Highlights of a Forum
Participant-Identified Leading Practices That Could Increase the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce Gao ID: GAO-11-81SP October 5, 2010The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) requires agencies to take proactive steps to provide equal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities, but their rate of employment with the federal government remains low. GAO was asked to identify barriers to the employment of people with disabilities in the federal workforce and leading practices that could be used to overcome these barriers. On July 20, 2010, GAO convened a forum to identify leading practices that federal agencies could implement within the current legislative context. In preparation for the forum, GAO surveyed a wide range of knowledgeable individuals to identify barriers and leading practices. Forum participants were selected from among respondents (or their representatives) to reflect varying expertise and views concerning the employment of individuals with disabilities. The survey results formed the basis for the initial forum agenda, and were refined by participants to focus on actions they deemed most important. Comments in this report do not necessarily represent the views of any individual participant or the organizations that these participants represent or with which they are affiliated, including GAO.
Participants said that the most significant barrier keeping people with disabilities from the workplace is attitudinal, which can include bias and low expectations for people with disabilities. According to participants, there is a fundamental need to change the attitudes of hiring managers, supervisors, coworkers, and prospective employees, and that cultural change within the agencies is critical to this effort. Participants identified practices that agencies could implement to help the federal government become a model employer for people with disabilities. Participants reached the following conclusions: (1) Top leadership commitment is key to implementing and sustaining improvements. Unless top agency officials are committed, improvements will not happen. (2) Accountability is critical to success; goals can help guide and sustain efforts and should be reflected in human capital and diversity strategy plans. (3) Regular surveying of the workforce on disability issues provides agencies with important information. Participants suggested that surveying be implemented at all stages of the employment life cycle. (4) Better coordination could help improve employment outcomes, as coordination within and across agencies is critical. (5) Training for staff at all levels can disseminate leading practices throughout the agency. This provides agencies the opportunity to communicate expectations regarding the implementation of policies and procedures related to improving employment of people with disabilities. (6) Career development opportunities inclusive of people with disabilities could facilitate advancement and increase retention. Participants suggested that agencies offer details, rotational assignments, and mentoring programs that are fully accessible to all employees. (7) A flexible work environment can increase and enhance employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Participants emphasized telework as a key component, as well as flexible work times and job sharing. (8) Centralizing funding at the agency level can help ensure that reasonable accommodations are provided. Participants stated that effective centralized funds should include accountability, flexibility, and universal availability. Although forum discussion focused on practices agencies could implement, participants also noted the need for model policies and guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This is consistent with the July 2010 executive order that directs OPM to work with other agencies to design model recruitment and hiring strategies for individuals with disabilities.
GAO-11-81SP, Highlights of a Forum: Participant-Identified Leading Practices That Could Increase the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-81SP
entitled 'Highlights of a Forum: Participant-Identified Leading
Practices That Could Increase the Employment of Individuals with
Disabilities in the Federal Workforce' which was released on October
5, 2010.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2010:
Highlights of a Forum:
Participant-Identified Leading Practices That Could Increase the
Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce:
GAO-11-81SP:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-81SP, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Convened This Forum:
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) requires agencies
to take proactive steps to provide equal opportunity to qualified
individuals with disabilities, but their rate of employment with the
federal government remains low.
GAO was asked to identify barriers to the employment of people with
disabilities in the federal workforce and leading practices that could
be used to overcome these barriers. On July 20, 2010, GAO convened a
forum to identify leading practices that federal agencies could
implement within the current legislative context.
In preparation for the forum, GAO surveyed a wide range of
knowledgeable individuals to identify barriers and leading practices.
Forum participants were selected from among respondents (or their
representatives) to reflect varying expertise and views concerning the
employment of individuals with disabilities. The survey results formed
the basis for the initial forum agenda, and were refined by
participants to focus on actions they deemed most important.
Comments in this report do not necessarily represent the views of any
individual participant or the organizations that these participants
represent or with which they are affiliated, including GAO.
What Participants Said:
Participants said that the most significant barrier keeping people
with disabilities from the workplace is attitudinal, which can include
bias and low expectations for people with disabilities. According to
participants, there is a fundamental need to change the attitudes of
hiring managers, supervisors, coworkers, and prospective employees,
and that cultural change within the agencies is critical to this
effort.
Participants identified practices that agencies could implement to
help the federal government become a model employer for people with
disabilities. Participants reached the following conclusions:
1. Top leadership commitment is key to implementing and sustaining
improvements. Unless top agency officials are committed, improvements
will not happen.
2. Accountability is critical to success; goals can help guide and
sustain efforts and should be reflected in human capital and diversity
strategy plans.
3. Regular surveying of the workforce on disability issues provides
agencies with important information. Participants suggested that
surveying be implemented at all stages of the employment life cycle.
4. Better coordination could help improve employment outcomes, as
coordination within and across agencies is critical.
5. Training for staff at all levels can disseminate leading practices
throughout the agency. This provides agencies the opportunity to
communicate expectations regarding the implementation of policies and
procedures related to improving employment of people with disabilities.
6. Career development opportunities inclusive of people with
disabilities could facilitate advancement and increase retention.
Participants suggested that agencies offer details, rotational
assignments, and mentoring programs that are fully accessible to all
employees.
7. A flexible work environment can increase and enhance employment
opportunities for people with disabilities. Participants emphasized
telework as a key component, as well as flexible work times and job
sharing.
8. Centralizing funding at the agency level can help ensure that
reasonable accommodations are provided. Participants stated that
effective centralized funds should include accountability,
flexibility, and universal availability.
Although forum discussion focused on practices agencies could
implement, participants also noted the need for model policies and
guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). This is consistent with the July
2010 executive order that directs OPM to work with other agencies to
design model recruitment and hiring strategies for individuals with
disabilities.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-81SP] or key
components. For more information, contact Laurie E. Ekstrand at (202)
512-6806 or ekstrandl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Overcoming Attitudinal and Other Barriers Requires a Comprehensive and
Integrated Solution:
Guidance from Oversight Agencies Can Assist Agencies in Implementing
Leading Practices:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: List of Forum Participants:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 5, 2010:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Federal employees and applicants for employment with disabilities are
protected from discrimination by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act).[Footnote 1] Under the Rehabilitation Act, as
amended, a person is considered to be disabled if the individual has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded
as having such impairment. The Rehabilitation Act further requires
federal agencies to take proactive steps to provide equal opportunity
to qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of federal
employment. To further encourage the employment of people with
disabilities, two executive orders were signed in 2000, including one
calling for the hiring of 100,000 more employees with disabilities in
the federal workforce.[Footnote 2] However, even with existing federal
provisions, concerns have been raised about the low level of
employment of people with disabilities in the federal workforce.
You requested that we identify barriers to the employment of people
with disabilities in the federal workforce and leading practices that
could be used to overcome these barriers. As agreed with your offices,
we convened a forum that consisted of a cross section of stakeholders
and knowledgeable individuals on July 20, 2010, at GAO headquarters.
(See appendix I for more details.) To ensure that we efficiently
focused on the most important issues in a limited amount of time,
prior to the forum we surveyed 55 individuals with subject matter or
professional knowledge to solicit input and help identify barriers and
leading practices. We received responses from 34 of these individuals.
To select forum participants, we identified survey recipients
representing a cross section of experiences and knowledge on issues
related to the employment of individuals with disabilities. The 20
forum participants represented federal agencies that oversee and
provide guidance and assistance on this issue and governmental and
nongovernmental organizations, and others were individuals with
extensive knowledge and experience in this area. Participants included
those representing the viewpoints of employers and employees with
disabilities. (See appendix II for a list of forum participants.)
Participants discussed leading practices generated by the survey and
prioritized the list during the first part of the forum. Participants
then self-divided into three breakout groups based on subject matter--
recruiting and hiring, career development and retention, and provision
of reasonable accommodations--to discuss the priority areas they
identified.[Footnote 3] Each group's goal was to develop strategies
that would not require legislative changes and that agencies could
immediately begin implementing. Trained facilitators used a structured
format to guide discussion around goals to be achieved; inputs, such
as necessary resources; implementation steps; and evaluation criteria.
Later, the breakout groups reported the results of their discussions
to the entire panel, which was given a chance to react and provide
additional input.[Footnote 4] We provided the draft report to
participants for technical comments and incorporated their comments as
appropriate.
This report summarizes the ideas and themes that emerged at the forum
and the collective discussion of participants. It reports more fully
on those ideas that were substantively discussed by forum
participants. Comments summarized in this report do not necessarily
represent the views of any individual participant or of the
organizations that these participants represent or are affiliated
with, including GAO.
We conducted our work from March 2010 to October 2010 in accordance
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
Background:
The 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in
private sector and state and local government employment, has renewed
attention to the low employment rate of people with disabilities.
[Footnote 5] In the federal executive branch, the Rehabilitation Act
provides similar protection from employment discrimination as is
provided under the ADA.[Footnote 6] Such protection from
discrimination includes the requirement that employers provide
reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations of
otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it results
in undue hardship.[Footnote 7] An accommodation is any change in the
work environment or in the way things are customarily done that
enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment
opportunities.
Unlike the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act also requires federal agencies
to develop affirmative action program plans for hiring, placement, and
advancement of people with disabilities. To help agencies carry out
their responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act, federal law also
provides special hiring authorities for people with disabilities.
These include Schedule A excepted service hiring authority for people
with disabilities--which permits the noncompetitive appointment of
individuals with intellectual disabilities, severe physical
disabilities, or psychiatric disabilities[Footnote 8]--and
appointments and noncompetitive conversion for veterans who are 30
percent or more disabled.[Footnote 9]
If an employee or applicant reports a disability, a number of
individuals or offices may provide support for the employee or
applicant. These individuals include selective placement
coordinators[Footnote 10] and other human capital staff, hiring
officials, reasonable accommodations coordinators, information
technology (IT) staff (if accommodations include technology), workers'
compensation staff (if the employee is injured on the job), disability
program managers (DPM),[Footnote 11] and other equal employment
opportunity (EEO) staff. An employee's supervisors may also have a
role in the process. Outside the agency, job placement professionals,
such as vocational rehabilitation counselors, may help place
individuals in an agency. In addition, the Department of Labor's (DOL)
Job Accommodation Network (JAN) provides free consulting services for
federal employers, including one-on-one consultation about workplace
accommodations. The Department of Defense's (DOD) Computer/Electronic
Accommodations Program (CAP) provides assistive technology and
services to people with disabilities, federal managers, supervisors,
and IT professionals across executive branch agencies.[Footnote 12]
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) play important roles in fostering fair,
equitable, and inclusive workforces at federal agencies through their
leadership and oversight.[Footnote 13] EEOC is responsible for
providing agencies with policy guidance and standards for establishing
and maintaining effective affirmative action programs under the
Rehabilitation Act through its Management Directive 715 (MD-715),
which also includes a framework for agencies to determine whether
barriers to EEO exist and to identify and develop strategies to
eliminate the barriers to participation. Under MD-715, EEOC requires
agencies to report the results of their analyses annually. OPM is
responsible for providing human resource advice and leadership to
federal agencies, supports these agencies with human resource
policies, holds agencies accountable for their human capital
practices, and upholds the merit system principles that among other
things prohibit discrimination in all aspects of federal
employment.[Footnote 14] In doing so, OPM provides technical
assistance regarding the employment of individuals with disabilities
to agencies and applicants and assesses and reports on agencies'
adherence to the merit system principles, veterans' preference, and
other governmentwide standards. Other federal agencies also provide
support roles in the federal employment of individuals with
disabilities, including DOD, the Department of Education, the Social
Security Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
[Footnote 15]
Despite federal laws and support systems, according to EEOC the
percentage of individuals with targeted disabilities in the federal
government has not increased since 1994.[Footnote 16] At a previous
GAO forum held in March 2010 on actions that could increase work
participation for adults with disabilities, participants stated that
the federal government could do more to be a model employer of
individuals with disabilities.[Footnote 17] In commemoration of the
20th anniversary of the ADA, the President signed an executive order
stating that as the nation's largest employer, the federal government
must become a model for the employment of individuals with
disabilities.[Footnote 18] The executive order directs executive
departments and agencies to improve their efforts to employ workers
with disabilities through increased recruitment, hiring, and retention
of these individuals.
Overcoming Attitudinal and Other Barriers Requires a Comprehensive and
Integrated Solution:
At our July 2010 forum on employment of people with disabilities in
the federal workforce, participants said that the most significant
barrier keeping people with disabilities from the workplace is
attitudinal. Attitudinal barriers can include bias against and low
expectations for people with disabilities--a focus on disabilities
rather than abilities. Participants also discussed other barriers,
including physical barriers and lack of knowledge regarding policies
and procedures. For example, participants said that there could be an
erroneous belief that reasonable accommodations cannot be easily
provided.
Participants stated that there is a fundamental need to change the
attitudes of hiring managers, supervisors, coworkers, and prospective
employees, and that cultural change within the agencies is critical to
this effort. They continued that the key to improving employment
opportunities for individuals with disabilities is to eliminate bias
and negative attitudes through education and showcasing examples of
success in the workplace.
Participants also stated that less attention is given to hiring people
with disabilities than to other groups, such as minorities and women.
They suggested that this disparity may exist because the disability
rights movement is younger than other civil rights movements.
Participants equated talking about best practices for employing people
with disabilities today with talking about best practices for
employing women in the 1950s. They stressed that hiring people with
disabilities is a both a civil rights and an EEO issue.
Participants acknowledged that there are many existing federal
programs and policies to protect the employment rights of people with
disabilities, but stated that efforts to protect these rights of
people with disabilities will only make piecemeal progress until
agencies change their workplace cultures. Participants stated that the
leading practices they discussed during the forum would not work in
isolation but instead need to reinforce each other. GAO has previously
reported that all aspects of human capital are interrelated.[Footnote
19] The principles of effectively managing people are inseparable and
must be treated as a whole. Human capital issues cannot be
compartmentalized and dealt with in isolation from one another.
Accordingly, participants concluded that overcoming these barriers
would require a comprehensive solution that includes addressing
attitudinal barriers in relation to each of the practices discussed
during the forum.
Participants Identified Eight Leading Practices That Could Improve
Participation of People with Disabilities in the Federal Workforce:
Participants prioritized the leading practices generated by the survey
to identify steps that agencies could take to help the federal
government become a model employer for people with
disabilities.[Footnote 20] Participants agreed on eight leading
practices that if implemented as a comprehensive solution can mitigate
attitudinal and other barriers. Specifically, participants reached the
following conclusions:
1. Top leadership commitment is key to implementing and sustaining
improvements in the employment of individuals with disabilities.
2. Accountability is critical to success.
3. Regularly surveying the workforce on disability issues provides
agencies with important information on potential barriers.
4. Better coordination could improve workforce outcomes for employees
with disabilities.
5. Training for staff at all levels can disseminate leading practices
throughout the agency.
6. Career development opportunities inclusive of people with
disabilities can facilitate advancement and increase retention.
7. A flexible work environment can increase and enhance employment
opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
8. Centralizing funding can help ensure that reasonable accommodations
are provided.
Top Leadership Commitment Is Key to Implementing and Sustaining
Improvements in the Employment of Individuals with Disabilities:
Participants emphasized that involvement of top agency leadership is
necessary to overcome the resistance to change that agencies could
face when mitigating attitudinal barriers. As we have previously
reported, perhaps the single most important element of successful
management improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment of
top leaders to change.[Footnote 21] Participants added that unless top
agency officials are committed to improvements, they will not happen.
Participants stated that agency leaders should make communicating new
policies to enhance the employment of people with disabilities a
priority and could demonstrate that commitment on their agency
intranet and public Web sites. This is consistent with our prior work
showing that communication of commitment from senior management
throughout the organization sends a clear message to others in the
organization about the seriousness and business relevance of diversity
management.[Footnote 22]
Participants' suggestions on this practice are consistent with EEOC's
MD-715, which requires, as one of the six elements of a model EEO
program, that agency officials demonstrate commitment to equality of
opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment.[Footnote
23] According to MD-715, leadership must take measures necessary to
incorporate the principles of EEO into the agency's organizational
structure, including disseminating a written policy statement to all
employees expressing leadership's commitment to EEO and a workplace
free of discriminatory harassment at the beginning of their tenure and
thereafter on an annual basis. MD-715 states that even the best
workplace policies and procedures will fail if they are not trusted,
respected, and vigorously enforced.
Accountability Is Critical to Success:
Participants reported that accountability is critical to ensuring the
success of an agency's efforts to implement leading practices and
improve the employment of individuals with disabilities. Participants
stated that agencies should enact policies and processes to ensure
both individual and institutional accountability. To ensure
accountability, participants discussed the importance of setting
goals, determining measures to assess progress toward goals,
evaluating staff and agencies to hold them responsible, and reporting
results publicly. Participants concluded that what gets measured gets
done. Participants also discussed the need to incorporate findings
from evaluations into policies and practice.
Well-reasoned goals can help guide and sustain an agency's efforts and
resources to improve employment of people with disabilities. As
participants stated, agencies should set goals that cover the
employment life cycle from recruitment and hiring through retention,
return to work, and advancement of individuals with disabilities. They
suggested that agencies establish timetables for implementing these
goals.
Participants emphasized linking organizational goals to performance
measures. As we have previously reported, this can create powerful
incentives to influence organizational and individual behavior.
[Footnote 24] These goals should be reflected in agencies' human
capital and diversity strategic plans. Further, participants suggested
that agencies evaluate their progress toward achieving these goals
using both process measures and outcome measures. Process measures
assess the extent to which a program is operating as it was intended.
For example, an agency could assess the extent to which it met interim
milestones for program implementation. Outcome measures assess the
extent to which a program achieves its outcome-oriented objectives, or
the effectiveness of the program. We have previously reported that
workforce outcomes could include wages and job retention information,
which could indicate whether services were effective.[Footnote 25]
To avoid duplication of efforts, participants suggested that agencies
should use measures they are already required to collect, where
possible. For example, EEOC's MD-715 requires agencies to collect data
by disability status on applicants, new hires, promotions, awards,
separations, and grade level. In addition, participants noted that
agencies can gather information on employee satisfaction and related
topics through employee surveys, which are discussed later in this
report.
To hold individuals accountable, participants suggested that agencies
should link agencywide strategic goals and metrics with individual
performance goals and measures.[Footnote 26] Agencies can use tools,
such as individual performance plans that document each staff member's
role as well as how to assess performance in that role. Such tools can
help set agencywide expectations and align individual performance
expectations with agencywide goals.[Footnote 27]
Participants stated that agencies can increase institutional
accountability by making their goals and results public. Participants
suggested that publicly reporting results could make agencies more
proactive about increasing employment of individuals with
disabilities. For example, participants suggested that agencies could
post their MD-715 reports on their external Web sites. This would be
similar to the requirement in the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 that calls for federal
agencies to post statistical data on EEO complaints filed by their
current and former employees or applicants for employment.[Footnote 28]
Regularly Surveying the Workforce on Disability Issues Provides
Agencies with Important Information on Potential Barriers:
According to participants, having more information about employees
with disabilities is part of a comprehensive solution to increasing
the number of people with disabilities in the federal workforce. To
collect this information, participants suggested that agencies survey
their workforces on disability issues at least annually. Participants
suggested that agencies should survey their workforces at all stages
of the employment life cycle. Questions related to disability status
should be included on employee feedback surveys and in exit
interviews, including those for employees with disabilities who are
leaving the agency.[Footnote 29] Participants suggested that agencies
should also encourage employees to update their disability status.
These suggestions are consistent with EEOC guidance on MD-715, which
lists employee surveys and exit interviews as sources agencies should
use to identify potential barriers to employment for people with
disabilities. Further information on these suggestions follows.
Employee feedback surveys and focus groups: Participants suggested
that agencies include questions related to disability on employee
feedback surveys as a way to provide an agency with information on the
effectiveness of the reasonable accommodations process and the extent
to which employees with disabilities find the workplace environment
friendly.[Footnote 30] Participants discussed the need to have someone
accountable for administering the surveys and stated that agencies
should pretest survey questions with a diverse group of employees,
including some with disabilities, in order to develop meaningful
questions. Participants also noted that agencies should have a process
for analyzing the results of these surveys and creating action plans
for implementing needed changes. Participants agreed that there is a
need to ensure confidentiality of survey responses and noted that
hiring an outside contractor to administer surveys might be one way to
do so. This may help ensure that people with disabilities are
comfortable expressing their opinions regarding their agencies'
policies, practices, and procedures. Another way to do this could be
aggregating responses so that none of the respondents could be
identified.[Footnote 31]
Participants also stated that focus groups could provide an
alternative method for agencies to obtain information on the work
experiences of employees with disabilities. While it may be difficult
to ensure confidentiality, since individuals participate in a group,
this method might be used to identify strengths, weaknesses, and
needed improvements particular to a program, such as the reasonable
accommodations process. For smaller organizations, participants
suggested that an agency could bring in a third party to interview
people periodically to learn about the individual experiences instead
of conducting an agencywide survey.
Updating disability status: Participants stated that agencies could
invite employees to update their disability status through the
Standard Form 256 (SF-256), Self-Identification of Handicap. This
optional form offers federal employees the opportunity to report any
disabilities they may have.[Footnote 32] Participants stressed that
encouraging employees to regularly update their SF-256s would allow
the agency to be aware of any employees who acquire a disability after
they have been hired as well as those who originally chose not to fill
out the form but were willing to update their status at a later date.
Some agencies have resurveyed their workforces as part of a larger
effort to ask employees to verify human capital data on a number of
issues, including race, national origin, and benefit information. This
helps agencies ensure that they have the most accurate information
needed for human capital management. It also facilitates compliance
with MD-715, which instructs agencies to maintain accurate information
on employees' disability status and to periodically resurvey their
workforces. Participants noted that agencies must ensure that
responses are appropriately protected so that employees feel safe in
disclosing their status.[Footnote 33]
Exit interviews: Participants also suggested that exit interviews of
employees would provide agencies an opportunity to learn about
employees' perceptions of the work environment, reasonable
accommodations process, and other factors. As we previously reported,
collecting data on attrition rates and the reasons for attrition are
important to workforce planning, and one approach to collecting such
data is through exit surveys.[Footnote 34] In general, exit surveys
request demographic information, type of separation (e.g., voluntary,
involuntary, retirement, etc.), reason for leaving, and future
intentions for employment. Participants agreed that some agencies do
not have standardized exit interviews, which could pose a barrier to
implementing this practice.
Better Coordination Could Improve Outcomes for Employees with
Disabilities:
Participants stated that better coordination of roles and
responsibilities related to the employment of people with disabilities
within and across agencies is critical to improving federal workforce
outcomes. Within an agency, participants stated, responsibilities
related to employment of individuals with disabilities are often
dispersed among departments, such as the civil rights/EEO office, the
human capital office, the office of workers' compensation, the IT
department, and others. When agencies decentralize responsibilities
without careful coordination, they can create barriers to hiring,
providing reasonable accommodations, evaluating results of agency
efforts, and other processes. Participants stated that a lack of
coordination can be a barrier, particularly, for example, if one party
defers action, thinking that it is someone else's responsibility.
Forum participants also emphasized that better coordination across
agencies can help to more effectively address barriers to individuals
with disabilities seeking and maintaining federal employment. DOD's
CAP and DOL's JAN were specifically mentioned as resources that
federal agencies could draw on to potentially reduce duplication and
take advantage of economies of scale. We have previously reported that
an agency can face major obstacles when implementing comprehensive,
successful, and timely interventions if responsibility for crucial
supports and services is spread across various agencies.[Footnote 35]
For example, in 2005, we identified over 20 federal agencies and
almost 200 federal programs that provided a wide range of assistance
to individuals with disabilities, such as employment-related services,
medical care, and monetary support.[Footnote 36] These programs often
have different missions, goals, funding streams, eligibility criteria,
and policies that sometimes work at cross-purposes with other federal
programs.
Training for Staff at All Levels Can Disseminate Leading Practices
throughout the Agency:
Participants stated that training for all personnel can provide
agencies the opportunity to communicate expectations regarding the
implementation of policies and procedures related to improving
employment of people with disabilities. We have previously identified
training as an important strategic human capital practice that
empowers and involves employees.[Footnote 37] Participants stated that
agencies must involve people with disabilities in designing training
programs and, as much as possible, in conducting the training.
Participants suggested that agencies implement training on (1) hiring
policies and processes, (2) reasonable accommodations policies and
processes, and (3) diversity awareness.
Hiring: Participants agreed that agencies need to provide training on
issues related to hiring individuals with disabilities. Training
should be provided to all individuals involved in and affected by the
hiring process, including hiring managers, human capital staff,
selective placement coordinators, disability hiring managers, and job
placement professionals. This should include training on Schedule A,
student employment programs, disabled veterans' hiring authorities,
and the competitive process.
Participants stated that training should also cover legal rights and
responsibilities related to hiring individuals with disabilities.
Providing training to everyone involved with and affected by the
process would provide a consistent message across the agency and help
build support for improving the employment of people with
disabilities. Participants also noted that this training may increase
hiring managers' sensitivity to disability issues as well as improve
and increase usage of Schedule A and other hiring authorities.
Participants suggested that agencies reach out to applicants and
provide information to them on the same issues, noting that increasing
applicants' knowledge about the hiring process could increase their
employment opportunities. Participants noted one agency that provides
training on the application and hiring process at job fairs to
applicants with disabilities and suggested that others might implement
a similar approach.
Reasonable accommodations: Participants also stated that agencies need
to provide training on employees' right to reasonable accommodations
and the process for providing these accommodations. Such training
should be provided to all staff but should be tailored for the
audience; training for human capital staff, supervisors, and IT staff
should be different than training for all staff. This training would
help ensure compliance with reasonable accommodations processes and
policies, correct myths or misconceptions, and increase sensitivity to
disability issues. Participants noted that this training should cover
the process for providing reasonable accommodations to individuals who
are temporarily disabled as well as those whose disabilities are
permanent. Participants stated that training should emphasize that
reasonable accommodations take many forms, involve an interactive
process between the employee and the employer, and are determined on a
case-by-case basis. Participants noted that some agencies are
currently providing higher-quality training on reasonable
accommodations processes than other agencies and called for increased
consistency across agencies.
Diversity awareness: Participants stated that disability issues must
be included in diversity awareness training. Such training should
include a rights and responsibilities component since, as participants
noted, inclusion of employees with disabilities is a matter of law,
not choice. In addition, participants stated that this training should
be a component of core training that all employees receive at the
beginning of their tenure with an agency and throughout their careers
at the agency. However, participants emphasized that training courses
alone were not sufficient to overcome attitudinal barriers.
Career Development Opportunities That Include People with Disabilities
Could Facilitate Advancement and Increase Retention:
Participants discussed a range of career development opportunities
that agencies could offer to help improve the workforce outcomes of
employees with disabilities. They suggested that agencies offer
details, rotational assignments, and mentoring programs at all stages
of the employment life cycle. Participants noted that career
development opportunities could lead to increased retention and
improved employee satisfaction.[Footnote 38] Participants discussed
the importance of career development efforts and stated that agencies
need to ensure that career development opportunities are fully
accessible to all employees. For example, participants noted that
certain core training required for employees newly promoted to the
Senior Executive Service is often held off-site, which limits the
participation of some employees who require reasonable accommodations.
Participants stated that these training sites should be accessible,
and reasonable accommodations should be provided at training sites as
well as at the workplace.
Participants agreed that when possible and appropriate, agencies
should centralize the operation of career development opportunities,
but they recognized that this would not always be possible and that
sometimes these opportunities would instead occur at the team level.
Participants also suggested that agencies publicize career development
opportunities on their internal and external Web sites. They discussed
potential barriers to implementation, noting that small agencies might
lack the capacity to create and implement these programs.
A Flexible Work Environment Can Increase and Enhance Employment
Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities:
Participants stated that a flexible work environment can help increase
and enhance employment opportunities of individuals with disabilities.
Participants suggested that the benefits of flexible work hours,
telework, and other types of reasonable accommodations could result in
cost savings for an agency.
Participants emphasized telework--where an employee performs assigned
duties at home or an alternative location--as a key component of a
flexible work environment, but noted that flexible work times and job
sharing are also important. According to OPM, telework is valuable for
the recruitment and retention of employees regardless of disability
status.[Footnote 39] In addition, we have previously testified that
telework is increasingly recognized as an important means to achieving
a number of federal efforts, including effective strategic human
capital management of the federal workforce.[Footnote 40] Participants
noted the benefits of telework and related flexibilities for
increasing the employment of individuals with disabilities.[Footnote
41] To effectively implement telework and other flexibilities for
employees with disabilities, participants stated that it is critical
to provide assistive technology for employees at their homes. For
example, CAP reports that it will provide computer and assistive
devices for use at home.
Participants also expressed concern that people who become unable to
perform job duties because of health conditions that developed during
the course of their employment are often overlooked. As we have
previously reported, while some health conditions may be too severe to
allow for continued employment, research shows that with appropriate
and tailored supports--such as a wheelchair, a flexible work schedule,
or text-reading software--some individuals with disabilities can
successfully function in the work environment.[Footnote 42]
Participants agreed that it is important for workers to know that a
flexible workplace, including telework options, is available to
facilitate their return to work.
Centralizing Funding Can Help Ensure That Reasonable Accommodations
Are Provided:
Participants stated that a perceived "lack of funding should never be
the reason why reasonable accommodation does not occur." Participants
noted that managers may be reluctant to provide reasonable
accommodations out of their departmental or operational budgets
because managers may have incorrect perceptions of the costs of
reasonable accommodations. Participants suggested that agencies should
centralize the budget for reasonable accommodations at the highest
level of the agency to ensure that employees with disabilities have
access to the reasonable accommodations to which they are legally
entitled. These suggestions were consistent with the July 2010
executive order that directs OPM, in consultation with DOL and EEOC,
to assist agencies in implementing the use of centralized funds to
provide reasonable accommodations.[Footnote 43]
Participants also emphasized that a centralized fund is essential
because DOD's CAP, which provides assistive technology to its federal
agency partners, only covers some types of reasonable accommodations.
Participants said that an effective centralized fund should be
designed to include accountability, flexibility, and universal
availability. They also stated that all individuals involved in
providing the reasonable accommodation should be held accountable. For
example, although the fund would be centralized, first-line managers
and supervisors must still be held accountable for their part in
ensuring that their staff members receive reasonable accommodations.
As participants noted, the fund should be flexible enough to cover a
broad range of reasonable accommodations, such as personal assistants
during work or training. They also reported that funds should be
universally available to accommodate staff regardless of staff level,
position, or location. Participants further noted that these
centralized funds should be available to field offices as well as
headquarters. To facilitate implementation, participants stated that
training on how the fund is used is essential.
Guidance from Oversight Agencies Can Assist Agencies in Implementing
Leading Practices:
Participants agreed that increasing participation of individuals with
disabilities in the federal workforce requires comprehensive and
coordinated action from agency leadership, which is best facilitated
by clear and consistent governmentwide guidance. For example,
participants agreed that guidance from OPM and EEOC could help clarify
implementing instructions for Schedule A and other hiring authority
guidance. Participants recognized that OPM and EEOC currently provide
technical assistance to agencies, but suggested that they develop
additional model policies, procedures, and programs for agencies to
follow.
Participants' suggestions were consistent with the July 2010 executive
order that directs OPM, in consultation with DOL, EEOC, and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), to design model recruitment and hiring
strategies for individuals with disabilities and develop mandatory
training programs for human capital personnel and hiring managers on
the employment of individuals with disabilities.[Footnote 44] The
executive order also calls for OPM, in consultation with DOL and EEOC,
to identify and assist agencies in implementing strategies for
retaining federal workers with disabilities in federal employment,
including, but not limited to, training, using centralized funds to
provide reasonable accommodations, increasing access to appropriate
accessible technologies, and ensuring the accessibility of physical
and virtual work spaces. In addition, the order also directed each
agency to work with OPM and OMB to establish its own plan for
promoting the employment of individuals with disabilities and directed
OPM to assist agencies with implementation of their plans.
We will send copies of this report to interested parties. This report
also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-6806 or ekstrandl@gao.gov. 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 are
listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify barriers to the federal employment of individuals with
disabilities and leading practices that could overcome those barriers,
we solicited the views of a wide range of knowledgeable individuals
through a survey and forum. Based on a literature review and related
GAO work, we identified a combination of leaders in the private and
public sectors and employer and employee organizations as well as
researchers with experience on issues related to employment of
individuals with disabilities. We designed, pretested, and distributed
the survey with open-ended questions asking respondents to identify
barriers and leading practices related to recruiting and hiring,
retention, reasonable accommodations, and other issues related to the
employment of individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce.
We distributed 55 surveys and received 34 responses. We grouped
similar responses and developed a list of potential leading practices,
which was used as the initial list of topics for discussion at the
forum.
To select individuals to participate in the forum, we identified
survey recipients representing a cross section of experiences and
knowledge on issues related to the employment of individuals with
disabilities. The 20 forum participants represented federal agencies
that oversee and provide guidance and assistance on this issue and
governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and others were
individuals with extensive knowledge and experience in this area.
Participants included those representing the viewpoints of employers
and employees with disabilities. Two GAO officials responsible for
equal employment opportunity and diversity issues, including
employment of people with disabilities, participated in the forum.
At the forum, participants initially discussed and prioritized leading
practices generated by the survey for improving (1) recruitment and
hiring, (2) career development and retention, and (3) the provision of
reasonable accommodations. Participants then divided into breakout
groups, each discussing the priorities within each of the three
respective subject areas. Each group's goal was to develop strategies
that agencies could immediately begin to implement without legislative
changes. Trained facilitators used a structured format to guide
discussion around goals to be achieved; inputs, such as necessary
resources; implementation steps; and evaluation criteria. At the end
of the forum, the breakout groups reported the results of their
discussions to the entire panel, which was given a chance to react and
provide additional input. We also provided the draft report to
participants for technical comments and incorporated their comments as
appropriate.
Forum discussions were documented through a combination of electronic
recording and note taking. We analyzed this documentation to develop
the information on the barriers to the employment of people with
disabilities and the eight leading practices that agencies could
implement to mitigate those barriers. This set of participants chose
to discuss the topics that are included in this report. It is possible
that other groups of knowledgeable individuals may have selected other
topics or potential leading practices as subjects of discussion. In
developing the contents of this report, we also referred to prior GAO
work relating to the barriers and leading practices identified at the
forum. Comments in this report do not necessarily represent the views
of any individual participant or of the organizations that these
participants represent or are affiliated with, including GAO.
We conducted our work from March 2010 to October 2010 in accordance
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
[End of section]
Appendix II: List of Forum Participants:
Participant: John Benison;
Title and organization: Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director;
Office of Personnel Management.
Participant: Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D.;
Title and organization: Associate Dean of Outreach and Director of
Employment and Disability Institute;
Cornell University ILR School.
Participant: Dinah Cohen;
Title and organization: Director, Computer/Electronic Accommodations
Program;
U.S. Department of Defense.
Participant: Janet Fiore;
Title and organization: Chief Executive Officer;
The Sierra Group.
Participant: Douglas Fitzgerald;
Title and organization: Director, Division of Federal Employees'
Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs;
U.S. Department of Labor.
Participant: Gary Goosman;
Title and organization: Director, Tools on Work and Employment
Readiness Initiative;
U.S. Business Leadership Network.
Participant: Shelby Hallmark;
Title and organization: Director, Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs;
U.S. Department of Labor.
Participant: Charma Haskins;
Title and organization: Acting Supervisor of Rehabilitation Services,
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service;
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Participant: Gerrie Drake Hawkins, Ph.D.;
Title and organization: Senior Program Analyst;
National Council on Disability.
Participant: Anne Hirsh;
Title and organization: Co-Director, Job Accommodation Network;
U.S. Department of Labor.
Participant: Jo Linda Johnson;
Title and organization: Director, Federal Training & Outreach Division;
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Participant: Reginald E. Jones;
Title and organization: Managing Director, Office of Opportunity and
Inclusiveness;
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Participant: Alison Levy;
Title and organization: Program Manager, Selective Placement Program;
U.S. Department of Transportation.
Participant: Dylan Orr;
Title and organization: Special Assistant, Office of Disability
Employment Policy;
U.S. Department of Labor.
Participant: Jorge E. Ponce;
Title and organization: Director, Policy and Evaluation Division;
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Participant: Robin Shaffert;
Title and organization: Senior Director of Corporate Social
Responsibility;
American Association of People with Disabilities.
Participant: Jennifer Sheehy;
Title and organization: Director of Policy, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services;
U.S. Department of Education.
Participant: Derek Shields;
Title and organization: Project Director, Social Security
Administration Ticket to Work Recruitment & Outreach;
Cherry Engineering Support Services Incorporated, Division of Axiom.
Participant: Marie Strahan;
Title and organization: Chief of Staff, Office of Disability
Employment Policy;
U.S. Department of Labor.
Participant: Carolyn Taylor;
Title and organization: Special Assistant to the Acting Comptroller
General for Diversity Issues;
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Laurie Ekstrand, (202) 512-6806 or ekstrandl@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts named above, the following individuals
made key contributions to this report: Daniel Bertoni, Director;
Patricia Owens, Director; Neil Pinney, Assistant Director; Crystal
Bernard; Karin Fangman; Rachel Fichtenbaum; Robert Gebhart; Amanda
Harris; Terry Richardson; Cynthia Saunders; Andrew Stavisky; Tamara
Stenzel; and Gregory Wilmoth.
We are grateful to the following individuals who provided assistance
on the day of our forum: Shea Bader, Laurel Beedon, Megan Bourke,
Susan Christiansen, Fran Davison, Shannon Finnegan, Janice Latimer,
Margit Myers, Melanie Papasian, Justin Reed, Jessica Thomsen, Kan
Wang, Jeff Wojcik, and Amy Zettle.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 93-112, § 501, 87 Stat. 355, 390-391 (Sept. 26, 1973),
codified at 29 U.S.C. §791. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as
amended, also requires agencies to provide federal employees with
disabilities access to information and data that is comparable to the
access provided to federal employees without disabilities. See 29
U.S.C. § 794d.
[2] Exec. Order No. 13163, Increasing the Opportunity for Individuals
with Disabilities to be Employed in the Federal Government, 65 Fed.
Reg. 46563 (July 26, 2000). A second executive order issued on the
same day required agencies to establish effective written procedures
for processing requests for reasonable accommodation. Exec. Order
13164, Requiring Federal Agencies to Establish Procedures to
Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation, 65 Fed. Reg.
46565 (July 26, 2000).
[3] For the purposes of this report, "participants" refers to the
entire forum or subgroups of forum participants.
[4] This set of participants chose to discuss the topics that are
included in this report. It is possible that other groups of
knowledgeable individuals may have selected other topics or potential
leading practices as subjects of discussion.
[5] The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in a
number of other areas beyond employment, including public services,
transportation, and accommodations. Title I of the ADA addresses
employment discrimination. Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (July
26, 1990). Title I is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117.
[6] The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act share a common definition of
disability and standards in determining whether an employer engaged in
prohibited discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) and 29 U.S.C. §
705(9) and § 791(g).
[7] 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10) and § 12112(b)(5) and 29 C.F.R. §
1614.203(b) and § 1630.9.
[8] Under its authority to except positions from competitive
examination requirements, the Office of Personnel Management has
established several categories (or schedules) of excepted service
positions. Schedule A authorizes a number of different excepted
service appointments for positions that are not of a confidential or
policy-determining character for which it is impractical to hold a
competitive examination, including the appointment of attorneys and
chaplains. 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(a) and (d). Schedule A also includes
the appointment (on a permanent, time-limited, or temporary basis) of
individuals with mental retardation, severe physical disabilities, or
psychiatric disabilities. 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u).
[9] 5 U.S.C. § 3112 provides authority for the noncompetitive
appointment and conversion to career employment of disabled veterans
with compensable service-connected disabilities of 30 percent or more.
[10] A selective placement coordinator may serve as the principal
advisor on policy, strategic planning, and program and policy
implementation relating to the full employment life cycles of persons
with disabilities--including recruitment, hiring, advancement, and
retention.
[11] A DPM may, among other duties, be responsible for the
development, implementation, and operation of an agency's disability
program. DPMs may review, analyze, and evaluate policies, procedures,
and practices that affect workers with disabilities by conducting
periodic assessments and making recommendations regarding employment
programs, outreach strategies, and internal programs for people with
disabilities.
[12] Other agencies also provide assistive technology and services to
federal employees, for example, the Department of Agriculture's Target
Center and the Library of Congress's Assistive Technology
Demonstration Center.
[13] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: Improved Coordination Needed
between EEOC and OPM in Leading Federal Workplace EEO, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-214] (Washington, D.C.: June 16,
2006).
[14] Federal personnel management is to be implemented consistent with
the merit system principles enumerated under 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b).
[15] See GAO, Highlights of a Forum: Actions That Could Increase Work
Participation for Adults with Disabilities, GAO-10-812SP (Washington,
D.C.: July 2010).
[16] United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Annual
Report to the Federal Workforce, Fiscal Year 2009, [hyperlink,
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/reports/fsp2009/index.cfm] (accessed Aug.
4, 2010). GAO has not verified the accuracy of the information
contained in this report.
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-812SP].
[18] Exec. Order No. 13548, Increasing Federal Employment of
Individuals with Disabilities, 75 Fed. Reg. 45,039 (July 26, 2010).
[19] GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency
Leaders, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OCG-00-14G]
(Washington, D.C.: September 2000).
[20] Neither the numbering nor ordering of the suggested practices
reflects the frequency at which they were mentioned or their relative
importance as derived from the forum participants and selection
methodology.
[21] GAO, Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices
and Agency Examples, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-90] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14,
2005). In other reports, we have also reported that top leadership
must play a critical role in creating and sustaining high-performing
organizations as well as transforming the culture of organizations and
ensuring that new visions and ways of doing business take root. See,
for example, GAO, Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views Show
Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-127] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20,
2000); Management Reform: Using the Results Act and Quality Management
to Improve Federal Performance, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-99-151] (Washington, D.C.: July
29, 1999); and Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement
Initiatives, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-00-26]
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 1999).
[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-90].
[23] MD-715 elements of a model EEO program are (1) demonstrated
commitment from agency leadership, (2) integration of EEO into the
agency's strategic mission, (3) management and program accountability,
(4) proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination, (5) efficiency,
and (6) responsiveness and legal compliance.
[24] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June
1996).
[25] GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Flexibility and
Accountability Needed to Improve Service to Veterans, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-928] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12,
2001).
[26] We have previously reported that accountability is a key element
for organizations to ensure the success of a diversity management
effort, as it provides a means for ensuring that managers at all
levels are made responsible for diversity in their organizations and
are evaluated on their progress toward achieving their diversity goals
and their ability to manage a diverse group of employees. See
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-90].
[27] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for U.S. Agencies from
Other Countries' Performance Management Initiatives, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-862] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2,
2002).
[28] Pub. L. No. 107-174, 116 Stat. 566 (May 15, 2002).
[29] We have previously reported that regular employee input could
help an agency identify potential barriers to EEO and could enhance
the agency's efforts to acquire, develop, motivate, and retain talent
that reflects all segments of society and our nation's diversity. GAO,
Equal Employment Opportunity: DHS Has Opportunities to Better Identify
and Address Barriers to EEO in Its Workforce, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-639] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 31,
2009).
[30] This would include questions that would allow results to be
sorted in relation to disability status.
[31] Generally, results are not reported when there are too few
responses to protect the identity of respondents through aggregation.
[32] Completing the SF-256 is voluntary.
[33] EEOC regulations require that all medical or disability-related
information be kept confidential. Under these regulations, such
information must be collected and maintained on forms kept in separate
files and treated as confidential medical records. 29 C.F.R. §
1630.14(b)(1).
[34] GAO, Homeland Security: DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff
and Comply with the Vacancies Reform Act, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-758] (Washington, D.C.: July 16,
2007).
[35] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-812SP].
[36] GAO, Federal Disability Programs: Coordination Could Facilitate
Better Data Collection to Assess the Status of People with
Disabilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-872T]
(Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2008).
[37] GAO, Human Capital: Practices That Empowered and Involved
Employees, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1070]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2001).
[38] We reported that mentoring can help new employees adjust to an
organization's culture. It can also help identify and develop high-
potential employees, improve employee productivity and performance,
and promote retention and diversity. See [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-90].
[39] OPM has set a strategic goal to increase the number of eligible
federal employees who telework by 50 percent from fiscal years 2009
through 2011.
[40] GAO, Human Capital: Telework Programs Need Clear Goals and
Reliable Data, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-261T]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2007).
[41] Congress is currently considering two bills that would require
agencies to set policies on telework and ensure that employees are not
treated differently if they telework. See H.R. 1722 and S. 707, 111th
Cong. (2010).
[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-812SP].
[43] Exec. Order No. 13548.
[44] Exec. Order No. 13548.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
