: ,_ ,...*. United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives October 1990 EEO AT JUSTICE Progress Made But Underrepresentation Remains Widespread . . United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20648 General Government Division B-240676 October 2,199O The Honorable Robert E. Wise, Jr. Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: This report responds to your request that we review the affirmative action program at the Department of Justice. As agreed, we determined whether Justice has the data necessary to evaluate the success of its efforts to recruit, hire, and promote minorities and women. Where eval- uation data existed, we determined the success of Justice’s efforts. In measuring those efforts, we followed the guidance of the Equal Employ- ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)and compared, for various job cat- egories, the level of minority and female representation at Justice to their levels in the civilian labor force (CLF). Full representation occurs when the two levels are the same. In accordance with your agreement with another congressional committee, the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion (FBI)-an agency within Justice-was excluded from the review. Justice has designated six key jobs as the focus of its equal employment Results in Brief opportunity recruiting, hiring, and promotion efforts-attorney, border patrol agent, correctional officer, criminal investigator, deputy U.S. mar- shal, and immigration inspector. Recruiting efforts establish pools of applicants for given jobs; hiring efforts refer to selecting and hiring indi- viduals from those pools. Justice had data, such as work force profiles by pay grade, for measuring the success of its efforts to hire and pro- mote minorities and women. However, for five of its six key jobs, Justice had no data on whether its recruiting efforts were providing applicant pools with representative numbers of minorities and women. Although Justice has acknowledged for several years the need for recruitment data, it is waiting for the EEOCto issue guidance and a form for collecting it. The EEOC,however, said in January 1988 that agencies should develop their own means of collecting the data if they have a need for it. Justice’s work force data showed that representation of minorities and females within its work force has increased over the years. Even so, underrepresentation remains widespread, especially (1) for females Page1 GAO/GGD.QlB JusticeEE4lUndemp~ntatkm a-240676 affirmative employment program instructions issued by EEOC,estab- lishing agency-wide objectives, submitting multiyear affirmative employment program plans, and ensuring that all SESmanagers are held accountable for achieving affirmative action objectives and requirements. Management Directive 7 14 requires agencies to comprehensively ana- lyze affirmative employment program elements for status of current conditions. The analyses are to address such elements as work force composition, recruitment, hiring, promotions, and separations. EEOC evaluates the effectiveness of an agency’s affirmative employment pro- gram efforts by reviewing changes in the agency’s work force. To do this, it requires that agencies submit work force profiles of EEXgroups by occupational category, key agency job series, and grade/pay level. These profiles are to cover 11 Em groups and 5 broad occupational cate- gories. The EEOgroups delineated by EEOCare black male and female, Hispanic male and female, Asian American/Pacific Islander male and female, American Indian/Alaskan Native male and female, white male and female, and total female. For brevity, we identify Asian Americans/ Pacific Islanders as Asian and American Indian/Alaskan Native as American Indian. This report provides information about 10 rather than 11 EEDgroups; it excludes the white male category. We did this for ease of presentation and in keeping with the Subcommittee’s emphasis on the hiring and advancement of minorities and women, The occupational cat- egories are professional, administrative, technical, clerical, and other (PATCO).Appendix III shows percentage indexes of EEOgroups in PATCO categories for all of Justice. Appendix IV gives the percentage indexes for specific bureaus within Justice. Appendix V shows representation of EEOgroups in Justice’s key jobs. Under Management Directive 714, agencies decide which jobs are key. Justice has named the following six jobs as key jobs: attorney, border patrol agent, correctional officer, criminal investigator, deputy U.S. mar- shal, and immigration inspector. We used Em standards and evaluation techniques to determine Approach whether underrepresentation existed for various Em groups. Under- representation exists, according to EEOCstandards, if the percentage rate at which an Em group is represented in an agency’s work force is less than the rate at which the group is represented in the CLF as identified E-240676 spoken of “manifest imbalance” and “conspicuous absence.“’ According to Management Directive 714, manifest imbalance refers to situations where an EFXIgroup is “substantially below its representation in the appropriate CL.F.”Conspicuous absence refers to situations where an EEO group is “nearly or totally nonexistent from a particular occupation or grade level in the work force.” Because numerical criteria for “substan- tially” and “nearly or totally nonexistent” are not established, we used the previous term (severe) and definition (50 percent or less). Our work was done from April 1989 to August 1990, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As requested, we did not obtain official agency comments on this report. We did, however, informally discuss the results of our review with officials of Justice and the EEOC.Additional details about our scope and methodology are presented in appendix I. Justice had data on its efforts to hire and promote minorities and Data Available on females, but with the exception of its attorney honor program, the Hiring and Promoting agency did not have data on recruitment. Justice’s data show such infor- But Not Recruiting mation as race, ethnic origin, and gender of the individuals hired but not of all individuals who apply for jobs. Although Justice recognized at least as far back as 1983 that it needed recruitment data, it has not aggressively tried to collect these data. For example, Justice said in Jan- uary 1990 that it was waiting for guidance and a collection “tool” from EEOC.However, in instructions issued in January 1988, the EEOCsaid that until it develops and obtains clearance for a data collection form, agencies, as they determine the need for such data, should devise and implement their own means of collecting recruitment data. The EEOC recently developed a draft data collection form. Before the form can be given to agencies for their use, it must be approved within EEOCand then by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When these approvals will be obtained is unknown. ‘Accordingto the EEOC,the changewasmadebecause Management Directive714“se&ato build upontheprogressmostagencies madeduringtheprevkwssix years.Thepreviousperiodcowen- tratedona rigid hiring approach.Themajorthrustfor [Management Directive7141andthenext logicalstepafterhiring membersof theprotectedclasses is eliminationof practices,pmwdw?s,and policieswhichopera&to hamperinternalmovement of theproW classes. Thenewtermstrack recentSupreme Courtrulingsandprovideanuptodate approachto a rapidlychangingworkforce.” Page6 GAO/GGDQl-8JusticeEEOUnderrepresentatIon B240676 dropped between 1982 and 1988. There were nine fewer PATCOcatego- ries (30 percent) showing underrepresentation in 1988. Using occupa- tion-specific CLF data for attorneys and PATCOCLF data for the other key jobs there were seven fewer key job categories showing underrepresentation. Even with the progress Justice made, widespread underrepresentation remains, especially in key jobs and for females of all ethnic groups. As of December 1988. underremesentation existed in 21 of the 50 PATCOcat- egories and 33 of the 60 key job categories when using occupation-spe- cific CLFdata for attorneys. For some categories, representation was in the go-percent range and thus close to full. However, for 18 of the key job categories and three of the PATCOcategories, underrepresentation was severe. That is, the EEOgroup’s representation at Justice was no greater than 50 percent of its representation in the CLF.Similar cornpar .i- sons using the broader professional CLF data showed underrepresenta- tion in 39 of the 60 key job categories. Underrepresentation was severe for 24 of these 39. All key jobs except attorney, using occupation-specific CLFdata for attorneys, and immigration inspector had at least one category of severe underrepresentation. Comparing Justice’s attorney work force with the broader professional CLF data showed 6 of the 10 categories with severe underrepresentation. Of the other five key jobs, those with the most cat- egories of severe underrepresentation were border patrol agent (7 out of 10 EEOcategories) and criminal investigator (5 out of 10 EEOcategories). The EEOgroups most frequently experiencing severe underrepresenta- tion were Asian females (four out of six key jobs) and American Indian females and black females (both three out of six key jobs). Using occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys, we estimate that as of December 1988 Justice would have needed at least an additional 28 Asian females, 12 American Indian females, and 198 black females in the key jobs where they were severely underrepresented to enable those groups to reach full representation overall. Using the broader profes- sional CLFdata Justice would need at least an additional 74 Asian females, 17 American Indian females, and 279 black females. Low Representation at For pay grades across all jobs at Justice, all EEOgroups except white and Upper Grade Levels American Indian females had achieved full representation as of December 1988 at grades 1 through 12 combined. However, females across all race and ethnic groups had not achieved full representation in goals do not require or mandate selection of unqualified persons or pref- erential treatment of EEOgroups but are another tool management can use in working toward full representation of all segments of the CLF. Specific accountability at Justice for EEOmatters appears to be lacking. We reviewed the EEOsection from the work plans that Justice provided of six of its SESmembers and found that the vague manner in which they were all written blunted accountability. For example, one work plan was no more definitive than saying the incumbent should demon- strate “an awareness of and sensitivity to Em principles and concepts” when recruiting, hiring, and promoting individuals. Management Direc- tive 714 requires all managers under the SESto be held accountable for achievement of their respective agency’s affirmative employment objectives. The EEOCrequires agencies, in their affirmative employment plans, to list the specific actions needed to accomplish the plans’ objectives and name the officials responsible for carrying out those actions. We believe that Justice should add those actions to the performance work plans of the responsible executives to increase their accountability. Such plans contain the performance objectives and standards that executives will be rated on for a given period of time. Appropriate executives, in our view, would include (1) those who head Justice’s bureaus, offices, and divisions and (2) other executives who are responsible for recruiting, hiring, and promoting individuals. When we analyzed data that covered several years, conditions some- Justice Should times became apparent that were not apparent when one year was com- Systematically Use pared to the next. For example, when using occupation-specific CLFdata Long-Term Data and for attorneys the level of representation for black male attorneys was 125 percent of the CLF in 1987 and 123 percent in 1988. But the level Trend Analysis was 221 percent in 1982. The downward trend of Justice’s black male attorney work force remains when using the broader professional CLF data as a base; however, the percentages become 99,97, and 175, respective] y. Our analysis of Justice’s attorney honor program during a S-year period (1984-1988) showed that black applicants received offers from Justice at a lower rate than white applicants (about 60 percent as often). These circumstances do not prove that barriers exist in these areas, but do sug- gest that additional analysis by Justice for barriers needs to be done. Although Justice has prepared some long-term trend data for specific page9 GAO/GGDSlI Justice EEOUnderrepresentation B240676 We recommend that the Attorney General strengthen management of Recommendationsto Justice’s affirmative action program by the Attorney General . expanding data collection and analysis efforts to include recruitment data and the systematic use of long-term trend data and analysis; l adding numerical goals to its affirmative employment plan where war- ranted by the level of underrepresentation, such as severe under- representation; and + increasing the EF.Qaccountability of appropriate SE members by including in their performance work plans the responsibility for setting ambitious goals and taking the vigorous actions needed to achieve affirmative employment plan goals-both numerical and narrative. The Director of EEOC’SFederal Sector Programs agreed with our findings Agency Views and conclusions. He also agreed that Justice could strengthen the man- agement of its affirmative action program by (1) collecting and ana- lyzing recruitment data, (2) systematically using long-term trend data and analysis, (3) using numerical goals in its affirmative employment plan, and (4) assigning accountability to appropriate SESmembers for taking the actions needed to achieve the goals. Justice officials generally agreed with our findings and conclusions; however, they differed from our views on several issues. Justice offi- cials agreed that agency recruitment data were needed; however, they placed full responsibility on EEOCfor developing a governmentwide form for capturing these data. The EEOCdid not deny accountability, but until its effort is fully approved and implemented, it has asked agencies to develop and use their own means of collecting recruitment data. Justice officials provided documentation to show that they sometimes prepared long-term data and trend analyses to monitor and evaluate their affirmative employment program. However, they agreed that the long-term data and trend analyses were done on an ad hoc basis, and that it would be helpful to make more comprehensive and systematic use of these techniques. When we discussed the results of our underrepresentation analysis with Justice officials, they said they used American Bar Association data for attorneys, rather than the broader professional civilian labor force data used by EEOC.They said that comparing attorney-specific data shows a much more favorable EEOpicture of their attorney work force. However, Justice’s plans and reports submitted to EEOCcontained no such data. Page11 GAO/GGD91-!3 JusticeEEOUnderrepresentation E-249976 Appendix II contains detailed information on the results of our review. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you have any questions about this report, please call me at 275-5074. Sincerely yours, Bernard L. Ungar Director, Federal Human Resource Management Issues Page13 GAO/GGB918Jwtice EEOUnderrepresentation Appendix VI 54 Major Contributors to This Report Tables Table 11.1:Representation of Justice’s Work Force by 28 PATCO Occupational Categories (1982 and 1988) Table 11.2:Justice’s Rank Among the 13 Cabinet Agencies 31 in the EEO Profile of Its Professional and Administrative Work Force (as of December 1988) Table 11.3:Representation of Justice’s Work Force by 32 Justice’s Key Jobs Table 11.4:Numbers of Minorities and Females Needed to 34 Reach Full Representation, by Pay Grade, in Justice Key Jobs as of December 1988 Table 11.5:Number and Percentage of Justice’s 1988 New 36 Hires Who Were Minorities and Females Compared to Their Percentages in the CLF (for Key Jobs) Table IV. 1: Bureau of Prisons 46 Table IV.2: Drug Enforcement Administration 46 Table IV.3: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 48 Table IV.4: Federal Prison System 48 Table IV.5: Immigration and Naturalization Service 50 Table IV.6: Offices, Boards, and Divisions 50 Table IV.7: United States Marshal’s Service 50 Figures Figure II. 1: Trend Line Showing Representation of Black 24 Males in Justice Attorney Occupations (1982-1988) Figure 11.2:Representation of Females and Minorities at 39 Justice by Grade Level (as of December 1988) Page15 GAO/GGD918JosticeEEOUnderrepresentatIon Page17 GAO/GGD918JusticeEEOUnderrepreeentstion AppendixI Objectives,Scope,andMethodology We did not verify the accuracy of the data Justice provided. However, we did obtain similar data from the EEOCthat corroborated Justice’s data. We did not verify the accuracy of EEOC’Sdata. The source of the EEOCdata was the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM)Central Per- sonnel Data File, which covers most federal employees.’ We used EEOC’sstandards and evaluation techniques to determine whether minorities and females were fully represented at Justice. The EEOCuses these standards and techniques to evaluate the EEOefforts of all federal agencies. According to EEOCdirectives, a group is under- represented if the percentage at which an EEOgroup is represented in an agency’s work force is less than the rate at which the group is repre- sented in the national CLF. The CLFrepresents persons 16 years of age or over, excluding those in the armed forces, who are employed or seeking employment. To gauge representation, the EEOCgrouped (1) the federal government’s 420 white-collar jobs into the five PATCOcategories and (2) each CLF occupation into the same PATCOcategory as its federal counterpart, with some exceptions. EEOCuses the PATCO-groupedCLFdata as the base against which it compares work force data that agencies align by PATCO category and key job. It also instructs agencies to do the same; that is, use the PA’rco-group CIS data as the base of comparison. However, there can be alternatives to using this base. For example, if the broader professional CLFdata category yields “a seriously-distorted availability figure for a particular professional occupational series,” the EEOC,according to the federal program manager, permits agencies to use, where available, occupation-specific CLF data. CIP data must be used unless approval for other data is obtained from EEOC.“Attorney” is one of the occupations that goes into making up the broader professional category, and CLFdata for attorneys are available. It is the only key job at Justice that falls int,o the exception category. In analyzing the EEOprofile of the attorney work force at Justice, we used as our base of comparison both the occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys and the broader professional CLFdata. For reporting purposes, we show both sets of data. ‘TheCentralPersonnel DataFileis basedonandupdatedmonthlywith personnelactioninformation submitteddirectlyto OPMby federalagencyappointingoffices.Thefile includesinformationon individualidentificationsuchasSocialSecuritynumberanddateof birth; employee characteristics suchasgenderandminontystatus;andjob characteristics suchaspayplangrade,salary,occupa- tionalseries,andsupervixxy status. Page19 GAO/GGDI)l-!lJusticeEEOUnderrepresentation Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice The EEOCrequires agencies to answer a series of questions about their Data Available on recruitment, hiring, and promotional efforts when preparing their Hiring and Promoting affirmative employment plans. In order to answer these questions accu- but Not Recruiting rately and completely, agencies must have pertinent data available. The EEOCalso requires agencies to provide work force profiles of EEOgroups by occupational category, key agency job series, and grade/pay level. Justice was able to provide all but recruitment data to us. With the exception of recruitment data for its attorney honor program, the agency did not have detailed recruitment data to provide. In January 1990, Justice said it was waiting for a forthcoming directive from EEOC to provide guidance and a form for collecting “applicant flow” data. Applicant flow data include information on the numbers of applicants who applied for given positions; their race, ethnic origin, and gender; and the sources of those applicants (names of specific universities and colleges, for example). Applicant data enable agencies to determine the extent to which minorities and women are applying for jobs and, where underrepresentation exists, whether their recruiting efforts are a cause for the underrepresentation. The lack of recruitment data is not a recent situation at Justice. In an affirmative employment plan submitted to EEOCin 1983, Justice acknowledged the need for collecting data that could identify to what extent minorities and women applied for Justice jobs. Justice did not follow up this acknowledgement with a system to collect data, even though EEOCrequired all agencies at that time to collect data on race, ethnic origin, and gender of job applicants. From January 1981 to December 1983, both EEOCand OPMrequired agen- cies to use an OPMform specifically designed to collect data on race, ethnic origin, and gender of job applicants. In December 1983, however, OPM’Sauthorization to use the form expired, and OPMdecided not to request reauthorization from OMBbecause (1) no law or regulation required OPMto collect the data, (2) the data collected were not statisti- cally reliable, and (3) collecting and processing the data was expensive. OPMhas not replaced the form. Although the form was discontinued, the requirement to collect data remained. The EEOCcontinued to require agencies to collect data on race, ethnic origin, and gender of job applicants until December 1987. Man- agement Directive 714 did not renew the requirement. However, in a January 1988 supplement to Management Directive 714, the EEOCsaid that until it is successful in obtaining clearance for a data collection page21 GAO/GGD918JusticeEEOUnderrepresentrtion Appendix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice most other cabinet-level agencies,’ all of which have widespread opera- tions and followed the same EEOCguidance as Justice, submitted their plans to the EEOCsooner than Justice. All but one submitted their plans 3 to 16 months earlier than Justice; one cabinet agency submitted its plan after Justice did. In addition to being late, both plans were incomplete. The first plan did not contain (1) the data analysis required by EEOCto identify areas of underrepresentation or (2) the goal-setting required by Management Directive 707 to address those areas of underrepresentation. The second plan did not contain the EEOC-required comparison data Justice was to have used to analyze the representation of minorities and females within its six key jobs. Justice was instructed to use the appropriate PATCOCLF data or more specific occupational CLEdata to compare with each of its six key jobs. Justice instead only showed each minority group as a percentage of the total in each occupation without making CLFcomparisons While not a specific requirement of Management Directive 714, long- Justice Should term trend data and analyses are recommended to agencies by the EEOC Systematically Use for monitoring and evaluating their EEOprograms. Justice officials pro- Long-Term Trend vided documentation to show that they sometimes use long-term trend data and analyses for these purposes. For example, they have used Analysis these techniques to monitor the EEOprofiles of their attorney employee population, as well as the EEOprofiles of the participants in Justice’s attorney honor program, which is the primary source of Justice’s new hires in the attorney occupational category. However, our analysis of the documentation provided indicated that Justice prepared these kinds of long-term trend data reports irregularly. Use of this monitoring and evaluation technique on a more comprehensive and systematic basis could assist Justice officials in forecasting and pinpointing potential problem areas. As part of our review, we found that conditions existed that, if examined by current and past year comparisons, showed little or no apparent cause for concern. But when examined over a multiple-year period, trends were revealed that indicated problems needing attention. - ‘Therewere13cabinet-level agencies in April 1988.In additionto Justice,theyweretheDepart- mentsof Agriculture,Gxnmerw Defense, Education,Energy,HealthandHumanServices, Housing andUrbanDevelopment, Interior,Labor.State,Transportation,andTreasury. Page 23 GAO/GGDS1-8 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II AvailabLUty of Data and Stahw of Minority and Female Representation et Justice The Attorney General’s Honor Program is Justice’s only recruitment program targeting graduating law students and new attorneys. The agency hires other attorneys through its Experienced Attorney Pro- gram. Applicants for the honor program positions must be (1) third-year law students, (2) graduate law students in the autumn of the last year of graduate law study, or (3) judical law clerks. Selection considerations include many factors, such as academic achievement, law courses taken, law review contributions, extracurricular activities, and summer and part-time employment. Because of the lengthy and extensive training given to new legal employees, most of Justice’s organizations partici- pating in the honor program require a 3-year commitment for selectees to remain with the organization. Justice officials gave us a long-term data report showing numbers and relative percentages, by race, of its attorney honor program applicants, job offer recipients, and hires, from fiscal year 1984 through fiscal year 1988. The report did not have gender data. Our analysis of the data provided for this 5-year period showed that 731 applications, or 7 percent of the total, were from blacks. Sixty-one (8 percent) of the black applicants received offers, and 39 (64 percent) of those offered jobs accepted them. During the same period, 8,509 applica- tions, or 82 percent of the total received, were from whites; 1,13 1 (13 percent) of the white applicants received job offers; and 600 (53 per- cent) of the white applicants accepted the offers. Therefore, during this B-year period, blacks who received offers accepted them at a higher rate than whites, but black applicants received offers at a lower rate than white applicants. Analyzing these data suggests that a careful examination needs to be made of Justice’s assessment process of its attorney honor program applicants. In its current affirmative employment plan, Justice states that it plans to track minority applicants through its honor program recruitment process. Justice officials agreed that although they have used long-term trend data and analysis to monitor and evaluate their program, more compre- hensive and systematic use of these techniques would be helpful and would be considered Page 26 GAO/GGB918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Page 27 GAO/GGD-911 Justice EEX3 Underrepresentation Appendix II AvailabilIty of Data and Stahls of Minority and Female Representation at Justice Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X 0 X 0 0 0 0 X X X X X X 0 X 0 X X X 0 0 X X X X 0 X 0 X X X 0 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0 0 0 0 NoteX Represents fullor overrepresentat~on I” category 0 Represents underrepresentatmn Bureaus Within Justice EEOCManagement Directive 714 requires a separate analysis for each installation with 2,000 or more employees. We did such an analysis for seven of Justice’s nine operating bureaus2 We did not analyze the FBI and, because it had fewer than 2,000 employees, the Office of Justice Programs. EEOCguidance does not require underrepresentation determinations for occupational categories with fewer than 100 employees. There were 35 possible PATCOcategories to analyze (5 PATCOcategories x 7 bureaus), and we dropped 7 from our analysis because each had fewer than 100 employees. Those dropped were in four bureaus. In total, we analyzed 280 of the 350 possible categories [(5 PATUI categories x 10 EEOgroups) x 7 bureaus]. Among the seven bureaus, representation of minorities and females in the PATCOcategories generally increased. For example, in comparison to 1982, all had fewer categories with underrepresentation in 1988. Alto- gether, there were 31 fewer categories with underrepresentation, a decrease of about 18 percent. Even with this progress, however, under- representation was common. In three bureaus, underrepresentation existed in 42 to 48 percent of the categories in 1988. In four bureaus, underrepresentation existed in 53 to 65 percent of the categories. The Federal Prison System had the largest percentage of underrepresented categories-65 percent, “WeanalyzedtheBureauof Prisons,DrugEnforcement Administration,ExecutiveOfficefor 1J.S. Attorneys,FederalPrisonSystem,bnmigrationandNaturalizationService,andtheIJ.S.Marshals Swnre.Justicecombines offices,boards, anddivisionsto maketheseventh“bureau.”ForEEO rqwrting purposes. Justiceseparates theBureauof PrisonsfromtheFederalPrisonSystem. Page 29 GAO/GGDSl-8 JusticeEEOUnderrepresentation Appendix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice Table 11.2:Justice’s Rank Among the 13 Cabinet Agencies in the EEO Profile of EEO group Professional Administrative Its Professional and Administrative Work Total female 58 12a Force (As of December 1988) 2” 12a White female Black male Et 5 Black female 7= 10 Htspanic male 9” 1 Hlspanic female 7a 2 Asian male 13a 3 Asian female 13a 6 Amencan Indian male 12” 6 American lndlan female 9” 12a aFor this category, representat!or, at JustIce was below the CLF Key Jobs EEOCrequires agencies to submit, for its evaluation, work force profiles for key jobs. As stated earlier, Justice has identified six key jobs. According to Justice’s affirmative employment plans, these six jobs account for approximately one-half of Justice’s labor force and are the focus of Justice’s EEOrecruiting, hiring, and promotion efforts. We ana- lyzed work force profiles to determine if minorities and women were fully represented in the key jobs and to estimate the numbers of minori- ties and females needed to reach full representation. We also reviewed Justice’s 1988 hiring efforts for the six jobs. Extent of Underrepresentation in Underrepresentation was greater in key jobs in 1988 than in the broader Key Positions PATCOcategories. That is not to say Justice made no progress in moving towards full representation. Of the 60 categories (10 EEOgroups x 6 key jobs), representation increased in 46, or about 77 percent, of the catego- ries. In comparison to 1982 and using occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys, the number of categories with underrepresentation decreased by 7, or 18 percent. However, as table II.3 shows, 33 categories (55 per- cent) still had less than full representation. While several of the 33 cate- gories had near full representation, 18 had representation that was 50 percent or less of the corresponding CLFlevel. Put another way, about 30 percent of the 60 categories were severely underrepresented. Using the broader professional CLF data, we found that there were eight fewer underrepresented key job categories in 1988 than in 1982, and a total of 39 categories (65 percent) with less than full representation. Underrepresentation was severe for 24 of these 39 categories. Page 31 GAO/XX%914 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendtx n Availability of Data and Statas of Minority and Female Representation at .Jw&e Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Fomrlr 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 X X X X X X X X X 0 X X 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 ____ 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X 0 X 0 0 0 X Note X Represents full or overrepreseniatm 0 Represents underrepresentation All key jobs except attorney, using occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys, and immigration inspector had at least one EEO category of severe underrepresentation. Comparing Justice’s attorney work force with the broader professional CLF data showed 6 of the 10 categories with severe underrepresentation. Of the other five key jobs, those with the most categories of severe underrepresentation were border patrol agent (seven out of the 10 EEOcategories) and criminal investigator (five out of 10 EEO categories). The EEOgroups most frequently experiencing severe underrepresentation were Asian females (four out of six key jobs) and American Indian females and black females (three out of six jobs each). (App V shows representation levels for the 60 categories in 1982 and 1988.) Numbers of Minorities and We used EEOC and OPM guidance to estimate the additional numbers of Women Needed to Attain Full minorities and women Justice would need to attain across-the-board rep Representation in Key Positions resentation in the key positions. In many instances, Justice would need only a few more individuals from an EEO group to achieve full represen- tation because that group’s representation in the CLF is small. In other instances, the numbers are larger because the group’s representation in the CLF is larger. Table II.4 shows, by grade and EEO group, the numbers needed to make up representation shortfalls. Page 33 GAO/GGWWJ Just& EEO Underrep-t&lam Appendix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice number of black male attorneys actually employed. The differences, where there were shortfalls, appear in table 11.4. To ensure percentages in the categories analyzed were large enough to permit reasonable comparison with the CLFpercentages, we combined grades, where feasible, when there were fewer than 100 employees in a grade. OPMinstructions say, as a general rule, at least 100 employees should be in any grade or grouping of grades in order to determine if underrepresentation exists. 1988 Hiring Efforts Below 1988 Justice hired 4,493 people in calendar year 1988 for its six key jobs. We CLF Percentages for Key analyzed Justice’s hiring results for the EEOgroups that were under- Positions represented at the start of 1988. For each key job, we determined which EEOgroups were underrepresented as of December 1987 and then com- pared the percentages of minorities and females hired in 1988 to the corresponding percentages of minorities and females in the CLF. We did so to see how representative Justice’s hiring results were. More often than not, Justice’s hiring results were less than the CLFpercentage. As of December 1987, using occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys, repre- sentation was less than full in 28 categories; 34 categories if using the broader professional CLF data to analyze Justice’s attorney work force.3 As table II.5 shows, Justice hired at or above CLFpercentage for only 8 of the underrepresented categories. ‘The total numberof categories was54.The“total” femalecategoryfor eachjob wasexcluded.Of the54categories, usingoccupation-specific CLFdatafor attorneys,full representation existedin 26 categories;underrepresentatmnexistedin 28.Usingthebroaderprofessional CLFdatashowedfull representationin 20categories andunderrepresentationin theremaining34categories. Page 36 GAO/GGD-918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II AvaIlability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice Male Asian American Indian Hired Justice CLF Hired Justice CLF 2 0.7% 0.54% ----0 - ~-.____- - ___- 0.0% 0.15% __- 2 0.7 2.53 0 00 0.21 0 0.5 _- --- .-___ 0.73 5 ~--___ 03 0.76 12 0.8 0.73 11 00 a __~ . __-.~ -__I_ __-. 19 3.6 a 1 02 a - -___ 0 0 B 0I.________ 00 0.76 74 67 B 1 on a Female Hispanic Asian American Indian Hlred Justice CLF Hired Justice -~~ - -__CLF Hired Justice CLF 1 0.3% a 1 0.3% a 0 .- ~___--- 0.0% 004% 1 0.3 1.14% 1 --_-.__-.__-__.. 0.3- -~~ 112% 0 0.0 0.13 31 19 a 2 0.1 0.09 0 00 0.09 18 1.2 a 0 0.0 0 09 2 0.1 0.09 10 1.9 1.30 3 0.6 0.51 1 0.2 0.17 0 00 a 0 00 0 09 0 0.0 0.09 24 6.2 a 11 2-e a 0 0.0 017 aEEO group representation was at or above full represent&on as of December 1987 Q3ng occupation-speck CLf datd for attorneys ‘Using broad professIona CLF !iata Note Percentage represents the EEO group’s percent of JustIce’s total hires for that particular fob series CLF represents the EEClgroup’s corresponding PATCO representation In the clvlllan labor force Figures In bold lndlcate areas where JustIce htred at or above CLF levels for EEO groups which were underreoresented as of December 1987 We do not know why hiring was less than fully representative for most of the underrepresented categories. Justice’s affirmative employment plan says the agency does not attract enough qualified women and minorities for its key jobs However, as reported earlier, Justice gener- ally does not collect the data necessary to know whether many minori- ties and women are applying for its key jobs and what portion of the Page 37 GAO/GGD918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appemlix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Fmnale Representation at Justice Figure 11.2:Representation of Females and Minorities at Justice by Grade Level (As of December 1988) 260 Percentage Representation 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 White Black Males Black Hispanic Hispanic Asian Males Asian American American Females Females Males Females Females Indian Males Indian Females EEO Group SES Note Percentage representation ISthe rate at which the apphcable EEO group ISrepresented I” the occupatvxx3 category as compared to that group’s representation I” the national ciwhan labor force without regard to pay level The EEOC has required two 5-year plans from agencies to date, and has Justice Should Employ issued guidance for agencies to follow in preparing them. EEOC’S instruc- Numerical Goals tions issued in 1981 for preparing the first plan required agencies to (1) analyze their work force profiles for underrepresentation and (2) estab- lish numerical goals and timetables for underrepresented EEO groups. The instructions for the second (current) plan, Management Directive 714, require agencies t,o compare their work force profiles with the CLF’ but do not require numerical goals and timetables. The directive says agencies may develop reasonable numerical goals to address instances of conspicuous absence or manifest imbalance. EEOC’S explanation for changing the use of numerical goals from a requirement to an option is Page 39 GAO/GGD-918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II AvaUablllty of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice Specific EEO The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 specifies that the SIB shall be administered so as to ensure that compensation, retention, and tenure Accountability Lacking are contingent on executive success. Success, the act says, is measured on the basis of individual and organizational performance, including success in meeting EEOgoals. EEOC’SManagement Directive 714 assigns agency heads the responsibility for ensuring that all managers under the SESare held accountable for the achievement of affirmative employment objectives and the fulfillment of EEo requirements and objectives estab- lished by the agency. At Justice, the level of accountability for EEOrequirements and objec- tives is not as specific as it could be. For example, Justice’s current affirmative employment plan contains narrative objectives such as “to increase the numbers of women and minorities in the applicant pools for law enforcement positions.” The objectives are followed by a list of actions Justice will take to achieve the objectives. According to Manage- ment Directive 714, an official responsible for carrying out each action item must be listed in the plan. Justice generally named organizations such as “EEOStaff” and “Justice Management Division.“6 Thus, the plan, which covers Justice’s bureaus, generally does not identify the specific persons or positions that are responsible for achieving the objectives. We reviewed the performance work plans of six SESpositions at Justice, with which Justice provided us as examples of work plans of officials with EEOresponsibilities. We found that the plans lack the specificity needed to truly gauge how successful the executives are in carrying out their EEOresponsibilities. (Performance work plans contain the perfonn- ante objectives and standards that an executive will be rated on for a given period of time.) One of the work plans given us was for the Assistant Attorney General for Administration; this position has been designated by the Attorney General as the Director of EF&who is responsible for enforcing and man- aging Department EEOpolicy. As an element (objective) of this position, the work plan says the incumbent “supports the Department’s equal employment opportunity (EEO)/human resources programs.” The EEO performance standard for “fully successful” in this plan requires the “After reviewingtheplan,EEOCinformedJusticethat actionitemsshouldbeassigned to responsible officialsinsteadof offices,divisions,andbureaus.EEOCeventuallyapprovedthe plandespiteJus- tic& namingmostlyorganizations ratherthanresponsible officials. Page 41 GAO/GGDSlS Justice EEO Underrepresentation Page43 GAO/GGB918JusticeEEOUnderrepresentation Appendix III Minority and Female Representation at Justice by PATCO Occupation Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female 1982 1999 1982 1980 1982 1908 1902 1988 1992 1998 1982 1988 75 97 91 94 61 64 22 27 28 55 74 93 57 70 141 185 129 197 54 160 43 46 68 08 101 109 294 306 150 204 90 141 68 134 129 142 91 a5 274 300 - 155 229 81 128 97 119 118 122 55 71 139 175 a7 183 0 106 23 90 70 95 Note Figures show Justrce white-collar work force as a percentage of the natronal CLF This type of percentage Index. called an underrepresentatron index by EEO and OPM, indicates the extent to whrch a partrcular EEO group ISrepresented rn a work force as compared to the group’s representatron rn the CLF The Index can range from 0 to lOO+, wrth 100 indicatrng full representation and lower numbers rndrcating underrepresentatron Numbers rn bold rndrcate areas of underrepresentatron Page 46 GAO/GGBBlB Juetice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix IV Minority and Female Representation Within Justice Bureaus by PA’TCO Occupation Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female 1962 1966 1962 1966 1982 1986 1962 1966 1982 1966 1962 1966 62 96 147 238 - 92 122 9 22 0 189 66 109 36 65 67 149 34 60 15 36 44 29 42 72 76 60 100 143 67 134 27 94 96 6 90 92 106 122 161 211 93 131 45 26 75 110 112 132 66 71 200 233 --~____ 65 99 0 46 21 92 69 96 Note Ffgures show Justrce work force as a percentage of the natronal CLF This type of percentage Index, called an underrepresentatron index by EEOC and OPM, Indicates to whrch extent that a partrc- ular EEO group ISrepresented In a work force as compared to the group’s representatron rn the CLF The Index can range from 0 to lOO+ wrth 100 rndrcating full representatron and lower numbers mdr- catrng underrepresentation Numbers rn bold mdrcate areas of underrepresentahon Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female 1962 1966 1962 1966 ____..~~ 1982 1966 1962 1966 1962 I 966 1962 1966 31 67 56 44 46 36 0 110 0 0 33 72 26 44 61 144 53 91 24 50 0 15 34 56 69 95 571 497 119 185 40 129 0 151 139 155 105 77 266 394 219 256 51 94 0 114 130 129 Note Frgures show Juskce work force as a percentage of the nattonal CLF Numbers rn bold Indicate areas of underrepresentatron Qd not examme because category had less than 100 employees erther as of December 1982 or December 1988 Page 47 GAO/GGD918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix IV Mimdty and Female Representation Within Justice Bureau by PA’RQ Occn~tlon Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female 19a2 19811 1962 i996 I 962 1966 1962 1969 I 962 iaaa 1962 i9aa 76 96 60 36 53 64 14 15 39 0 73 66 231 242 200 246 57 157 72 228 434 171 219 239 193 197 238 255 156 176 151 209 0 137 195 204 125 122 182 182 122 133 66 95 71 127 131 130 Note: Frgures show Justice work force as a percentage of the national CLF. Numbars in bold indicate areas of underrepresentation. ‘Did not examrne because category has less than 100 employees either as of December 1962 or December 1988. Female White Black Hispanic Asian American lndlrn Total Fernslo 1982 iaaa 1992 iaaa 1962 _______- I 966 1962 iaaa I 962 1986 1962 19aa -- 27 59 ai 152 0 17 75 45 0 0 30 66 - 31 73 50 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 71 Note. Frgures show Justice work force as a percentage of the national CLF. Numbers WIbold indicate areas of underrepresentatron ‘Drd not examine because category had less than 100 employees as of December 1982or December 1988. page 49 GAO/GGD911 Justice EEO Underrep-tation Appendix IV Mhxity and Female F&presentation Witbin Justice Bureaum by PATCO Occupation White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female I 962 iaaa 1962 1966 1962 1966 1962 1966 I 962 1966 I 962 1968 43 96 63 63 307 247 31 91 0 0 53 101 51 57 116 185 244 385 75 317 45 66 66 69 63 66 219 260 275 368 128 192 0 125 96 112 65 64 296 266 .__ 247 343 117 231 129- 145 106 110 19 32 15 53 110 307 0 72 0 72 23 5; Note Ftgures show Justice work force as a percentage of the national CLF. Numbers rn bold indrcate areas of underrepresentation Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female 1962 1966 1962 1966 1962 1966 i 962 1996 1962 1966 1962 1966 90 101 74 53 -- ia 17 31 14 39 60 64 91 130 147 434 448 76 165 100 156 0 36 157 177 125 114 577 610 50 60 50 60 56 187 180 179 69 73 399 460 16 157 36 49 115 62 123 127 140 139 786 970 113 399 0 0 703 496 245 288 Note, Figures show Justice work force as a percentage of the national CLF Numbers rn bold rndrcate areas of underrepresentatron Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female I 962 iaaa 1962 1966 I 962 1966 1962 i 966 1962 - iaaa 1962 1966 96 36 250 46 0 27 0 0 ~-.____-__ 512 34 110 36 200 200 185 175 176 171 235 91 411 320 198 193 60 234 56 96 56 175 0 311 0 311 56 210 Note Frgures show Justrce work force as a percentage of the national CLF Numbers in bold indicate areas of underrepresentation aDrd not examrne because category had less than 100 employees erther as of December 1982 or December 1999 Page 61 GAO/GGD918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix V Minority and Female Represent&on Within Juetiee’s Bureau Key Jobs Female White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Total Female 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 174 217 251 141 146 145 142 114 123 98 177 200 80 100 78 42 49 48 24 19 38 30 78 90 18 24 8 10 111 263 --- 0 .~~~~__. 28 0 28 19 38 57 81 230 266 93 105 -.-- 0 20 27 79 87 98 9 22 20 32 19 78 14 38 0 19 10 25 80 109 52 22 58 159 _... 0 0 0 0 57 98 81 80 124 216 350 557 70 407 60 61 00 102 Note Figures show Justice work force as a percentage of the national CLF. Thustype of percentage Index, called an underrepresentation Index by EEOC and OPM, indicates the extent to which a partic- ular EEO group ISrepresented in a work force as compared to the group’s representation in the CLF. The Index can range from 0 to lOO+, with lM3 indicating full representation and lower numbers indl- catmg underrepresentatlon Numbers In bold indicate areas of underrepresentation. Wslng occupation-specrfic CLF data for attorneys. bUslng broader professional CLF data Page 5.3 GAODXD91-I) Justice JZEO Underrepresentation Ordering Information The first five copies of each GAO report are free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accom- panied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Galthersburg, MD 20877 Appendix VI Major Contributors to This Report Steven J. Wozny, Assistant Director, Federal Human Resource Manage- General Government ment Issues Division, Washington, Steven G. Hunichen, Project Director DC. Jeffery A. Bass, Evaluator-in-Charge Clifton G. Douglas, Jr., Staff Evaluator Loretta Evans, Secretary Michael Volpe I, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General James M. Rebk,L.,. N,LULIL+ZY-~UYISVI- *cc^..-..-. A-3-.1--- Counsel, Washington, (saess7) Page 64 GAO/GGD-910 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix V Minority and Female Representation Within Justice’s Bureau Key Jobs Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category - - 1982 1900 1982 1988 1982 i 980 1982 1908 Attorney’ 221 123 102 104 73 a4 02 52 Attorneyb 175 97 66 67 16 18 56 37 Border Patrol Agent 11 16 501 685 55 01 23 34 Correctional Officer 217 229 156 152 34 56 98 108 Criminal Investigator 172 210 369 380 67 121 205 236 Deputy US Marshal 178 34 98 66 53 147 77 0 Immigration Inspector 72 92 469 658 76 236 80 97 Page 52 GAO/GGD918 Justice JZEO Underrepreaen~tion Appendix IV Mhority md Female Bepresentation Within Justice Bureaus by PA!K!Q Occup&ion Table iV.5: immigration and Naturalization Service Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category 1982 1986 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1988 Professional 60 132 130 130 14 40 0 0 Administrative 86 99 361 548 73 190 64 85 Technical 230 165 667 592 86 136 116 78 ClerIcal 234 157 332 290 193 148 64 249 Other 19 21 514 679 84 106 22 40 Table IV. 6: Offices. Boards. and Divisions Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category 1982 1988 1982 1968 1982 1988 1982 1988 Professional 129 83 35 54 14 20 48 37 AdmInIstrative 210 170 74 67 36 74 32 38 TechnIcal 239 268 6 14 0 29 0 a Clerical 263 121 4 40 0 44 0 0 Other 455 273 -- 13 19 260 122 83 59 Table IV. 7: United States Marshal’s Service Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1986 1982 1988 ProfessIonala Admlnlstratwe 263 266 63 175 0 43 0 288 Technical 40 63 13 21 .29 45 0 0 Clerical” Other 178 50 97 70 53 115 76 0 Page 60 GAO/GGDI)lS Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix IV Minority and Female Beprwentation Wlthh Justice Bureaus by PA!l-CO Occupation Table iV.3: Executive Office for U.S. Attornevs Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category 1982 1988 1982 1986 1982 1988 1982 1988 ProfessIonal 240 122 86 74 20 17 72 41 Administrative 122 48 27 32 0 40 0 45 TechnIcal 78 24 0 13 28 0 0 0 Clewal 53 55 17 20 47 34 0 0 Other” Table IV. 4: Federal Prison Svstem Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Cateaorv 1982 1988 1982 1986 1982 1988 1982 1988 Professional* Administrative 147 169 83 132 106 64 239 142 TechnIcala Clericala Other 97 114 141 157 37 64 177 103 Page 49 GAO/GM%918 Justice EEO Underreprwentation Appendix IV Minority and Female Representation Within Justice Bureaus by PATCOOccupation Table IV.1: Bureau of Prisons Male Black -.--._ Hispanic Asian American Indian Category 1962 i9aa 7- 1982 1988 1982 19aa 1982 iQaQ ProfessIonal -_- 7RR --- ml=, .-- 155 IA1 Al A0 Yao ,oc. Administrative 279 268 158 1317 27 36 208 136 Technical 221 182 180 240 10 138 100 217 Clerical 123 48 72 21 0 39 113 0 Other 192 205 146 143 36 RR RR 119 Table IV. 2: Drug Enforcement Administration Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category 1962 1968 1962 1966 1982 1988 1982 1968 Professional 313 246 169 114 124 130 0 0 Administrative 206 209 297 274 75 105 265______- 241 Technical 184 182 81 95 0 47 145 0 Clerical 69 100 25 16 0 0 0_____- 171 Othera Page 46 GAO/GGD91-8 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix III Minority and Female Representation at Justice by PATCOOccupation Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category I 982 I 988 1962 1968 1982 1986 1982 1968 ProfessIonal 204 148 65 65 25 30 94 61 Administratwe 163 170 261 314 61 115 135 143 TechnIcal 197 160 253 239 33 a3 70 73 Clerical 170 111 141 123 a3 77 36 115 Other 148 129 227 319 54 61 76 62 Page 44 GAO/GGD918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II AvailabilIty of Data and Stahu of Minority and Female Representation at Justice incumbent to demonstrate “an awareness of and sensitivity to EEO prin- ciples and concepts when recruiting, evaluating, and selecting individ- uals for vacancies or promotions; affording employees opportunities for training or other developmental assignments; and evaluating employees performance or recognizing employee accomplishments.” In our view, the EEO element of this work plan is vaguely written; the other five work plans are written in a similar manner. Thus, in our view, Justice executives are not held specifically account- able in either the affirmative employment plan or their performance plans for the Em program’s successes or failures. This, we believe, can be changed in a practical way. As said earlier, we believe Justice’s affirmative action plan should contain numerical goals for hiring and promoting minorities and females. The plan should also define the actions necessary to attain those goals and the names of officials or posi- tions responsible for carrying out those actions. Those officials should be part of the process that determines what action items go into the affirmative employment plan. In order to avoid treatment of goals as quotas, we would not include numerical goals in executives’ performance work plans. We would, how- ever, put into the work plans the action items needed to accomplish the goals and hold the responsible executives accountable for carrying out those actions. This accountability would be reflected in the executives’ performance ratings. We recognize that the action items could be satis- factorily implemented without achieving the related goal. Failure to reach the goal need not be a negative reflection on the executive’s per- formance. However, it may suggest a need to reexamine the appropri- ateness of the numerical goal and the related action items. Page 42 GAO/GGB918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation A~F-?&Lx II AvallabUlty of Data and Stahm of Mhmity and Female Representrtion at Justice that the change provides agencies with more responsibility and flexi- bility in doing what they believe is necessary to meet their EEOneeds. No Goals in Justice’s Plans Justice did not include numerical goals in either of its two 5-year affirm- ative employment plans. The EEOCnever approved the first plan because Justice refused to follow EEOC’srequirement to do underrepresentation analysis and set numerical goals for underrepresented groups. The EEOC has approved Justice’s current affirmative employment plan; it contains comparisons to the CLF. Justice has a policy that prohibits use of numerical goals for EEOactivi- ties because it believes numerical goals are tantamount to quotas. The EEOCdoes not view goals in this manner. Numerical goals, the EEOChas said, are intended to provide management with a flexible tool to improve efforts to increase representation of targeted EECIgroups, According to the EEOC,numerical goals do not require or mandate the selection of unqualified persons or preferential treatment based on race, national origin, or gender; and the goals must be reasonable. That is, they must have a reasonable relation to the extent of underrepresenta- tion, the availability of candidates, and the number of vacancies. Other federal agencies have employed numerical goals as an aid in moving towards full representation. For example, in response to a rec- ommendation we made in 1989 regarding underrepresentation in the Foreign Service,4 the Department of State said it agreed that greater specificity in goal-setting could aid in eliminating underrepresentation, and agreed to take steps to alter its f&year affirmative employment plan as needed. The US. Army Post at Fort Lee, Virginia, included numerical goals in its 1988 to 1992 affirmative employment plan although such goal-setting was not required by the EEOC.These goals included adding a certain number of minorities and white women to specific targeted civilian job series over the &year period and a numerical goal to address underrepresentation at higher civilian grades (grades 13 through 15).” %ate Department: MinoritiesandWomenAre Underrepresented in theForeignService(GAO/ N’!?SAD-89-146, June26,1989). 5WereportedonFort Lee’sEEOprogramfor civilianpersonnelin Representation of MinoritwsandWhik Womenat FortLeeArmy Jan.17,1990). Page 40 GAO/GGD.91-8 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice applicants are qualified. Having such information, we believe, would help Justice improve its efforts to bring full EEO representation to all key jobs. Representation at Upper The General Schedule (GS) pay system is the primary pay system for civilian employees of the federal government. It has levels or grades; the Grade Levels higher the grade, the greater the responsibility and pay. The Gs system includes employees covered by the Performance Management and Rec- ognition System. Employees in the Performance Management and Recog- nition System are identified by the General Management (GM) pay plan designation and occupy positions in grades 13 to 15. People in these grades are often considered the government’s middle managers. The government’s career senior executives (upper level managers) are paid through the SESpay system. As figure II.2 shows, females across all ethnic groups had not achieved full representation in the SESand at grades 13 through 15. Although most had achieved full representation at grades 1through 12 combined, white and American Indian females had not. The results for minority males were uneven. Black and Asian males were fully represented in the SES;Hispanic and American Indian males were not. Hispanic and Amer- ican Indian males were fully represented at grades 13-15; black and Asian males were not. All male minority groups were fully represented in grades 1 through 12 combined. Page 38 GAO/GGD9143 Justice EE4l Underrepresentation . Appendix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at .Justice Table 11.5:Number and Percentage of Justice’s 1988 New Hires Who Were Minorities and Females Compared to Their Percentages in the CLF (for Key Jobs) Total Black Hispal nit Job series Hired Hired Justice CLF Hired Jusi ---lice CLF Attorneyb 298 5 1 7% a 4 1.3% a AttorneyC 298 5 17 2 33 4 1.3 2.16% Border Patrol Agent 1619 40 2.5 8 34 488 30.1 -a Correctional Officer 1448 282 195 a 110 7.6 a Crlmmal Investigator 528 51 ~~ g, a --~~~ 35 66 -a Deputy U.S. Marshal 211 0 00 8.34 0 0.0 4.77 Immigration Inspector 389 18 4.1 3.84 95 24 4 a Female White Black Job series Hired Justice CLF Hired Justice CLF Attorneyb 89 29 9% a 3 1 .O% B AttorneyC 89 29.9% 28.85% 3 IO 2 79% Border Patrol Agent 40 25 7 71 4 0.2 1.61 Correctional Officer 95 66 7 71 75 57 a Criminal lnvestlgator 47 89 26 57 6 1.1 3.13 Deputy U.S Marshal 17 81 a 0 00 1 Ii1 lmmigratlon Inspector 43 11 1 26 57 9 2.3 a Page 36 GAO/GGDSlS Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix Jl Availability of Data and Status of Minchy and Female Representation at Justice Table 11.4:Numbers of Minorities and Females Needed to Reach Full Representation, by Pay Grade, in Justice Key Jobs as of December 1988 Number Needed to Reach Full Representation Male Female Grade American American Job Title’ Grouping Black Hispanic Asian Indian White Black Hispanic Asian Indian Attorneyb II-12 - 4 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 13-15 0 1 0 13-15L2 :, 1 z : : 1 i 1 : 1 0 3 0 1 l-l 0 ADd 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 i i Attorneye 11-12 : 1; 3: i z 2; 3 3 0 13-15 12 11 1 13-15(GM) 3 3 9 1 28 2 0 5 1 SES’ 2 AD i 1: 5: i i: 5: 13 2: i Crtminal 5-7 E i E : 6;; 6 lnvesttgator 9-12 2 E 1: i 13-14 245 8 2 13-15(GM) i E A z 279 29 12 z 1 Border Patrol 5-7 0 8 90 2 Agent 9-12 1:: E 4 12 145 E E : 1 13-15(GM) 13 .- 0 1 1 12 8 1 n n immigration 3-7 0 108 Inspector 9-12 A 197 13-15(GM) 3 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 Deputy 5-7 16 i i ; : 4 U S. Marshal 9-12 13 2 i z t Correcttonal 5-8 E 13 6 134 3 0 Officer 9-12 4 1 35 i i 1 1 aJusttce’s total work force for each lob trtle as of December 1986 was: attorney-5.083; crtmrnal investr- gator-6,211, border patrol agent-4,224, rmmtgratroninspector-WOO, deputy US marshal-561, and correctronal officer-5.629 ‘Usrng occupation-specrftc CLF data for attorneys ‘GM refers to parsons In the Performance Management and Recognthon pay system. Seep 36 dAD refers to attorneys whose salares are “admmlstratwely determined” by the Attorney General and are not 1-1the GS and GM pay systems ‘Using broad profewonal CLF data For each job, Justice provided the number of minority and female employees at each grade level as of December 1988. We then compared these numbers to our estimates of the numbers needed for full represen- tation. For example, since black males make up 1.8 percent of the attorney category in CLF data, we applied that percentage to the total number of attorneys employed at each grade level. The resulting number was the estimated number of black male attorneys needed for full repre- sentation. We then compared the fully representative number with the Page 34 GAO/GGDSlS Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II AvailabUity of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice Table 11.3:Representation of Justice’s Work Force by Justice’s Key Jobs Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Cateaorv - - 1982 1900 1982 1988 1982 1988 1982 1908 Attorneya X X X X 0 0 0 0 Attorneyb X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Border Patrol Agent 0 0 X X 0 0 0 0 Correctional Officer X X X X 0 0 0 X Criminal Investigator X X X X 0 X X X Deputy U S Marshal 0 0 lmmlgratlon Inspector 0 Wslng occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys %slng broader professional CLF data Page 32 GAO/GGDSl-&? Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice Where there was underrepresentation, it was often severe. All of the bureaus had categories where representation was 50 percent or less. Usually, this representation level existed in anywhere from about one- half to three-fourths of the underrepresented categories in each bureau. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was outside this one-half- to-three-fourths range. Of categories with underrepresentation, about 29 percent of those in the Immigration Service had representation levels of 50 percent or less. (App. IV contains the PATCOtable for each bureau.) Severe underrepresentation existed in 76, or about 27 percent, of the 280 EEO categories across all seven bureaus as of December 1988. Overall, slightly more than one-half (51 percent) of the 280 categories had some degree of underrepresentation. Justice in Comparison to We compared Justice’s EEO profile for two PATCOcategories-profes- Other Agencies sional and administrative-with like profiles from the 12 other agencies that had cabinet-level status in December 1988, the date of the data we used. (The 12 are the same as those listed in footnote 1.) We made the comparison to determine where Justice’s minority and female represen- tation stands in comparison to the other cabinet agencies for the two occupational categories. We used the professional and administrative categories because, of all PATCOcategories, they experienced the most significant growth over the 1982 to 1988 period in the number of employees governmentwide. To make our comparison, we determined representation levels at each agency in relation to the CLF and ranked the agencies on the basis of those levels. As table II.2 shows, Justice frequently compares favorably with the other 12 agencies on representation levels in the administrative cate- gory. However, it compares far less favorably on representation in the professional category. Like Justice, all of the other 12 agencies had EEO groups that were underrepresented in the professional and administra- tive categories. On average, the 12 agencies had 5.4 groups in the profes- sional category with underrepresentation and 3.3 groups in the administrative category. In comparison, Justice had nine under- represented EEO groups in the professional category and three in the administrative category. Page 30 GAO/GGD91-8 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II Availability of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice Table 11.1:Representation of Justice’s Work Force by PATCO Occupational Categories (1982 and 1988) Male Black Hispanic Asian American Indian Category 1992 1988 1902 1908 1992 1980 1982 1998 ProfessIonal X ~.-__-- X~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 AdminIstratIve X X X X 0 X X x TechnIcal - ~~ -- X X X X 0 0 0 0 Clerical X X X X 0 0 0 -- X Other X X X X 0 0 0 0 Page 28 GAO/GGB91-8 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Apmmlix II Avaihbillty of D&I and Status of Mhwity and Female Representrtion at Justice As a means of evaluating agencies’ progress in their affirmative employ- Progress Made but ment efforts, EEOCexamines work force data to see if there is positive Widespread change in the participation of Em groups. One set of data it examines Underrepresentation represents an agency’s work force in the PATCO white-collar occupational categories; another represents an agency’s work force by its key jobs. Remains We made various comparisons using PATCO and key job data to determine where minority and female representation stands at Justice. Between the two approaches, PATCO provides a broader view. On the other hand, key jobs, by their very classification as key, provide more precise insight about representation at Justice. PATCO Representation Of Justice’s 50 PATCO categories (10 EEQ groups x 5 PATCO categories), minority and female representation increased in 40 categories between 1982 and 1988. These increases pushed representation up enough that the number of categories with underrepresentation dropped from 30 in 1982 to 21 in 1988, as table II.1 shows. Moreover, of this 21, representa- tion was from 90 to 98 percent in 5 categories. However, even though Justice has made progress, the 21 underrepresented categories means that 42 percent of the PATCO categories at Justice still do not reflect the relative minority and female makeup of the CLF. (App. III shows repre- sentation levels for the 50 categories in 1982 and 1988.) Page 26 GAO/GGD91-9 Justice EJXI Underrepresentation Appendix U AvailabilIty of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice For example using occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys, the level of representation of black male attorneys at Justice declined slightly between 1987 and 1988, going from 125 percent of the CLF to 123 per- cent. But when analyzing their employment from 1982 through 1988, a different picture emerges As figure II. 1 shows, a steep decline occurred from 1982, when the number of black male attorneys represented about 221 percent of the CLF, to 1987 and 1988, when they were just above half of their 1982 representation level. The downward trend of Justice’s black male attorney work force remains when using the broader profes- sional CLFdata as a base, however the percentages become 99,97, and 175, respectively. Justice officials did not know why black male attor- neys were leaving the agency but acknowledged it was a problem they needed to address. This example, we believe, demonstrates that long- term trend analyses are needed to provide a more complete picture of program results. Figure 11.1:Trend Line Showlng Representation of Black Males in Justice 240 Percentage Representation Attorney Occupations (1982-l 988) 220 200 190 160 140 120 7 1W -----llllm- 90 60 40 20 0 1962 1963 1964 1966 1666 1967 1966 Year - Using attorneyCLF data - --- Using professionalCLF data Percentage representation ISthe rate that black males are represented I” Justice’s attorney work force as compared to that group’s representation in the corresponding national CLF occupational category wthout regard to pay level Page 24 GAO/GGD91-8 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix II AvailabiUty of Data and Status of Minority and Female Representation at Justice form, agencies are to develop and implement their own means of col- lecting applicant data as they see the need for such data. Since issuing the supplement, the EEOC has developed a draft form. According to an EEOCofficial, the draft was submitted on August 1, 1990, to the EEOC Commissioners for approval. The official was unable to predict when the Commissioners would review the draft. If the Commissioners approve the form, it must then be sent to OMB for approval. According to the official, the form can be given to agencies for their use after OMB'S approval is obtained. We believe Justice should develop its own means of collecting applicant data rather than waiting for the EEOC'S form. This is because (1) Justice has an acknowledged need for the data, (2) there is no assurance that EEOC'S form will enable Justice to capture all of the data it may need, (3) the length of time it will take to obtain all approvals is unknown, and (4) there is no guarantee that the form will be approved. Other agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, have developed their own forms for capturing applicant data. As a means of accelerating development, Justice may wish to review these forms to determine if they can be adapted to its needs. The EEOC requires agencies to prepare affirmative employment plans Late and Incomplete and to submit those plans to it for approval. The plans cover 5-year Submissions of periods, and the EEOC requires agencies to submit annual updates and Affirmative accomplishment reports. The first 5-year plan required by the EEOC cov- ered fiscal years 1982 through 1986, and as fiscal year 1987 drew near, Employment Plans the EEOC had agencies update and extend it to fiscal year 1987. The second and current plan covers fiscal years 1988 through 1992. Justice was late in submitting the first plan. It submitted the plan on July 19, 1983, about 21 months after it was due. Justice was also late in submitting the current plan. The EEOCissued guidance for developing the current plan in October 1987 (Management Directive 714) and Jan- uary 1988. The current plan was due to EEOCby April 15,1988. EEOC received Justice’s plan on July 29, 1989, or about 15 months late. According to Justice officials, the current plan was late because (1) Management Directive 714, in comparison to the directive it replaced, put greater emphasis on the identification of internal barriers to full representation and the actions necessary to remove them, and (2) there was inherent difficulty in collecting necessary data from the many offices and bureaus that make up the Justice Department, However, Page 22 GAO/GGD918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology The most recent applicable CLF data was for 1980. We recognize that, because of the age of the data, the 1980 CLF data may not reflect the various EEO groups’ current overall representation in the labor force. Page 20 GAO/GGDSl-(I Justice EEO UnderrepresentatIon Appendix I Objectives, Scope,and Methodology As agreed with the Subcommittee, the objectives of our review were to (1) determine whether Justice has the data necessary to evaluate the success of its efforts to recruit, hire, and promote minorities and women and (2) where evaluation data existed, determine the success of Jus- tice’s efforts. We reviewed relevant EEO statutes, regulations, and guidance issued by Justice and the EEOC. We also obtained and reviewed documents from Justice as well as EEOC reports and program evaluation guides. For example, we reviewed Justice’s past and current affirmative employ- ment plans, accomplishment reports, and updates that cover fiscal years 1982 through 1992. We interviewed Justice’s EEO officials at the head- quarters and bureau level. We also interviewed Federal Sector Programs officials in the EEOC'S Office of Program Operations, which is responsible for reviewing and approving agencies’ affirmative employment plans. Because the information in Justice’s EEO monitoring reports was not presented in a way we could use, we requested an array of information from the agency’s computerized human resource management informa- tion system. This system is Justice’s source for all work force profile data. Justice officials attributed the more than 2 months’ delivery time for the data to such factors as (1) a physical relocation of Justice’s data center, (2) having only one analyst available to retrieve the data from the information system, and (3) verifying the data being provided. The data obtained covered the 6 years from December 1982 to December 1988, and included profiles of Justice’s labor force by PATCO category, key job, and pay grade. We did not examine EEOprofile data on Justice’s blue-collar work force since (1) the blue-collar work force comprised less than 5 percent of Justice’s non-km work force, (2) Justice’s blue-collar work force does not contain any of the key occupations Justice has targeted for priority emphasis in its equal employment opportunity efforts, and (3) the blue-collar pay and grading systems are not compa- rable to the white-collar pay and grading systems. For ease in presenta- tion, in most cases this report shows data for only the beginning and ending dates-December 1982 and December 1988. Although we did not show them in the report, trend lines over the entire period were usually consistently upward or downward. That is, if a comparison between the 1982 and 1988 dates showed an increase or a decrease, the trend line over the entire 6 years generally showed a constant increase or decrease. Page18 Contents Abbreviations CLF Civilian Labor Force EEO Equal Employment Opportunity EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation GM General Management GS General Schedule OMB Office of Management and Budget OPM Office of Personnel Management PATCO professional, administrative, technical, clerical, and other SE3 Senior Executive Service Page 16 GAO/GGDBM JustIce EEO Underrepresentation Contents Letter 1 Appendix I 18 Objectives, Scope,and Methodology Appendix II 21 Availability of Data Data Available on Hiring and Promoting but Not Recruiting 21 and Status of Minority Late and Incomplete Submissions of Affirmative 22 and Female Employment Plans Representation at Justice Should Systematically Use Long-Term Trend 23 Analysis Justice Progress Made but Widespread Underrepresentation 26 Remains Justice Should Employ Numerical Goals 39 Appendix III 44 Minority and Female Representation at Justice by PATCO Occupation Appendix IV 46 Minority and Female Representation Within Justice Bureaus by PATCOOccupation Appendix V 52 Minority and Female Representation Within Justice’s Key Jobs Page 14 GAO/GGD-918 Justice EEO Underrepresentation B-240676 Neither had Justice sought or received the required EEOCapproval to use American Bar Association data or any other source of attorney-specific data as a basis of comparison. Accordingly, we did not believe it appro- priate for Justice to use American Bar Association data. Conceptually, we agree that comparison of occupation-specific data should provide a more precise measure than comparison to the broader civilian labor force professional data. Given Justice’s comment, we obtained attorney-specific CLFdata from EEOC and compared that data with Justice’s attorney work force data. The comparison showed a more favorable assessment of minority and female representation in Justice’s attorney jobs. For example, using the occupation-specific CLF data for attorneys, only 3 of 10 EEO groups were underrepresented as of December 1988 compared to 9 of 10 when using the broader profes- sional CLF data. Justice officials agreed that the agency’s performance work plans for SESpersonnel lacked specificity in the El30 area. However, they said that the lack of specificity applied throughout the work plans and not just the EEO area. Department officials maintain that the generalities within the work plans flow from the agency’s overall policy against goals and numerical objectives. As stated in our report, we believe the use of numerical goals and increased EEO accountability can help improve Jus- tice’s EEO profile. - As arranged with the Subcommittee, unless you publicly release its con- tents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Attorney General; the Chairman, EEOC; and other interested parties. Page12 B240676 uses, Justice officials agreed that using long-term trend data and anal- yses on a more comprehensive and systematic basis could enable them to better identify or forecast these and other potential problem areas. Justice needs to strengthen the management of its Em program. Affirm- Conclusions ative employment plans have been submitted significantly late and per- formance work plans lack the specificity to hold appropriate SES members truly accountable for EEO matters. Although Justice had data on its efforts to hire and promote minorities and women, it has been slow in accumulating and analyzing information about its recruiting efforts. Justice has made occasional, but not systematic, use of long- term trend data. Justice refused to use numerical goals as a management tool for increasing minority and female representation when use of such goals was required by EEOC and has chosen not to use numerical goals now that their use is optional. All of this is not to say that Justice has failed to make progress in moving toward full representation. It has. But it still has a long way to go. After years of effort, underrepresentation existed in at least 33 of the 60 key job categories, with a minimum of 18 categories reflecting severe underrepresentation. These key jobs, according to Justice, were the focus of its Em recruiting, hiring and promotion efforts. This contin- uing condition clearly indicates a need for Justice to do more to enhance the prospects for improving its Em program. For Justice to meet these needs, we believe that it should do more in (1) collecting and analyzing recruiting and long-term trend data, (2) holding appropriate SESmem- bers more accountable for Em matters, and (3) employing numerical goals in affirmative employment plans as an aid to increasing representation. In order to avoid treatment of numerical goals as quotas, numerical goals could be excluded from executives’ performance work plans. How- ever, through the performance rating process, executives should be held accountable for carrying out the action items needed to accomplish both numerical and narrative goals. We recognize that the action items could be satisfactorily implemented without achieving the related goal. Failure to reach a goal need not be a negative reflection on the execu- tives’ performance; however, it may suggest a need to reexamine the appropriateness of the goal and the related action items. Page 10 GAO/GGDSl-(I Justice EEO Undempresentation B-240676 the SESor at grades 13 through 15. For minority males, the situation was uneven. Of the four male groups, Hispanic and American Indian males were at full representation at grades 13 through 15 but not at the SES level; black and Asian males were fully represented in the SESbut not at grades 13 through 15. Justice Compared to Other We compared the minority and female profiles of Justice’s professional and administrative work forces with corresponding profiles from the 12 Agencies other agencies that had cabinet-level status as of December 1988. We used the professional and administrative categories because out of all PA'I'CO categories, they experienced the most significant growth over the 1982-1988 period in the number of employees governmentwide. To make our comparison, we determined representation levels at each agency in relation to the CLF. Justice compared more favorably to the other cabinet agencies in the administrative category than it did in the professional category. Justice had 3 underrepresented EEO groups in the administrative category; the 12 other agencies had, on average, 3.3 groups with underrepresentation in the administrative category. Justice had 9 underrepresented EECI groups in the professional category; the other 12 agencies averaged 5.4 groups with underrepresentation. To enhance its EEO program, we believe Justice should add numerical Justice Should Use goals to its affirmative employment plans and hold executives account- Numerical Goals able, through the performance rating process, for the actions necessary to accomplish those goals. Justice should use such goals, we believe, to seek full representation across pay grades as well as within jobs and bureaus. Justice has not used numerical goals in working toward a labor force that is representative of the CLF. The EEOC no longer requires agencies to use numerical goals but gives agencies the option of using them. According to the EEOC, numerical goals reflect management’s commit- ment to overcoming underrepresentation, while providing measurable objectives for managers to aim toward when recruiting, hiring, and pro- moting staff. Justice chooses not to use goals because it views them as tantamount to quotas. We do not share that view. Like the EEOC, we believe numerical pages B24lltm Justice has been late in submitting its affirmative employment plans to Late and Incomplete EEOC for approval. EEOC has required agencies to submit 5-year affirma- Submission of tive employment plans since 1981, and Justice has been late in submit- Affirmative ting both of the required plans. It was about 21 months late in submitting the first plan and 15 months late in submitting the second Employment Plans (current) plan. Justice officials said the current plan was late because (1) there was a change in emphasis prescribed by Management Directive 714 and (2) there were inherent difficulties in collecting data from the many offices and bureaus that make up the Justice Department. All but 1 of 12 other cabinet-level agencies submitted their current plans 3 to 16 months earlier than Justice; 1 submitted its plan after Justice. In addition to being late, both plans were incomplete. The first plan did not (1) contain the data analysis required by EEOC to identify areas of underrepresentation, or (2) the goal setting required by Management Directive 707, the predecessor to Management Directive 714, to address those areas of underrepresentation. The second plan did not contain the EEoc-required comparison data Justice was to have used to analyze the representation of minorities and females within its six key jobs. Notwithstanding the lack of recruitment data and untimely plan submis- Progress Made But sions, Justice has made progress in increasing minority and female rep- Underrepresentation resentation in its work force. We made various analyses using PATHI and Remains Widespread key job data to determine where minority and female representation stands at Justice. The PATCO data cover all white-collar positions at Jus- tice and thus provide a broad overview of minority and female represen- tation throughout Justice. While Justice’s EFJJefforts cover all jobs, those efforts focus on certain jobs. The key jobs data cover those six jobs that Justice’s affirmative employment plans say are the focus of the agency’s EEO recruiting, hiring, and promotion efforts. In our anal- ysis, we looked at each of the 10 EEXIgroups within each of the PATCO occupational categories and key jobs. In total, we examined 50 EEO groups or categories using PATGOdivisions (10 EEO groups x 5 PATCOoccu- pational categories) and 60 categories using key jobs (10 EEO groups x 6 key jobs). For many of the PATCOand key job categories, representation grew between 1982 and 1988. This was true for 40 of the 50 PATCO categories and 46 of the 60 key job categories. In some instances, a category was at full representation before the increase. But in most instances, the increase moved the EEO group closer to full representation or achieved it. In fact, the number of categories where underrepresentation existed in the most recent census. The CLFrepresents, in general terms, all per- sons who are employed or seeking employment. Since Justice recruits nationally for its key occupations, we used national CLF data, in accor- dance with EEOCstandards. At our request, Justice provided profiles of its work force for calendar years 1982 through 1988. The last year for which data were available at the time we collected the data was 1988. We used this information, sepa- rated into PATCQand key job categories, to determine if and where underrepresentation existed. To gauge representation, the Em grouped (1) the federal government’s 420 white collar jobs into the five PATCOcategories and (2) each CLFoccu- pation into the same PATCXJcategory as its federal counterpart, with some exceptions. EEOCuses the PATCo-grouped CLFdata as the base against which it compares work force data that agencies align by PATCO category and key job. It also instructs agencies to do the same; that is, use the PA’rCC-groupCLFdata as the base of comparison. However, there can be alternatives to using this base. For example, if the broader professional CLFcategory yields “a seriously-distorted avall- ablity figure for a particular professional occupational series,” the EEOC, according to the federal program manager, permits agencies to use, where available, occupation-specific CLFdata. CLF data must be used unless approval for other data is obtained from EEOC. “Attorney” is one of the occupations that goes into making up the professional category, and CLF data for attorneys are available. It is the only such key job at Justice. Thus, in analyzing the EEO profile of the attorney work force at Justice, we used as our base of comparison both the occupation-specific data and the broader professional data. For reporting purposes, we show both sets of data. In analyzing work force data for underrepresentation, we used a term and definition that EEOC had formerly used: “severe underrepresenta- tion,” which exists when representation is 50 percent or less of the CLF. The EEOC applied this definition for several years through December 1987. During this period, the EEOCdirected agencies to double their hiring goals for EEO groups suffering severe underrepresentation. The EEOC, however, has not applied this term and definition since Jan- uary 1988. Since then, the EEOC, through Management Directive 714, has page4 B-240676 across Justice at pay levels above the grade 12 level and (2) within five of Justice’s six key jobs, especially border patrol agent and criminal investigator. We reviewed, for example, the December 1988 work force profile of 10 minority and female groups in each key job, and the underrepresenta- tion level was severe-50 percent or less of the cm---for nearly one- third of the 60 categories (10 groups X 6 jobs). However, our use of occupation-specific data for attorneys significantly enhanced Justice’s representation profile over that derived from using the broader CLF data. In addition to collecting and analyzing recruiting data, Justice could enhance its prospects for improving its affirmative action program by (1) systematically analyzing data for periods of several years to estab- lish trend lines, (2) adding to its affirmative employment plan numerical goals for increasing minority and female representation, and (3) holding executives more accountable for carrying out actions needed to reach its goals. Justice continues to view numerical goals as quotas and does not use them for that reason. The EEOC gives agencies the option of using numer- ical goals. It views numerical goals as a flexible tool that management can use for increasing representation and, unlike quotas, not requiring preferential treatment of minorities and females without regard to qual- ifications. We share the EEOC’Sviews. The Justice Department, with over 50,000 non-FBI employees, is the Background nation’s principal law enforcement agency. Through various bureaus, offices, boards, and divisions, it undertakes such federal law enforce- ment activities as investigating and litigating civil and criminal cases, combating illegal drug trafficking, policing the nation’s borders, and housing convicted criminals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, requires federal agencies to develop and implement affirmative action programs to eliminate the historic under- representation of minorities and women in the work force. The EEOCis responsible for providing agencies with guidance on their affirmative action programs. EEOC’S Management Directive 714, issued in October 1987, assigns agency heads responsibility for ensuring compliance with Page 2 GAO/GGDSlS Justice EEO Underrepresentation
EEO at Justice: Progress Made but Underrepresentation Remains Widespread
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-10-02.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)