were
sufficiently reliable for our objectives.
The PUMS and ACS both contain self-reported data on whether someone is
part of the CLF. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines the CLF
as including persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50
states and the District of Columbia, who are not institutionalized
(i.e., in penal and mental facilities, or homes for the aged) and who
are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.[Footnote 39] For purposes
of our logistic regression models, we divided the CLF into two groups-
-the federal workforce and the nonfederal workforce.[Footnote 40]
Further, we restricted our analyses to individuals 18 and older
because, with a few exceptions, 18 years is the minimum age for federal
employment and our analysis of the government's official personnel
data--the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)--showed that in September
2004 individuals under 18 years of age constituted only 0.10 percent of
the federal workforce.
Methodology:
We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models to
estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the
federal workforce relative to being in the nonfederal workforce. There
were four steps to these analyses.
1. For the first step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to
estimate the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the
likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce, relative to the
nonfederal workforce, before controlling for any of the identified
factors.
2. For the second step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to
determine how our estimated difference in likelihood of Hispanics and
non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce was affected by U.S. citizenship. We estimated the
difference in likelihood between Hispanic citizens and non-Hispanic
citizens being employed in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce and compared it to the difference in likelihood of
federal employment among both citizens and noncitizens combined,
obtained in step 1. We analyzed the effect of citizenship before all
other factors because the federal government has a general policy and
practice of restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals.
3. For the third step, we restricted our analyses to citizens only and
used a series of multivariate logistic regression models, controlling
for each factor one at a time, to estimate how each of the other
factors affected the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic citizens
and non-Hispanic citizens being in the federal workforce relative to
the nonfederal workforce. Because of the large effect of education on
the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics that was revealed in
this step, we ran a bivariate model that estimated the effect of
education among all individuals--citizens and noncitizens combined--on
the likelihood of being in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce.
4. In the fourth step, we used a multivariate logistic regression model
that estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic and non-
Hispanic citizens being employed in the federal workforce versus the
nonfederal workforce after controlling for all other factors
simultaneously. Among citizens, we controlled simultaneously for
gender, education, veteran's status, race, English proficiency, age,
disability status, school attendance (enrolled or not enrolled),
employment status (full-or part-time), and geography (state where
employed).
In our analyses, we express differences in the likelihoods of being in
the federal workforce rather than the nonfederal workforce using odds
ratios.[Footnote 41] An odds ratio is generally defined as the ratio of
the odds of an event occurring in one group compared to the odds of it
occurring in another group--the reference or comparision group. In our
analyses, the event of interest to us was employment in the federal
workforce versus employment in the nonfederal workforce. We computed
odds ratios to indicate the difference between Hispanics and non-
Hispanics in the likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce
(1) before controlling for any of the other factors, (2) after
controlling for all of the factors one at a time, and (3) controlling
for all factors simultaneously.
In our analyses, an odds ratio of 1.0 would indicate that Hispanics and
non-Hispanics were equally likely to be employed in the federal
workforce as in the nonfederal workforce, or that the ratio of
Hispanics to non-Hispanics was the same in the two workforces. An odds
ratio of less than 1.0 would imply that Hispanics were less likely than
non-Hispanics to be in the federal workforce as opposed to the
nonfederal workforce, while an odds ratio greater than 1.0 would imply
that Hispanics were more likely. For example, an odds ratio of 0.5
would indicate that Hispanics were only half or 50 percent as likely as
non-Hispanics to be in the federal workforce as opposed to the
nonfederal workforce. An odds ratio of 2.0 would indicate that
Hispanics were twice as likely as non-Hispanics to be in the federal
workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. We also use odds
ratios to indicate the effects of the other factors we considered
(i.e., education, race, etc.), and they can be similarly interpreted.
Given the large sample size of the PUMS file, all of the results
reported are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence
level. Thus, we concentrated our analysis on the size or magnitude of
the odds ratio--that is, how much smaller or larger than 1.0 they were-
-rather than the statistical significance of the odds ratios.
The Difference between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of
Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce:
We initially estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanics
and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce versus the
nonfederal workforce before controlling for any of the identified
factors. Table 4 shows the numbers, odds, and odds ratio derived from
the PUMS to estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics
being employed in the federal workforce relative to being in the
nonfederal workforce. The odds ratio of 0.698 indicates that the odds
of Hispanics being in the federal workforce rather than the nonfederal
workforce were about 30 percent lower than the corresponding odds for
non-Hispanics.
Table 4: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens and Noncitizens, and
Odds and Odds Ratios Derived from Them, 2000:
Ethnicity: Hispanic;
Number in federal workforce: 219,893;
Number in nonfederal workforce: 15,228,215;
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0144;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic;
Number in federal workforce: 2,438,122;
Number in nonfederal workforce: 117,921,113;
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0207;
Odds ratio: 0.698.
Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.
[End of table]
We calculated the odds ratio of 0.698 by first deriving the odds of
being a federal employee rather than a nonfederal employee for both
Hispanics and non-Hispanics. For Hispanics, we divided the number of
the Hispanic federal employees by the number of Hispanic nonfederal
employees, or 219,893/15,228,215, which equals 0.0144. This implies
that the odds of being a federal employee among Hispanics were 0.0144;
that is, there were 14.4 Hispanics who are federal employees for every
1,000 Hispanics who were nonfederal employees. For non-Hispanics, by
comparison, the odds were 2,438,122/117,921,113 = 0.0207, which means
that there were 20.7 non-Hispanics who were federal employees for every
1,000 non-Hispanics who are nonfederal employees. The odds ratio, or
ratio of these two odds, which is 0.0144/0.0207 = 0.698, indicates that
the odds on being a federal employee (i.e., represented in the federal
workforce) were lower for Hispanics than non-Hispanics, by a factor of
0.698.
The Effect of Citizenship on the Difference between Hispanics' and Non-
Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the
Nonfederal Workforce:
We examined the effect of citizenship on the difference in the
likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal
workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce, before examining the
effect of all other factors because the federal government has a
general policy and practice of restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and
nationals. Table 5 shows the odds and odds ratio that are obtained when
citizens only are used to estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-
Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to being in
the nonfederal workforce. When these same odds and odds ratio were
calculated for citizens only, the odds were similar (0.0200 and
0.0210), and the odds ratio of 0.953 implies that the odds of being a
federal employee, among Hispanic citizens, were lower than for non-
Hispanic citizens by about 5 percent. Comparing this to the odds ratio
indicating the difference in the likelihood of Hispanics and non-
Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce among the both
citizens and non-citizens--0.698--indicates that citizenship accounts
for much of the difference in the likelihood of federal employment
between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, since the difference in the odds
changes from about 30 percent to roughly 5 percent.
Table 5: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens Only, and Odds and Odds
Ratio Derived from Them, 2000:
Ethnicity: Hispanic;
Number in federal workforce: 198,603;
Number in nonfederal workforce: 9,905,447;
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0200;
Odds ratio: [Empty].
Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic;
Number in federal workforce: 2,386,192;
Number in nonfederal workforce: 113,424,164;
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0210;
Odds ratio: 0.953.
Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data.
[End of table]
Effect of Remaining Factors among Citizens on the Difference between
Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal
Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce:
To determine the effect of the remaining factors on likelihood of
Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal workforce relative to
being in the nonfederal workforce, we restricted our analysis to U.S.
citizens because the federal government has a general policy and
practice of hiring only U.S. citizens. We then controlled for each of
the other factors one at a time among U.S. citizens in a series of
multivariate logistic regression models. Table 6 shows the odds ratios
representing the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the
likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce relative to the
nonfederal workforce, when the other factors are controlled one at a
time. The effect that each factor has on the difference between
Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being in the federal
workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce can be discerned by
comparing each of the odds ratios in Table 6 to 0.95--the odds ratio
indicating the likelihood of Hispanic and non-Hispanic citizens being
employed in the federal workforce before controlling for the other
factors. For example, as table 6 shows, controlling for differences in
education--or estimating the effect of being Hispanic on the likelihood
of being in the federal workforce after allowing for the differences in
education between Hispanics and non-Hispanics--changes the odds ratio
from 0.95 to 1.16. That is, among similarly educated workers, Hispanic
citizens were more likely than non-Hispanic citizens, by a factor of
1.16, or 16 percent, to be in the federal workforce as opposed to the
nonfederal workforce. Controlling for race, veteran status, and to a
lesser extent age also changed slightly the estimated difference
between Hispanic and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being a federal
employee.
Table 6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of
Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Citizens Being Employed in the Federal
Workforce After Controlling for Different Factors:
Factor: Gender;
Category: Female;
Reference group: Male;
Odds ratio: 0.95.
Factor: Level of education;
Category:
