Human Capital

Diversity in the Federal SES and the Senior Levels of the U.S. Postal Service Gao ID: GAO-07-838T May 10, 2007

The Senior Executive Service (SES) generally represents the most experienced and senior segment of the federal workforce. Having a diverse SES corps can be an organizational strength that contributes to the achievement of results by bringing a wider variety of perspectives and approaches to bear on policy development and implementation, strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making. In a January 2003 report (GAO-03-34), GAO provided data on career SES members by race, ethnicity, and gender as of October 2000. In March 2000, we reported similar data for the Postal Career Executive Service as of September 1999 (GAO/GGD-00-76). In response to a request for updated information on diversity in the top levels of government, GAO is providing information obtained from the Office of Personnel Management's Civilian Personnel Data File and the Postal Service on the representation of women and minorities in (1) the federal government's career SES, (2) the developmental pools from which the vast majority of potential successors for career senior level positions will come (i.e., GS-14 and GS-15), (3) the Postal Service's career officer and senior executive positions in the Postal Career Executive Service, and (4) the developmental pool of potential successors for senior level Postal Service positions as of the end of fiscal year 2006.

Data in the Civilian Personnel Data File and provided by the U.S. Postal Service show that as of the end of fiscal year 2006, the overall percentages of women and minorities have increased since 2000 in both the federal career SES and the developmental pool for potential successors and the Postal Career Executive Service (PCES) and the developmental pool of potential successors (EAS levels 22 and above) since 1999. As we have testified, the federal government is facing new and more complex challenges in the 21st century because of long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics, and other factors. SES members are critical to providing the strategic leadership needed to effectively meet these challenges. Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the federal government's senior ranks can be a key organizational component for executing agency missions, ensuring accountability to the American people in the administration and operation of federal programs, and achieving results. SES retirement eligibility is much higher than the workforce in general, and a significant number of SES retirements could result in a loss of leadership continuity, institutional knowledge, and expertise among the SES corps. In fact, OPM estimates that 90 percent of federal executives will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years, and the Postal Service expects nearly half of its executives to retire within 5 years. This underscores the need for effective succession planning. Succession planning also is tied to the federal government's opportunity to affect SES diversity through new appointments. Gaining insight into diversity in the federal government's senior leadership and developmental pools and factors affecting them is important to developing and maintaining a high-quality and inclusive workforce.



GAO-07-838T, Human Capital: Diversity in the Federal SES and the Senior Levels of the U.S. Postal Service This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-838T entitled 'Human Capital: Diversity in the Federal SES and the Senior Levels of the U.S. Postal Service' which was released on May 10, 2007. 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. Testimony: Before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST: Thursday, May 10, 2007: Human Capital: Diversity in the Federal SES and the Senior Levels of the U.S. Postal Service: Statement of George H. Stalcup, Director: Strategic Issues: GAO-07-838T: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-07-838T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study: The Senior Executive Service (SES) generally represents the most experienced and senior segment of the federal workforce. Having a diverse SES corps can be an organizational strength that contributes to the achievement of results by bringing a wider variety of perspectives and approaches to bear on policy development and implementation, strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making. In a January 2003 report (GAO-03-34), GAO provided data on career SES members by race, ethnicity, and gender as of October 2000. In March 2000, we reported similar data for the Postal Career Executive Service as of September 1999 (GAO/GGD-00-76). In response to a request for updated information on diversity in the top levels of government, GAO is providing information obtained from the Office of Personnel Management‘s Civilian Personnel Data File and the Postal Service on the representation of women and minorities in (1) the federal government‘s career SES, (2) the developmental pools from which the vast majority of potential successors for career senior level positions will come (i.e., GS-14 and GS-15), (3) the Postal Service‘s career officer and senior executive positions in the Postal Career Executive Service, and (4) the developmental pool of potential successors for senior level Postal Service positions as of the end of fiscal year 2006. What GAO Found: Data in the Civilian Personnel Data File and provided by the U.S. Postal Service show that as of the end of fiscal year 2006, the overall percentages of women and minorities have increased since 2000 in both the federal career SES and the developmental pool for potential successors and the Postal Career Executive Service (PCES) and the developmental pool of potential successors (EAS levels 22 and above) since 1999. Table: Governmentwide: SES; October 2000: Number: 6,110; October 2000: Percent: Women: 23.6; October 2000: Percent: Men: 13.8; September 2006: Number: 6,349; September 2006: Percent: Women: 28.4; September 2006: Percent: Men: 15.9. Governmentwide: SES potential developmental pool (GS-14s and GS-15s); October 2000: Number: 135,012; October 2000: Percent: Women: 28.2; October 2000: Percent: Men: 17.0; September 2006: Number: 160,573; September 2006: Percent: Women: 32.8; September 2006: Percent: Men: 21.0. Source: GAO analysis of the Office of Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data File. [end of table] Table: U.S. Postal Service: PCES; September 1999: Number: 854; September 1999: Percent: Women: 20.1; September 1999: Percent: Minorities: 20.8; September 2006: Number: 768; September 2006: Percent: Women: 28.6; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 25.5. U.S. Postal Service: PCES potential developmental pool; September 1999: Number: 8,955; September 1999: Percent: Women: 22.7; September 1999: Percent: Minorities: 25.3; September 2006: Number: 8,606; September 2006: Percent: Women: 30.9; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 29.1. Source: GAO analysis of Postal Service data. [End of figure] As we have testified, the federal government is facing new and more complex challenges in the 21st century because of long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics, and other factors. SES members are critical to providing the strategic leadership needed to effectively meet these challenges. Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the federal government‘s senior ranks can be a key organizational component for executing agency missions, ensuring accountability to the American people in the administration and operation of federal programs, and achieving results. SES retirement eligibility is much higher than the workforce in general, and a significant number of SES retirements could result in a loss of leadership continuity, institutional knowledge, and expertise among the SES corps. In fact, OPM estimates that 90 percent of federal executives will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years, and the Postal Service expects nearly half of its executives to retire within 5 years. This underscores the need for effective succession planning. Succession planning also is tied to the federal government‘s opportunity to affect SES diversity through new appointments. Gaining insight into diversity in the federal government‘s senior leadership and developmental pools and factors affecting them is important to developing and maintaining a high-quality and inclusive workforce. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-838T]. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact George Stalcup on (202) 512-9490 or at stalcupg@gao.gov. [End of section] Chairman Davis, Representative Marchant, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to provide the Subcommittee with information on the representation of women and minorities[Footnote 1] in the federal government's career Senior Executive Service (SES)[Footnote 2] and roughly comparable career officer and senior executive positions in the U.S. Postal Service's Postal Career Executive Service (PCES).[Footnote 3] I am also providing information on the representation of women and minorities at the levels that serve as the developmental pools from which the vast majority of potential successors for career SES positions[Footnote 4] and potential successors for PCES positions will come.[Footnote 5] The federal government is facing new and more complex challenges in the 21ST century as a result of long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics, evolving governance models, and other factors. Leadership in agencies across the federal government, especially at senior executive levels, is essential to providing the accountable, committed, consistent, and sustained attention needed to human capital and related organizational transformation issues. As we have previously reported, a high-performance organization relies on a dynamic workforce with the requisite talents, multidisciplinary knowledge, and up-to-date skills to ensure that it is equipped to accomplish its mission and achieve its goals.[Footnote 6] The approach that a high-performance organization takes toward its workforce is inclusive and draws on the strengths of employees at all levels and of all backgrounds. SES members generally represent the most experienced segment of an agency's workforce and can help to effectively execute agency missions and ensure accountability to the American people in the administration and operation of federal programs. Having a diverse SES corps can be an organizational strength that contributes to achieving results. Diversity can bring a wider variety of perspectives and approaches to bear on policy development and implementation, strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making. The results of our most recent work on SES diversity were issued in 2003,[Footnote 7] and we issued reports on diversity in the Postal Service in 2003 and in the PCES in 2000.[Footnote 8] Today we are providing data we extracted from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of the end of fiscal year 2006 on the representation of women and minorities in career SES[Footnote 9] and GS-14 and GS-15 positions as well as baseline data from October 2000, which we previously reported for those same positions.[Footnote 10] We also received data from the Postal Service on the representation of women and minorities in career officer and senior executive positions in the PCES as well as the levels that the Postal Service considers the developmental pool for PCES positions as of the end of fiscal year 2006 to update fiscal year 1999 data we previously reported.[Footnote 11] We believe the CPDF is sufficiently reliable for the informational purpose of this testimony. We previously reported that governmentwide data from the CPDF for the key variables reported in this testimony--agency, gender, race or national origin, and pay plan or grade--were 96 percent or more accurate.[Footnote 12] In addition, as the Postal Service reported making no changes to its database since we performed testing of electronic data for obvious errors of completeness and accuracy for our 2003 report and as the Postal Service provided updated information of the same nature, we consider the data to be sufficiently reliable for the informational purpose of this testimony. The data that we are reporting today provide a demographic snapshot of the career SES as well as the levels that serve as the developmental pools for those positions in October 2000 and September 2006, and the career PCES as well as the levels that serve as the developmental pool for those positions in September 1999 and September 2006. Table 1 shows the number of career SES as well as those in the developmental pool governmentwide, including the percentages of women and minorities, for October 2000 and September 2006. Table 1: Career SES and the SES Developmental Pool for October 2000 and September 2006: Governmentwide: SES; October 2000: Number: 6,110; October 2000: Percent: Women: 23.6; October 2000: Percent: Men: 13.8; September 2006: Number: 6,349; September 2006: Percent: Women: 28.4; September 2006: Percent: Men: 15.9. Governmentwide: SES potential developmental pool (GS-14s and GS-15s); October 2000: Number: 135,012; October 2000: Percent: Women: 28.2; October 2000: Percent: Men: 17.0; September 2006: Number: 160,573; September 2006: Percent: Women: 32.8; September 2006: Percent: Men: 21.0. Source: GAO analysis of OPM's CPDF. [End of table] Table 2 shows a further breakdown of the number of SES members, including the percentages of women and minorities, by Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agency for October 2000 and September 2006.[Footnote 13] Table 2: Career SES Members by CFO Act Agency for October 2000 and September 2006: CFO Act agency: Agriculture; October 2000: Number of SES: 283; October 2000: Percent: Women: 25.4; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 20.1; September 2006: Number of SES: 314; September 2006: Percent: Women: 31.2; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 18.5. CFO Act agency: AID; October 2000: Number of SES: 25; October 2000: Percent: Women: 20.0; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 20.0; September 2006: Number of SES: 17; September 2006: Percent: Women: 47.1; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 29.4. CFO Act agency: Commerce; October 2000: Number of SES: 296; October 2000: Percent: Women: 23.3; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 12.5; September 2006: Number of SES: 313; September 2006: Percent: Women: 27.8; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 12.8. CFO Act agency: Defense; October 2000: Number of SES: 1,144; October 2000: Percent: Women: 16.3; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 6.1; September 2006: Number of SES: 1,104; September 2006: Percent: Women: 21.0; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 8.0. CFO Act agency: Education; October 2000: Number of SES: 60; October 2000: Percent: Women: 28.3; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 21.7; September 2006: Number of SES: 73; September 2006: Percent: Women: 39.7; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 24.7. CFO Act agency: Energy; October 2000: Number of SES: 391; October 2000: Percent: Women: 18.9; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 10.7; September 2006: Number of SES: 411; September 2006: Percent: Women: 22.1; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 14.6. CFO Act agency: EPA; October 2000: Number of SES: 255; October 2000: Percent: Women: 29.8; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 15.3; September 2006: Number of SES: 260; September 2006: Percent: Women: 37.7; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 15.8. CFO Act agency: FEMA; October 2000: Number of SES: 32; October 2000: Percent: Women: 21.9; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 3.1; September 2006: Number of SES: [A]; September 2006: Percent: Women: [A]; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: [A]. CFO Act agency: GSA; October 2000: Number of SES: 84; October 2000: Percent: Women: 28.6; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 14.3; September 2006: Number of SES: 71; September 2006: Percent: Women: 26.8; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 11.3. CFO Act agency: HHS; October 2000: Number of SES: 399; October 2000: Percent: Women: 36.1; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 21.3; September 2006: Number of SES: 342; September 2006: Percent: Women: 43.0; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 22.2. CFO Act agency: DHS; October 2000: Number of SES: [B]; October 2000: Percent: Women: [B]; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: [B]; September 2006: Number of SES: 262; September 2006: Percent: Women: 26.0; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 12.6. CFO Act agency: HUD; October 2000: Number of SES: 73; October 2000: Percent: Women: 28.8; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 35.6; September 2006: Number of SES: 82; September 2006: Percent: Women: 37.8; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 40.2. CFO Act agency: Interior; October 2000: Number of SES: 191; October 2000: Percent: Women: 31.9; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 22.0; September 2006: Number of SES: 227; September 2006: Percent: Women: 32.6; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 25.6. CFO Act agency: Justice; October 2000: Number of SES: 407; October 2000: Percent: Women: 22.6; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 15.2; September 2006: Number of SES: 605; September 2006: Percent: Women: 21.8; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 17.9. CFO Act agency: Labor; October 2000: Number of SES: 132; October 2000: Percent: Women: 28.0; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 21.2; September 2006: Number of SES: 121; September 2006: Percent: Women: 33.1; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 20.7. CFO Act agency: NASA; October 2000: Number of SES: 394; October 2000: Percent: Women: 19.5; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 13.2; September 2006: Number of SES: 415; September 2006: Percent: Women: 23.1; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 15.9. CFO Act agency: NRC; October 2000: Number of SES: 139; October 2000: Percent: Women: 13.7; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 11.5; September 2006: Number of SES: 152; September 2006: Percent: Women: 20.4; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 15.1. CFO Act agency: NSF; October 2000: Number of SES: 79; October 2000: Percent: Women: 30.4; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 13.9; September 2006: Number of SES: 78; September 2006: Percent: Women: 42.3; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 15.4. CFO Act agency: OPM; October 2000: Number of SES: 36; October 2000: Percent: Women: 41.7; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 19.4; September 2006: Number of SES: 40; September 2006: Percent: Women: 30.0; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 17.5. CFO Act agency: SBA; October 2000: Number of SES: 39; October 2000: Percent: Women: 33.3; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 33.3; September 2006: Number of SES: 35; September 2006: Percent: Women: 31.4; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 37.1. CFO Act agency: SSA; October 2000: Number of SES: 118; October 2000: Percent: Women: 35.6; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 33.1; September 2006: Number of SES: 144; September 2006: Percent: Women: 39.6; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 29.9. CFO Act agency: State; October 2000: Number of SES: 101; October 2000: Percent: Women: 28.7; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 5.0; September 2006: Number of SES: 114; September 2006: Percent: Women: 31.6; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 6.1. CFO Act agency: Transportation; October 2000: Number of SES: 178; October 2000: Percent: Women: 27.0; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 14.6; September 2006: Number of SES: 182; September 2006: Percent: Women: 34.6; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 15.9. CFO Act agency: Treasury; October 2000: Number of SES: 537; October 2000: Percent: Women: 23.3; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 12.8; September 2006: Number of SES: 381; September 2006: Percent: Women: 34.9; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 18.6. CFO Act agency: VA; October 2000: Number of SES: 247; October 2000: Percent: Women: 14.6; October 2000: Percent: Minorities: 9.7; September 2006: Number of SES: 229; September 2006: Percent: Women: 24.0; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 14.4. Source: GAO analysis of OPM's CPDF. [A] The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was an independent agency and 1 of the 24 CFO Act agencies until the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. [B] DHS did not exist before March 1, 2003. It was created from 22 agencies or parts of agencies, including the U.S. Customs Service, which was formerly located in the Department of the Treasury; FEMA; and the Coast Guard. Note: AID is the Agency for International Development; EPA is the Environmental Protection Agency; GSA is the General Services Administration; HHS is the Department of Health and Human Services; HUD is the Department of Housing and Urban Development; NASA is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NRC is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; NSF is the National Science Foundation; SBA is the Small Business Administration; SSA is the Social Security Administration; and VA is the Department of Veterans Affairs. [End of table] As we reported in 2003, the gender, racial, and ethnic profiles of the career SES at the 24 CFO Act agencies varied significantly in October 2000. The representation of women ranged from 13.7 percent to 41.7 percent, with half of the agencies having 27 percent or fewer women. For minority representation, rates varied even more and ranged from 3.1 percent to 35.6 percent, with half of the agencies having less than 15 percent minorities in the SES. In 2006, the representation of women and minorities, both overall and for most individual agencies, was higher. The representation of women ranged from 20.4 percent to 47.1, percent with more than half of the agencies having 30 percent or more women. For minority representation, rates ranged from 6.1 percent to 40.2 percent, with 50 percent of the agencies having over 17 percent minority representation, and almost 90 percent of the agencies having more than 12 percent minority representation in the SES.[Footnote 14] Considering retirement eligibility and actual retirement rates of the SES is important because individuals normally do not enter the SES until well into their careers; thus SES retirement eligibility is much higher than the workforce in general. As part of a strategic human capital planning approach, agencies need to develop long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, motivating, and retaining staff. An agency's human capital plan should address the demographic trends that the agency faces with its workforce, especially retirements. In 2006, OPM reported that approximately 60 percent of the executive branch's 1.6 million white-collar employees and 90 percent of about 6,000 federal executives will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years. If a significant number of SES members were to retire, it could result in a loss of leadership continuity, institutional knowledge, and expertise among the SES corps, with the degree of loss varying among agencies and occupations. This has important implications for government management and emphasizes the need for good succession planning for this leadership group. Rather than simply recreating the existing organization, effective succession planning and management, linked to the strategic human capital plan, can help an organization become what it needs to be. Leading organizations go beyond a "replacement" approach that focuses on identifying particular individuals as possible successors for specific top-ranking positions. Rather, they typically engage in broad, integrated succession planning and management efforts that focus on strengthening both current and future capacity, anticipating the need for leaders and other key employees with the necessary competencies to successfully meet the complex challenges of the 21st century. Succession planning also is tied to the federal government's opportunity to affect the diversity of the executive corps through new appointments. In September 2003,[Footnote 15] we reported that agencies in other countries use succession planning and management to achieve a more diverse workforce, maintain their leadership capacity, and increase the retention of high-potential staff. Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the SES is an important component for the effective operation of the government. As we recently testified before this Subcommittee,[Footnote 16] the Postal Service expects nearly half of its executives to retire within the next 5 years, which has important implications and underscores the need for effective succession planning. This presents the Postal Service with substantial challenges for ensuring an able management cadre and also presents opportunities for the Postal Service to affect the composition of the PCES. Table 3 shows the number of career PCES members and the EAS developmental pool for those positions, including the percentages of women and minorities, for September 1999 and September 2006. Table 3: Career PCES and the EAS Developmental Pool for September 1999 and September 2006: U.S. Postal Service: PCES; September 1999: Number: 854; September 1999: Percent: Women: 20.1; September 1999: Percent: Minorities: 20.8; September 2006: Number: 768; September 2006: Percent: Women: 28.6; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 25.5. U.S. Postal Service: PCES potential developmental pool; September 1999: Number: 8,955; September 1999: Percent: Women: 22.7; September 1999: Percent: Minorities: 25.3; September 2006: Number: 8,606; September 2006: Percent: Women: 30.9; September 2006: Percent: Minorities: 29.1. Source: GAO analysis of Postal Service data. [End of table] In 2005, we reported that the Postal Service had a formal succession planning process and considers the development of potential successor employees for executive leadership roles as one stage in that process.[Footnote 17] In fiscal year 2002, the Postal Service completed a Web-based individual development plan system, which is found on the Diversity Development Intranet site. Individuals in management positions are to use the Web-based individual development plan system to identify their skills, training, areas of expertise, and areas of development focus. The Postal Service states that it tracks this information to ensure that all potential candidates for higher level or more specialized jobs are following a plan that includes the training and work experiences necessary to enable these individuals to fill vacant positions and lead the organization into the future. While we have not analyzed recent changes in the representation levels within the federal or Postal Service workforces for this testimony, agencies, including the Postal Service, have an important responsibility to analyze the representation levels of their workforce and report the results of their analyses under requirements from OPM and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Both of these agencies in their oversight roles also report on governmentwide representation levels.[Footnote 18] Under OPM's regulations implementing the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP),[Footnote 19] agencies are required to determine where representation levels for covered groups are lower than the civilian labor force and take steps to address those differences. Agencies are also required to submit annual FEORP reports to OPM in the form prescribed by OPM. These reports 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) narrative identifying areas where the agencies had been most successful in recruiting, hiring, and conducting formal training of women and minorities. EEOC's Management Directive 715 (MD-715) provides guidance and standards to federal agencies for establishing and maintaining effective equal employment opportunity programs,[Footnote 20] including a framework for executive branch agencies and the Postal Service to determine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity exist and to identify and develop strategies to mitigate or eliminate the barriers to participation.[Footnote 21] The initial step is for agencies to analyze their workforce data with designated benchmarks, including the civilian labor force. After analyzing their workforce profiles, if potential barriers may exist, agencies are to examine all related policies, procedures, and practices to uncover whether an actual barrier exists. EEOC instructs that only after agencies uncover and understand the actual barrier can appropriate objectives be implemented to eliminate it. EEOC requires agencies to report the results of their analyses annually. A specific provision was also included in recent postal reform legislation related to tracking diversity in the Postal Service's executive and administrative schedule management positions.[Footnote 22] The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act requires that by December 20, 2007, the Postal Service's Board of Governors study and submit a report to the President and Congress concerning the extent to which women and minorities are represented in supervisory and management positions. The statistics we provide in this statement portray a demographic profile of career federal senior executives for a particular point in time. Although such statistics can be informative and useful as a starting point, these numbers do not reveal important factors such as pending or expected separations from or appointments to the SES corps, the PCES, or the developmental pools that lead to them. Such information would provide more insight into the current and prospective state of the diversity in the federal government's executive corps. Understanding factors affecting representation is important to developing and maintaining a high-quality and inclusive workforce. Chairman Davis, Representative Marchant, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. Contacts and Acknowledgments: For further information regarding this statement, please contact George Stalcup, Director, Strategic Issues on (202) 512-9490 or at stalcupg@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this statement included Belva Martin, Assistant Director; Joshua Bartzen; Benjamin T. Licht; Kiki Theodoropoulos; and Greg Wilmoth. [End of section] Enclosure I: [See PDF for Demographics] FOOTNOTES [1] By minorities, we refer to people in the following racial and ethnic groups: African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/ Pacific Islander, and Hispanic. [2] Career SES members are individuals with civil service status (permanent) who are appointed competitively to SES positions and serve in positions below the top political appointees in the executive branch of government. [3] The PCES is made up of two levels, officers (PCES 02), who are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Postmaster General and include area vice presidents and the Deputy Postmaster General, and executives (PCES 01), who include district managers and bulk mail center managers. [4] The vast majority of potential successors for career SES positions come from the general schedule (GS) pay plan for grades GS-14 and GS- 15. We included GS-15, GS-14, and equivalent employees. GS-equivalent employees are those in equivalent grades under other pay plans that follow the GS grade structure and job evaluation methodology or are equivalent by statute. [5] The potential successors for PCES positions are generally from levels 22 and above of the Postal Service's Executive Administrative Service (EAS). In fiscal year 2004, EAS employees at level 22 compared roughly to other federal employees who were paid under the fiscal year 2004 general schedule at grade 11, step 6 to grade 14, step 3. [6] GAO, Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and Agency Examples, GAO-05-90 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005). [7] GAO, Senior Executive Service: Enhanced Agency Efforts Needed to Improve Diversity as the Senior Corps Turns Over, GAO-03-34 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17, 2003). [8] GAO, U.S. Postal Service: Data on Career Employee Diversity, GAO-03- 745R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003); U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in the Postal Career Executive Service, GAO/GGD-00-76 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2000). [9] For the SES, we included those with career appointments in the SES personnel system. These individuals are in executive positions classified above GS-15 or equivalent and do not require appointment by the President with Senate confirmation. We excluded those in SES-type positions authorized by law such as in the Foreign Service, and some law enforcement and intelligence programs as well as positions in the Senior Level and Scientific and Professional systems. [10] GAO-03-34. [11] GAO/GGD-00-76. Although we most recently reported on fiscal year 2002 career employee diversity at the Postal Service (GAO-03-745R), we are citing fiscal year 1999 Postal Service data to be more comparable with the governmentwide data we are reporting. [12] GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998). [13] The CFO Act agencies are 24 major executive agencies that are subject to the CFO Act. In 2006, the CFO Act agencies employed 98 percent of federal employees. [14] While comparing the 2000 and the 2006 data identifies changes over time, comparing changes that have occurred since 2000 to the estimates we made in the 2003 report could be misleading without identifying or analyzing the factors contributing to those changes as we did in the 2003 report. In that report, we reviewed appointment trends from fiscal years 1995 to 2000; estimated by race, ethnicity, and gender the number of career SES who would leave government service from October 1, 2000, through October 1, 2007; and what the profile of the SES would be if appointment trends did not change. We made the same estimates for the developmental pool of GS-15s and GS-14s, from which the ranks of the majority of replacements for departing SES members come, to ascertain the likely composition of that pool. We have not updated that information to determine whether estimated retirement trends materialized and the impact that may have had on the diversity of the SES. [15] GAO, Human Capital: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries' Succession Planning and Management Initiatives, GAO-03-914 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2003). [16] GAO, U.S. Postal Service: Postal Reform Law Provides Opportunities to Address Postal Challenges, GAO-07-684T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2007). [17] GAO-05-90. [18] OPM's most recent report is its January 2007 Annual Report to the Congress: Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2006, and EEOC's most recent report is its Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report on the Federal Work Force. [19] 5 U.S.C. §7201 and 5 C.F.R. Part 720, Subpart B. [20] See section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 and 29 U.S.C. § 501, respectively. [21] 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. [22] Section 706 of Pub. L. No. 109-435, Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Dec. 20, 2006). 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 (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 www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." Order by Mail or Phone: The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548: To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 512-6061: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548:

The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.