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: