HUMAN RESOURCES/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Environmental Protection Agency—Region 1 May 1987 Marlene G. Fine, PhD University of Massachusetts at Boston Fern L. Johnson, PhD University of Massachusetts at Amherst M. Sallyanne Ryan University of Massachusetts at Amherst This report was prepared under contract number 68-02-4340. ------- Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Demographic Profile 5 III. Working in EPA-Region 1 19 IV. Awards and recognitions 30 V. Evaluation of Training Programs 34 VI. Promotions and Career Development 42 VII. Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity 56 VIII. Sexual Harassment 62 IX. Special Emphases Programs 66 X. Family-Related Issues 73 XI. Open-Ended Questions 77 Appendix A: Open-Ended Questions 93 Appendix B: Needs Assessment Questionnaire 97 ------- List of Tables Chapter n Page Table 1: Ethnic/Racial Breakdown of Sample and Actual Workforce 7 Table 2: Female and Male Employees by Job Category 10 Table 3: Minority and White Employees by Job Category 12 Table 4: Female and Male Employees by Grade Level 13 Table 5: Minority and White Employees by Grade Level 14 Table 6: Female and Male Employees by Salary Level 15 Table 7: Minority and White Employees by Salary Level 15 Chapter in Table 8: Gender of Co-Workers by Job Category 20 Table 9: Preferences for Gender and Race of Co-Workers and Supervisors 25 Table 10: Attitudes Toward the Workforce by Gender and Race 27 Chapter IV Table 11: Number of Females and Males Receiving Awards 30 Table 12: Employee Perceptions of Evaluations and Awards 32 Chapter V Table 13: Ratings of Preparation for Current Job 34 Table 14: Ratings of Preparation for Advancement by Race 35 Table 15: EPA's Commitment to Training and Development by Race 36 Table 16: Ratings of Zenger-Miller Programs 38 Table 17: Ratings of Special Topic Seminars by Gender and Race 39 Table 18: Ratings of Programs for Secretaries/Clerks 39 Table 19: Ratings of Lunchtime Learning Series 40 Table 20: Ratings of Federal Women's Program Seminars 40 -ii- ------- Chapter VI Page Table 21: Prerequisites for Promotion by Gender and Race 45 Table 22: Prerequisites for Promotion to Manager by Gender and Race 47 Table 23: Perceived Emphasis on Career Development by Gender 51 Table 24: Perceived Emphasis on Career Development by Race 52 Chapter VII Table 25: Estimates by Gender of Percentage of Female Supervisors 57 Table 26: Estimates by Gender of Percentage of Minority Female Supervisors 58 Table 27: Support for Affirmative Action Goals 59 Chapter VIP Table 28: Responses to Sexual Harassment 64 Chapter IX Table 29: MEOC Activities 71 Chapter X Table 30: Responses to Family-Related Issues by Gender 74 Table 31: Responses to Family-Related Issues by Race 75 Chapter XI Table 32: Profile of Those Completing Long Form 77 Table 33: Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: Whites and Minorities 78 Table 34: Do Women Face Obstacles to Promotion? 79 Table 35: Do Minorities Face Obstacles to Promotion? 80 Table 36: Reasons for Obstacles to Women's Promotion 80 Table 37: Reasons for No Obstacles to Women's Promotion 81 -iii- ------- Chapter XI (continued) Page Table 38: Reasons for Obstacles to Minorities' Promotion 81 Table 39: Reasons for No Obstacles to Minorities' Promotion 82 Table 40: Special Needs of Women 83 Table 41: Special Needs of Minorities 83 Table 42: Affirmative Action Commitment 84 Table 43: EPA-Region 1: Reasons for Affirmative Action Commitment 85 Table 44: EPA-Region 1: Reasons for No Affirmative Action Commitment 85 Table 45: EPA: Reasons for Affirmative Action Commitment 86 Table 46: EPA: Reasons for No Affirmative Action Commitment 86 Table 47: Do Women and Men have Equal Opportunity for Success? 87 Table 48: Reasons Supporting Women's and Men's Equal Opportunity 88 Table 49: Reasons Against Women's and Men's Equal Opportunity 89 Table 50: Do Minorities and Whites have Equal Opportunity for Success? 90 Table 51: Reasons Supporting Minorities'Equal Opportunity 90 Table 52: Reasons Against Minorities' Opportunity 91 -iv- ------- HUMAN RESOURCES/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Environmental Protection Agency—Region 1 I. INTRODUCTION This report represents the culmination of Phase I of the Human Resources/ Affirmative Action Needs Assessment Program. Jointly funded by EPA-Region 1, the Office of Human Resource Management, and the Office of Civil Rights, the project was designed to study the employment needs of women and minorities who work in Region 1 and to develop workshops to help address those needs. Phase I of the project included developing and conducting the Needs Assessment; Phase II, which has begun, will include developing and conducting several workshops that primarily focus on cultural diversity in the workplace. Both phases of the project are based on the assumption that employees must par- ticipate in both designing and implementing any projects that are meant to assess employee needs or address employee concerns. Before developing the questionnaire that was used to collect the data for this report, we conducted focused interviews with Region 1 employees and some personnel at Headquarters who represented a variety of constituencies within the Agency. The questions that appear in the questionnaire appended to this report address issues raised by employees in the interviews. Some of those issues include: barriers which create underrepresentation of women and minori- ties in supervisory and management positions; sexual harassment; training programs for all employees; the impact of equal employment opportunity and Affirmative Action on white males; the career paths of women and minorities; and perceptions of the organizational culture. -1- ------- Description of Questionnaire After completing interviews with a variety of employees at EPA-Region 1 and at EPA Headquarters, the project leaders developed a questionnaire that included items specified in the Statement of Work; items emerging from the interviews; items sug- gested by the Project Officer; and items that, in our own judgment, would enhance the knowledge gained through the Needs Assessment. During the summer of 1986, indi- viduals in Region 1 reviewed and commented on several drafts of the questionnaire. This consultation provided additional feedback from employees about the important issues regarding Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity, and on the structure and clarity of individual questions. Questionnaire. The main body of the questionnaire consists of 102 questions, a number of which contain several parts. The questionnaire is included as Appendix B of this report. All questions were of the survey type, with most requiring a choice among two or more answers provided on the questionnaire itself. A pilot test indicated that employees would need approximately 45 minutes to complete the questionnaire. All 477 employees in Region 1 received this part of the questionnaire; 242 employees completed it, for a response rate of approximately 51 percent. To provide more in-depth data, we also developed an additional section of the questionnaire, which contained 10 open-ended questions. These questions gave employees greater opportunity to explore their perceptions of and attitudes toward employment issues for women and minorities. All minority employees and a random sample of white female and male employees received this additional questionnaire. The questionnaires were distributed on September 2, 1986, under the cover of two letters. The first letter was signed by Paul G. Keough, Deputy Regional Administrator, and Harley F. Laing, Director of the Planning and Management Division; this letter described the purpose of the questionnaire from the perspective of the EPA. The -2- ------- second letter was from the project directors, Drs. Marlene G. Fine and Fern L. Johnson; this letter described the questionnaire and procedures to be used in completing it. Analysis. Answers to the 102 questions in the main body of the questionnaire were converted into a computer-usable file in the form appropriate for use with pro- grams in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Depending on the par- ticular question, either nonparametric or parametric statistical tests were applied to the analysis of responses. In addition to describing the responses of the entire group of employees who participated, we focused our analysis on comparisons of the answers given by women and men and by whites and minorities. Several factors about the data are important to interpreting the results that we report. First, because few minorities work in Region 1, we could not do any type of analysis that looked at the responses of particular minority groups (e.g., Asian Ameri- cans, Blacks). Both statistical constraints about validity and ethical concerns about confidentiality required that we group all minorities together into one category. Second, even when minorities were grouped together, their numbers were still small enough that we could not conduct any statistical analyses in which gender and race comparisons were tested together (e.g., we could not do a two-way analysis of variance testing the gender and race factors) because the substantial disparity in cell sizes made such analyses questionable. Third, in some cases where we tried to analyze the data statistically by job category or division in the Agency, we could not because of empty or extremely small cells. The responses to the open-ended questions were content analyzed. The content analytic procedures are described in Appendix A. Content analysis converts raw data into information that is in codable form so that it can be analyzed using statistical pro- cedures. In this case, the raw data were the written responses provided to the ques- tions. -3- ------- Overview of the Report The report is organized into sections corresponding to major subject areas. There are 10 substantive sections, identified as Chapters II through XI. Each chapter includes a report and analysis of those questions pertaining to the particular subject matter. At the end of each chapter, we have included a Summary of the major findings. We begin with a profile of the sample of respondents (Chapter II) and then move on to the following subjects: Working in EPA-Region 1 (III); Awards and Recognitions (IV); Evaluation of Training Programs (V); Promotions and Career Development (VI); Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity (VII); Sexual Harassment (VIII); Special Emphases Programs (IX); Family-Related Issues (X); and Open-Ended Questions (XI). -4- ------- II. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE In this section of our report, we provide a demographic profile of the 242 respon- dents and compare the profile to regional workforce data provided by the Agency's Office of Civil Rights. That comparison indicates that the sample of employees who participated in the Needs Assessment survey is representative of EPA-Region l's workforce. Gender Female employees and male employees participated in the Needs Assessment survey with almost equal frequency: 119 of the 242 respondents are women, and 117 respondents are men. Excluding the six research participants who did not specify their gender, female employees and male employees each constitute 50 percent of the sample. (The sample includes 58 percent of EPA-Region l's female employees and 42 percent of EPA-Region l's male employees.) The distribution of women and men in the survey sample approximates but does not duplicate the actual distribution of women and men in EPA-Region l's workforce. EPA-Region 1, at the close of FY86, employed 202 women and 275 men. As reported in the latest Affirmative Action Tracking Report prepared by the Agency's Office of Civil Rights (October 2, 1986), 42 percent of Region 1 employees are women, and 58 percent are men. Thus, women are slightly overrepresented in the sample, providing more "equal" representation of women and men in the Needs Assessment survey sample than in the survey population. Ethnic/Racial Identity The vast majority (n = 208) of the research participants identified themselves as "White, Non-Hispanic." Minority employees represent only 12 percent of the -5- ------- respondents: nine Blacks, eight Asians or Pacific Islanders, eight Hispanics, and one American Indian/Alaskan Native were among those surveyed; three other minority employees did not reveal their particular ethnic or racial identity. Five persons did not answer the survey question about ethnicity/race. (To maintain respondents' anonymity, we will not provide a breakdown of the specific ethnic/racial groups by gender.) The sample's ethnic/racial profile resembles but does not mirror that of EPA- Region l's actual workforce: minority employees, as a group, are slightly over- represented, and non-minority (i.e., White, Non-Hispanic) employees are slightly under- represented. According to the Agency's latest workforce data (reported in the Office of Civil Rights' Affirmative Action Tracking Report, October 2, 1986), EPA-Region 1 employs 17 minority women, 30 minority men, 185 non-minority women, and 245 non- minority men. While minority employees constitute 10 percent of the Region's work- force, they constitute 12 percent of the survey sample. Ninety percent of all Region 1 employees are white persons; 88 percent of the survey respondents are white employees. In any case, the number of minority women and minority men working for the EPA in Region 1 is very small. When each ethnic/racial minority group is considered separately, the prevalence of "White, Non-Hispanic" employees in the EPA- Region 1 workforce is only more obvious. Table 1 presents ethnic/racial breakdowns of the survey sample and the actual workforce. A comparison of the row figures in this table reveals the imprecision of the EPA's Affirmative Action tracking system. While the Agency reports seven Hispanic employees in Region 1, the Needs Assessment sample includes eight employees who identify themselves as Hispanic. The American Indian/Alaskan Native respondent is not accounted for by the Agency's Office of Civil Rights. -6- ------- Table 1 Ethnic/Racial Breakdown of Sample and Actual Workforce Number in Number in Ethnic/Racial Group Sample EPA-Region 1a American Indian/ 1 0 Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander 8 19 Black 9 21 Hispanic 8 7 White, Non-Hispanic 208 430 Other k 3 a Data reported by the EPA's Office of Civil Rights in the Affirmative Action Tracking Report dated October 2, 1986. b We used "Other" as a valid response category in the Needs Assessment survey. The "Other" category does not appear on any tables in the Agency's Affirmative Action Tracking Report. Age Nearly three-fourths (n = 176) of the respondents are under the age of 40 years, the largest number being between the ages of 26 and 35 years (n = 93; 39% of the sam- ple). These data reflect the image of EPA as a "young" agency. Five employees did not specify their age. Handicapped Employees In the Code of Federal Regulations a handicapped person is defined as any person who (1) has a physical or mental condition which substantially impairs one or more major life activity (e.g., walking, hearing, learning, working, performing manual tasks); (2) has a record of such a condition; or (3) is regarded as having such a condition. Handicapping conditions include but are not limited to alcoholism, blindness, deafness, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, mental or emotional illness, orthopedic impairments, -7- ------- learning disabilities, and speech impairments. Only a small fraction (n = 15) of the sample identify themselves as handicapped persons. Twelve of these 15 employees have told their supervisors about their handicapping conditions; the other three employees have not done so. Education The Needs Assessment survey was completed by a well-educated sample of regional employees: only 38 respondents have not earned a college degree. The "average" respondent has attended graduate school (n = 31) and 44 percent of the sam- ple have earned a Master's degree (n = 77), a Doctoral degree (n = 9), or a Law degree (n = 22). Three employees did not provide information about their education. The overall impression that EPA-Region 1 employees are well-educated is some- what misleading. Female employees, as a group, have less formal education than male employees, as a group. Only 4 of the 38 respondents who have not completed at least an Associate's degree program are men. The group of respondents without college degrees is also predominantly "White, Non-Hispanic" (n = 35 of the 38 respondents). Yet, to assert that white women are the least educated employee group is to ignore an important characteristic of EPA-Region l's workforce: an employee's education level seems better predicted by job category than by gender or by ethnicity/race. With few exceptions, the survey respondents without college degrees are secretaries or clerks. The Agency's Office of Civil Rights reported that, at the close of FY86, EPA- Region 1 employed 75 women and 6 men as secretaries or clerks, typically at the GS 05- 08 grade levels (Affirmative Action Tracking Report, Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986). While 37 percent of EPA-Region l's female personnel are secretaries or clerks, only 2 percent of the Region's male personnel hold such positions. All but 4 of the 75 women in secretarial or clerical positions are white employees, as are 5 of the 6 male secretaries/clerks. EPA-Region 1 employees, regardless of gender or ethnicity/race, -8- ------- OCLC Connexion Page 1 of 1 OCLC 1141759846 Held by EHA - no other holdings Rec stat n Entered 20200224 Replaced 20200224 Type a ELvl K Srce d Audn Ctrl Lang eng BLvl m Form Conf 0 Biog MRec Ctry mau Cont GPubf LitF 0 Indx 0 Desc i Ills ak Fest 0 DtSt s Dates 1987 EHA *b eng +e rda *c EHA EPA 901-R-87-006 EPA 901-R-87-006 EHAD Fine, Marlene G., #e author. Human resources/affirmative action needs assessment program / #c Environmental Protection Agency, Region I; Marlene G. Fine, PhD, University of Massachusetts at Boston; Fern L. Johnson, PhD, University of Massachusetts at Amherst; M. Sallyanne Ryan, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. [Boston, MA]: *b Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, *c 1987. iv, 97, 16 pages : *b tables, forms ; *c 28 cm text *b txt +2 rdacontent unmediated *b n +2 rdamedia volume #b nc +2 rdacarrier Cover title. "May 1987." Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I *b contract no. 68-02-4340. Personnel management *z United States. Affirmative action programs *z United States. Johnson, Fern L., *e author. Ryan, M Sallyanne, ^e author. United States. *b Environmental Protection Agency. *b Region I. *e issuing body. Delete Holdings- Export- Label- Produce- Submit- Replace- Report Error- Update Holdings- q Workflow-In Process 040 088 099 049 100 1 245 1 0 264 1 300 336 337 338 500 500 536 650 0 650 0 700 1 700 1 710 1 aboutiblank 2/24/2020 ------- seem appropriately educated for their jobs. Each Professional employee participating in the Needs Assessment survey has completed at least one college degree program, and most Administrative and Technical employees have earned college degrees also. Division Respondents include employees from each of the Region's five divisions: Air Management (n = 28), Environmental Services (n = 25), Planning and Management (n = 31), Waste Management (n = 50), and Water Management (n = 66). While most of the participants are affiliated with a division, another 39 respondents work in one of the following offices: Office of Governmental Relations and Environmental Review; Office of Public Affairs; Office of the Regional Administrator; or Office of Regional Counsel. Three persons did not indicate their division (or office) of employment. Job Category Each EPA job category is also represented in the Needs Assessment survey sam- ple. Professional employees, however, constitute a majority (n = 136) of the survey respondents: Engineers (n = 77) and Scientists (n = 41) comprise 50 percent of the sam- ple, Attorneys (n = 18) another 8 percent. The number of respondents holding Administrative and Technical job positions equals 55, or 24 percent of the sample: Administrative staff (n = 28); Environmental Protection Specialists (n = 18); Environ- mental Protection Assistants (n = 6); and Technical Support staff (n = 6). The sample also includes 43 Clerical employees: Secretaries (n = 29) and Clerks (n = 14) account for 18 percent of the surveyed employees. Eight respondents did not indicate their job category. Job Category by Gender. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the sample by gender and job category. Approximately equal proportions of the female respondents represent the three general job categories: 36 percent (n = 41) hold Professional positions; -9- ------- 31 percent (n = 35) are in Administrative or Technical positions; and 33 percent (n = 38) hold Clerical positions. This distribution is similar to the actual distribution of women in EPA-Region l's workforce (see Affirmative Action Tracking Report, Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986). The Agency's Office of Civil Rights reports that 32 percent (n = 64) of all women working in Region 1 are Professional employees; another 31 per- cent (n = 63) fill Administrative or Technical positions; and 37 percent (n = 75) are Clerical employees. While the largest percentage of women who participated in the Needs Assessment survey are engineers, scientists, or attorneys, the largest percentage of women in Region 1 work as secretaries or clerks. Table 2 Female and Male Employees by Job Category % women a % men b Job Category Sample Workforce Sample Workforce Professional 36 32 80 79 Administrative/ 31 31 16 19 Technical Clerical 33 37 4 2 a Percentages are based on the total number of female respondents who specified their job category (n = 114), and the total number of women in EPA-Region l's workforce (n = 202). b Percentages are based on the total number of male respondents who specified their job category (n = 116), and the total number of men in EPA-Region l's workforce (n = 275). The distribution of male respondents across the three general job categories reflects the distribution of men in the Region's workforce. Most of the men (80%) who participated in the Needs Assessment survey are employed in Professional positions (n = 92); similarly, 79 percent (n = 215) of all men working in Region 1 are engineers, scientists, or attorneys. Sixteen percent (n = 19) of the other male respondents are -10- ------- Administrative or Technical employees, and 4 percent (n = 5) are in Clerical positions. Nineteen percent (n = 53) of the Region's male workforce fill Administrative or Technical positions, and only 2 percent (n = 7) have Clerical jobs (see Affirmative Action Tracking Report, Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986). Although the three general job categories—Professional, Administrative and Tech- nical, and Clerical—are represented by female employees and male employees, the distribution of women among the specific job categories differs significantly from the distribution of men (chi-square = 56.36, df = 8, £ = .00). While Professional positions are obviously the domain of men, the four Administrative and Technical positions and the two Clerical positions are populated mostly by women. Since men dominate the Agency's highly valued job positions, one might assume, by association, that EPA- Region 1 provides a particularly favorable work environment for male engineers and scientists. The Region's female engineers and scientists constitute an undeniable minority vis-a-vis their male colleagues. Job Category by Race/Ethnicity. As shown in Table 3, white respondents signifi- cantly outnumber minority respondents in each of the three major job categories (chi- square = 5.79, df = 2, £ = .05). Although most minority employees hold Professional positions in EPA-Region 1, their number is miniscule compared to the number of white employees performing the same jobs. Data compiled by the Agency's Office of Civil Rights indicate that only 34 of the 279 Professional employees (i.e., engineers, scien- tists, attorneys) in Region 1 are members of a minority group (see Affirmative Action Tracking Report, Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986). The Agency's highly valued job positions are not simply the domain of male employees: Professional jobs within EPA-Region 1 are, more specifically, the domain of white male employees. Likewise, the Region's Administrative and Technical ranks (n = 116) include 8 eight minority employees, and only 5 of the 82 Clerical positions are held by minority persons (see Affirmative Action Tracking Report, Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986). -11- ------- Table 3 Minority and White Employees by Job Category % minorities % whites Job Category Professional Sample Workforce Sample Workforce 76 72 55 57 Administrative/ Technical 7 17 26 25 Clerical 17 11 19 18 General Schedule (GS) of Grades and Salaries Grade Levels. The distribution of survey participants among the various job cate- gories reflects the distribution among the Agency's pay plan grade levels. Again, the number of women and the number of men in each major category of the grade level schedule differ significantly (chi-square = 45.42, df = 3, £= .00). Table 4 presents the data on grade levels by gender. Almost three-fourths of the respondents (n = 168) are regional employees at the GS-09 grade level or above. Most of these 168 respondents hold positions graded as GS-12 (n = 83) or GS-13 (n = 30). While 92 percent of the men report their current grade level as GS 09-12 (n = 71) or GS 13-15 (n - 34), only 52 percent of the women do the same. The sample also includes 42 employees at grade levels GS-05 to GS-08 and 25 employees at grade levels below GS-05. Only 10 of these 67 respondents are men. Seven respondents did not specify their current grade level. Data pertaining to respondents' grade levels again indicate that the Needs Assess- ment sample is generally representative of the EPA-Region 1 population (see Table 4). As described in the Agency's latest Affirmative Action Tracking Report (Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986), nearly half of Region l's total workforce (75 women; 160 men) -12- ------- have jobs at the GS-09 to GS-12 grade levels. Another large portion of the workforce are GS-05 to GS-08 employees (80 women; 21 men) or GS/GM 13-15 employees (21 women; 86 men). While the bulk of the regional workforce is clustered in the GS-09 to GS-12 range, men are more likely than women to hold positions above the GS-12 level. In fact, at the close of FY86, the five ES,GS/GM 16-18 positions in EPA-Region 1 were the exclusive domain of white men. Table 4 Female and Male Employees by Grade Level % women % men Grade Level Sample Workforce Sample Workforce GS 01-04 19 13 3 1 GS 05-08 29 40 6 8 GS 09-12 40 37 61 58 GS 13-15 12 10 29 a 31 ES,GS/GM 16-18 — 0 — b 2 a One of these 34 men reported a current grade level higher than GS-15, but also indicated his part-time job status. We therefore decided to include him in the GS 13-15 grade level category. b The seven respondents who did not specify their current grade level probably include some members of EPA-Region l's Executive Staff. Minority employees, like women, are scarce in the supervisory ranks at EPA- Region 1. The Agency's Office of Civil Rights reports that 4 of the 47 minority employees in Region 1 are at the GS/GM 13-15 grade level; these 4 employees are men (see Affirmative Action Tracking Report, October 2, 1986). About three-fourths of the Region's minority employees (9 women, 22 men) hold GS-09 to GS-12 jobs. Minority women, like white women, outnumber minority men in positions graded below the GS-09 level (GS-05 to GS-08: 6 women, 4 men; GS-01 to GS-04: 2 women, 0 men). -13- ------- Table 5 provides a breakdown of the data on grade levels by race. In terms of current grade level, the sample of minority employees who participated in the Needs Assessment survey generally represents the minority workforce in EPA-Region 1. Most minority respondents (n = 18) report their grade level at GS-09 to GS-12. The smallest number of minority employees in the sample and in the actual workforce hold GS-01 to GS-04 jobs. Given the small cell sizes, it is statistically meaningless to compare the distribution of minority respondents and the distribution of white respondents among the major grade level categories. Table 5 Minority and White Employees by Grade Level % minorities % whites Grade Level Sample Workforce Sample Workforce GS 01-04 10 4 11 6 GS 05-08 14 21 19 21 GS 09-12 62 66 49 47 GS 13-15 14 8 22 24 ES,GS/GM 16-18 — 0 a 1 a The 10 respondents who did not specify either their current grade levels or their ethnic/racial identity may include members of EPA-Region l's Executive Staff. Salary Levels. While the median income of employees who participated in the Needs Assessment survey is $25,001-$30,000 a year (n = 27), almost half of the sample receive annual salaries in excess of $30,000. Male employees, as a group, command larger incomes than do female employees, as a group. While 56 percent (n = 64) of the men surveyed report annual salaries of more than $35,000, only 15 percent (n = 19) of the women surveyed say they earn over $35,000 a year. Most respondents who receive annual salaries less than or equal to $25,000 are women: 52 percent (n = 59) of the -14- ------- female respondents and only 11 percent (n = 13) of the male respondents are paid $25,000 or less for their work at EPA-Region 1. A complete breakdown of the sample by gender and salary level is shown in Table 6. The gender differences in respondents' annual salaries are statistically significant (chi-square = 56.03, df = 5, £= .00). Table 6 Female and Male Employees by Salary Level Salary Level % women % men $ 9,000-20,000 39 5 $20,001-25,000 13 6 $25,001-30,000 12 11 $30,001-35,000 19 22 $35,001-45,000 11 40 Over $45,000 5 16 All 24 respondents who earn over $45,000 a year are white employees. Otherwise, the proportions of minority respondents and white respondents at each salary level are similar, as shown in Table 7. Table 7 Minority and White Employees by Salary Level Salary Level % minorities % whites $ 9,000-20,000 18 23 $20,001-25,000 11 9 $25,001-30,000 25 10 $30,001-35,000 14 21 $35,001-45,000 32 25 Over $45,000 0 12 -15- ------- Length of Employment Years at EPA-Region 1. While 83 respondents (35%) have worked at EPA- Region 1 for at least eight years, a greater number (n = 112; 47%) have been Region 1 employees for three years or less. The survey sample also includes 43 people (18%) employed by EPA-Region 1 for four to seven years, and four persons who did not specify the length of their employment. Men (n = 55) comprise the bulk of respondents who have worked at EPA-Region 1 for eight or more years: less than a third of the Region's long-time employees are women (n = 26). The group of respondents with four to seven years of employment in Region 1 includes almost as many women (n = 20) as men (n = 22). Female employees, however, represent 65 percent (n = 49) of the respondents employed for one to three years, and 62 percent (n = 23) of the respondents who joined the regional workforce less than a year ago. Most men who work at EPA-Region 1 have longer terms of employment than do most women. Sixty-six percent of the men surveyed (n = 77) have been employed by EPA-Region 1 for at least four years. In contrast, 61 percent of the women surveyed (n = 72) have been regional employees for three years or less. This difference in men's and women's employment histories is statistically significant (chi-square = 19.72, df = 3, £ = .00 ). The self-reported employment histories of minority respondents are similar to those of white respondents. Thirty-five percent of each group (10 minority respondents; 71 white respondents) have worked at EPA-Region 1 for at least eight years. The smallest fraction of each group (10% of the minorities; 16% of the whites) joined the regional workforce within the last year (3 minority respondents; 33 white respondents). Race and gender aside, Professional personnel and Administrative/Technical personnel have longer careers in EPA-Region 1 than Clerical personnel. The group of respondents with at least eight years seniority includes 41 percent (n = 55) of the Pro- -16- ------- fessional employees in the sample, 36 percent (n = 20) of the Administrative/Technical employees, and only 14 percent (n = 6) of the Clerical employees. Respondents hired within the past three years are, however, mostly secretaries and clerks. While 74 percent (n = 32) of the Clerical employees say they joined the regional workforce in recent years, 40 percent (n = 21) of the Administrative/Technical employees in the sample and 41 percent (n = 55) of the Professional employees report working at EPA- Region 1 for three years or less. Years Outside EPA. The data on respondents' work experience prior to joining the Agency suggest that a job at EPA-Region 1 is typically among an employee's first full- time positions. Most respondents (56%) report little previous full-time work experience: 70 employees worked outside the Agency for less than one year, and 61 employees joined the Environmental Protection Agency with one to three years work experience. Although fewer in number, employees who worked elsewhere for four or more years (44%) also participated in the Needs Assessment survey: 53 respondents gained four to seven years full-time work experience before joining the EPA, and another 53 of the surveyed employees have eight or more years prior work experience. Regardless of gender or ethnic/racial identity, most employees assume job respon- sibilities at the EPA with little previous full-time work experience. Fifty-seven percent (n = 76) of the Professional employees in the sample count the EPA as one of their first employers, as do 46 percent (n = 25) of the Administrative/Technical employees and 61 percent (n = 25) of the Clerical employees. None of the observed dif- ferences in number of years spent working outside the Agency are statistically signif- icant. A respondent's gender, ethnic/racial identity, or job category show no particular relationship to his/her employment history prior to joining the EPA. -17- ------- Summary — The sample of employees who participated in the Needs Assessment survey was generally representative of EPA-Region l's workforce. — The sample included 58 percent of EPA-Region l's female employees (n = 119) and 42 percent of EPA-Region l's male employees (n = 117). — Minority employees represented 12 percent of the respondents (n = 29) and 10 percent of EPA-Region l's actual workforce. — A well-educated sample of Region l's employees completed the Needs Assessment survey. — Respondents included employees from the Region's five divisions and four offices. — Men significantly outnumber women in the Professional job categories. — Women hold most of the Administrative/Technical positions and almost all of the Clerical positions at EPA-Region 1. — White employees significantly outnumber minority employees in each of the major job categories. Most minorities in the regional workforce are Professional employees. — The grade level of job positions held by most women is significantly lower than the grade level of job positions held by most men in the regional workforce. — Minority employees, like women, are scarcely represented in the supervisory ranks at EPA-Region 1. — Men, as a group, receive larger annual salaries than do women, as a group. — Men, as a group, have more years of service at EPA-Region 1 than do women, as a group. -18- ------- IIL WORKING IN EPA-REGION 1 We asked the respondents several questions throughout the questionnaire about their perceptions of their work environment in EPA-Region 1 and the people in that environment. We analyzed their responses in several different ways. The results of those analyses follow. Male Environment We asked the respondents to tell us the gender of their co-workers and supervisors while they have been employed at EPA-Region 1 (questions 15 and 16). The results are not surprising. The chi-square test of independence shows no significant differences by race for either question. Both minorities and whites indicated that their co-workers have been either male (minorities, 48%; whites, 40%) or mixed (minorities, 48%; whites, 49%). Both groups also identified their supervisors as male (79%). When the data were analyzed by gender (questions 17 and 18), however, significant differences for the gender of co-workers did emerge (chi-square = 9.77, df = 2, £ = .01). Although the numbers were small, women were more likely to have female co-workers (17%) than were men (4%). To identify which women had female co-workers, we fur- ther analyzed the data by job category (Professional, Administrative and Technical, and Clerical). We found no significant differences between women and men in any job cate- gory, but we did find differences between categories. Only two percent of the men and women in Professional jobs said that their co-workers were female. Administrative and Technical employees and Clerical workers identified much larger numbers of female co- workers: -19- ------- Table 8 Gender of Co-Workers by Job Category Gender of Co-Workers Mostly Women Mostly Men Both Women & Men Professional % women % men 2 2 46 50 51 48 Admin/Tech % women % men 26 10 34 26 40 63 Clerical % women % men 21 20 26 40 53 40 The numbers indicate that men and women in the organization tend to be segregated by job category, with few women in Professional positions and increasing numbers in Administrative/Technical and Clerical positions. That finding is supported by EPA-P».egion l's actual workforce data. The issue is not that all women in the Agency are Clerical workers, but that most men in the Agency are Professionals. The small number of respondents in any job category that identified having female co- workers also indicates that the organization is perceived primarily as a male environment. Further, employees also perceive that the organization is male-dominated. When asked if their supervisors have been male, female, or mixed, the majority of all employees, regardless of gender or race, responded that their supervisors have been male: males (83%) and females (75%); minorities (79%) and whites (79%). Job Satisfaction We also asked employees several questions related to their satisfaction with their jobs, job preparation, and EPA-Region 1. The responses showed no significant differ- ences by gender. Overall, both men and women said that they are satisfied with their jobs (question 9): 65 percent of both the women and the men said that they were either very satisfied or satisfied. Although men were more likely to mark the extreme -20- ------- categories (very satisfied and very unsatisfied), the differences were not statistically significant. When asked to evaluate the job preparation that they have received (ques- tion 10), both men (65%) and women (69%) rated it good to fair. Both groups were less satisfied with the preparation that they receive for job advancement (question 11), with 66 percent of the women and 68 percent of the men saying that it is only fair to poor. When asked to evaluate EPA-Region 1 as a place to work (question 12), however, both women (76%) and men (73%) rated it as good to excellent. The analysis of these questions by race, however, reveals a very different picture. The responses to the question on job satisfaction showed a statistical trend (chi- square = 8.30, df = 4, £ = .08), with whites (18%) more likely than minorities (3%) to be very satisfied with their jobs, and minorities (10%) more likely than whites (2%) to be very unsatisfied. Although no significant differences emerged in the evaluations of job preparation, minority employees (46%) were much more likely than white employees (21%) to rate their preparation for advancement as poor (chi-square = 10.06, df = 3, £ = .02). Further, while no minority employees rated their preparation for advancement as excellent, eight percent of the white employees rated their preparation as excellent. Significant differences by race also emerged in the employees' ratings of EPA-Region 1 as a place to work (chi-square = 10.84, df = 3, £= .01). Minorities were more likely to rate the workplace as fair (41%) to poor (10%), while whites were more likely to rate it as excellent (14%) to good (62%). Overall, minority employees appear much less satis- fied with life in EPA-Region 1 than do white employees. Satisfaction with Management We also asked employees to respond to several statements about the management of the Agency. We analyzed gender differences in the responses to these questions using one-way analyses of variance. Responding to the statement that EPA-Region 1 has too many managers (question 54), women and men had similar responses. The -21- ------- overall mean was 3.04, indicating a neutral response to the question; 30 percent of the respondents disagreed with the statement while 23 percent agreed. The statement that EPA Headquarters in Washington exerts strong leadership (question 60) received a mean response of 3.28 from female employees and 3.50 from male employees. The responses show a significant trend by gender (F = 2.7; df = 1, 209; £ = .10), with men showing slightly greater disagreement with the statement. Fifty percent of the respondents disagreed with the statement, while only 17 percent agreed. There was a significant trend by gender in the responses to the statement that EPA-Region 1 needs more clerical support (question 63) (£= 2.9; df = 1, 209; £= .09). While both women and men tended to agree with the statement, the mean response for women was lower, indicating stronger agreement (women = 1.71; men = 1.95). The result is not surprising since so many of the women in the Agency are secretaries. The responses to the statement that managers in EPA-Region 1 do a good job managing their employees (question 86) showed no gender differences. Employees most often marked a neutral response to the state- ment; 30 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement while 30 percent disagreed. The responses to these four statements suggest that the employees in this survey do not have strong feelings about either the quantity or quality of managers in EPA- Region 1. They do, however, appear to believe that the Agency needs more clerical support. Communication Networks To better understand the relationship between professional and personal relation- ships and communication networks at the Agency, we asked employees a series of ques- tions about the people they talk to most often at work. The results of those questions suggest that employees tend to choose to talk with members of their own race or gender. -22- ------- We asked employees to identify three individuals (Persons A, B, and C) and then to answer the same questions about each of them (questions 88-95). Both the pattern of responses and the fact that Person A would be the first person to come to mind for the respondent suggest that Person A is most likely the employee's closest colleague at the Agency. The majority of the participants (54%) said that they talk frequently with Person A about work-related problems and frequently about non-work related problems (47%). Person A was equally likely to be male (49%) or female (44%) and most likely to be white (81%). Person A was most likely to be in the same division or section as the participant and most likely to be at the same level (37%) or above (41%). Participants said that they have lunch with Person A infrequently, either once a month or never, and that they rarely or never socialize with Person A after work or on weekends. The pattern is similar for Persons B and C with only minor exceptions. Most participants said that they sometimes talk with Person B (47%) and Person C (48%) about work-related problems. And although they said that they talk with both fre- quently about non-work related problems (47%), they are more likely to talk with Per- son A about non-work related problems. The finding is interesting. Participants identified the same individual as the one with whom they frequently discuss work and non-work related problems. The question about position in the hierarchy reveals an interesting pattern. Person A was most likely to be above the respondent; Person B was more likely to be at the same level (40%) than above (33%) the respondent. Person C, on the other hand, was equally likely to be at the same level (33%) or above (32%), and about one-quarter of the participants said Person C was below them in the hierarchy (23%). When the responses were broken down by gender, no significant differences emerged for any questions except the gender of Persons A, B, and C. In each case, female respondents more often identified other women as the people with whom they -23- ------- talk about work related matters (and, of course, non-work related matters), while male respondents identified other men. The results of the chi-square tests of independence are as follows: Person A (chi-square = 31.45, df = 1, £ = .01); Person B (chi-square = 17.99, df = 1, £= .01); and Person C (chi-square = 14.49, df = 1, £ = .01). The actual numbers are quite dramatic. Of the women who responded to questions about the people they talk with most often, 66 percent identified Person A as female, 61 percent identified Person B as female, and 60 percent identified Person C as female. Of the men who responded to the questions, 72 percent identified Person A as male, 69 percent identified Person B as male, and 67 percent identified Person C as male. The responses by race showed a similar pattern, with minorities more frequently identifying other minority employees as the people with whom they talk most often than did white employees: Person A (chi-square = 3.74, df = 1, £ = .05); Person B (chi- square = 8.23, df = 1, £= .01). No significant differences emerged for the race of Per- son C. While the numbers are not as dramatic as those by gender, they do suggest that employees seek out members of their own race. While 91 percent of the white respon- dents said that Person A was white, only 77 percent of the minority respondents identi- fied Person A as white. The responses were even stronger for Person B, with only 68 percent of the minority employees identifying Person B as white, as opposed to 90 percent of the white employees. Although the overwhelming number of persons identi- fied by both white and minority respondents is white, the large number of minority persons identified by minority respondents is important. EPA-Region 1 employs few minorities; because they are isolated within the organization, minority employees have limited opportunities to establish significant working relationships with other minority employees. That they do so in more significant numbers than do white employees sug- gests that minority employees seek out each other whenever possible. The cross-tabulation of Person A's gender by race also showed a significant dif- ference (chi-square = 4.22, df = 1, £= .04), with minorities (73%) more likely to identify -24- ------- Person A as male, and whites evenly divided between male and female. The finding may simply reflect the scarcity of minority females within EPA-Region 1. Attitudes Toward the Workforce In this section we discuss the responses to questions that assess employees' atti- tudes toward the people with whom they work. First, we asked the participants four questions related to their gender and race preferences for their co-workers and supervisors (questions 13-16). We cross-tabulated the responses to each question by both gender and race. Table 9 Preferences for Gender and Race of Co-Workers and Supervisors 96 minority % white Co-worker gender women men both either Co-worker race own race another race any race Supervisor gender women men both either Supervisor race own race another race any race % female male 2 3 69 26 3 0 97 6 19 25 50 5 1 94 1 3 67 29 4 0 96 0 15 24 61 7 1 92 0 3 66 31 3 0 97 0 10 28 62 7 3 90 2 3 68 28 4 0 96 3 18 24 55 6 0 94 The analyses by race revealed no differences between minority and white employ- ees. The two groups indicated that they preferred to work with both men and women -25- ------- and that they have no gender preference for their supervisors. Both groups said that they prefer to work with a member of any race and to be supervised by a member of any race. The analyses by gender were similar, with men and women saying that they pre- ferred to work with both women and men, that they preferred to work with members of any race, and that they preferred to be supervised by members of any race. There were significant differences between female and male employees, however, on their prefer- ence for a male or female supervisor (chi-square = 8.48, df = 3, £ = -04). Although at least three-quarters of both the women and the men said that they preferred to be supervised by either or both men and women, proportionately more women than men indicated a preference for a supervisor of one sex or another. While no men said that they preferred to be supervised by a woman, 6 percent of the women in the survey said that they preferred a female supervisor; and while 15 percent of the men said that they preferred a male supervisor, 19 percent of the women preferred a male supervisor. That more women appear willing to identify a preference for a supervisor of one gender or another suggests some gender bias on the part of women in the sample. We also asked the participants to respond to seven questions that tap their atti- tudes toward other employees, telling us the extent of their agreement or disagreement with the statements by marking a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating strongly agree and 5 indicating strongly disagree. Table 10 summarizes the mean responses to these questions. We analyzed the responses by gender and race using separate one-way analyses of variance. We also asked employees about their support for Affirmative Action goals for handicapped persons and employees over age 40. -26- ------- Table 10 Attitudes Toward the Workforce by Gender and Race Mean Statement women men minorities whites Disabled employees receive accommodations Older workers have equal opportunities I prefer to work for a woman Secretaries are skilled professionals Women lack skills to be managers EPA's best managers are male I prefer supervision by own race 3.13 3.13 3.21 3.12 3.20 3.03 3.29 3.08 3.05 3.17 3.17 3.09 3.31 3.20 3.17 3.26 4.38 4.21 4.34 4.28 3.44 3.43 3.54 3.44 3.91 3.43 3.46 3.68 Nearly half of the employees in the sample (n = 105) had neutral responses to the statement, "Disabled employees receive special accommodations from the Agency" (question 75). Fewer respondents agreed (n = 50) than disagreed (n = 70). Most employees (n = 157) endorsed efforts to establish Affirmative Action goals for handi- capped persons; a small group (n = 55), however, believed such goals should not be set (question 52). A majority of the respondents (n = 109) supported Affirmative Action goals for employees over 40 years old (question 52). Almost as many (n = 100), however, said that these goals should not exist. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, "Older workers have equal opportunities for advancement in EPA-Region 1" (ques- tion 85), employees were far less polarized. Most respondents either agreed with the statement (n = 72), or took a neutral position (n = 80). The statement, "Given a choice, I would prefer to work for a female supervisor" (question 62), elicited similar responses regardless of gender or race. The mean score for the entire sample was 3.10, indicating a neutral response. The responses to the statement, "Most secretaries in EPA-Region 1 are highly skilled professionals" (question 66), also showed no differences by gender or race. The -27- ------- mean score for the sample was 3.25, again a generally neutral response that tends toward mild disagreement. The statement, "Women often lack the skills to be good managers" (question 71), also elicited no differences by gender or race. The mean score for the sample here, however, was 4.29, indicating strong disagreement with the statement. The statement, "EPA-Region l's best managers are male" (question 83), elicited similar responses from minority and white employees, with both groups indicating some disagreement with the statement (mean = 3.66). There were, however, significant differences between the responses of men and women (F = 14.88; df = 1, 212; £= .00). The mean score for men was 3.43 and the mean score for women was 3.91, indicating that women disagreed more strongly than did men. The last statement in this series relating to attitudes toward other employees, "Given a choice, I would prefer to be supervised by a member of my own race" (ques- tion 87), elicited similar responses regardless of gender or race. The mean score of 3.44 for the sample indicates mild disagreement with the statement. Summary — Employees perceived EPA-Region 1 as a male dominated environment. — Women and men are segregated by job category, with most men holding Professional positions. — White women and men appeared satisfied with their jobs and believed that EPA-Region 1 is a good place to work. — Minority employees were less satisfied with their jobs and believed EPA- Region 1 is a fair to poor place to work. — All employees rated their job preparation for their current jobs more highly than their job preparation for advancement. Minority employees, however, -28- ------- were even less satisfied than white employees with their preparation for advancement. The other Region 1 employees that employees talk to most often about work related issues are the same employees that they talk with about non-work related issues. Employees choose to talk about work related issues with employees of the same gender. Minority employees seek out other minority employees whenever possible to talk with about work related issues. Employees indicated no race or gender preference for their co-workers or supervisors. -29- ------- IV. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS The questionnaire items pertaining to awards and recognitions include a set of questions about specific awards given by the EPA for work done at the EPA (question 19, comprising 11 parts) as well as several more general questions (questions 68, 72, and 73). The first set of questions provides a descriptive picture of those within the Agency who have received awards, while the other questions assess the degree to which employees believe that EPA awards and recognitions are distributed fairly. Specific Awards and Recognitions For the set of questions about specific awards, respondents were asked to indicate both if they had received an award in a particular category and, if so, how many. We noted the total responses in each category and compared males and females. The table below shows the distribution of awards as reported by the sample. The number of people who reported receiving each type of award is given for females and males separately. Table 11 Number of Females and Males Receiving Awards Award females males no awards Superior Performance Award Special Act Award Quality Step Increase Merit Pay Award Bronze Medal Suggestion Award Headquarters Award Federal Executive Board Award Non-EPA government award Non-EPA private award 48 46 27 18 12 5 0 5 6 1 0 39 40 25 22 21 17 1 1 1 3 2 -30- ------- For the entire sample, 62 percent reported having received at least one award, while 38 percent said they had received no award of any kind. The chi-square test of independence revealed a significant difference according to gender only for the Bronze Medal (chi-square = 6.84, df = 1, £ = .01), which men were more likely to receive than women. Although the finding is not statistically significant, men were more likely than women to receive Merit Pay Awards. In most cases respondents said they received specific awards only once. We found exceptions to that pattern for the Superior Performance Award, which 14 women and 9 men received twice, and 5 women and 3 men received more than twice; for the Superior Act Award, which 7 women and 5 men received twice, and 2 women and 1 man received more than twice; for the Quality Step Increase, which 4 women and 4 men received twice; and for the Merit Pay Award, which 4 women and 3 men received twice, and 2 women and 8 men received more than twice. Although we compared the awards by race, we will not report the exact responses because the small number of employees in each category could undermine the anonymity of the participants. We did find, however, that minorities are less likely than whites to receive an award of any type (chi-square = 4.57, df = 1, £ = .04). Perceptions of Recognitions Three items that were rated on a scale of "strongly agree" (equal to 1) to "strongly disagree" (equal to 5) were analyzed using separate one-way analyses of vari- ance to compare male and female responses, and to compare minority and white responses. The statements to which the respondents reacted were: • "I received a fair evaluation on my Annual Performance Review" (question 68); • "I would like to receive more public recognition for 'doing a good job"' (ques- tion 72); • "EPA awards are given to the most deserving employees" (question 73). -31- ------- For these three items, the analyses of variance showed no significant differences between males and females or minorities and whites. The means for each item are shown below. For the first two items, the mean is between "agree" and "neutral." For the last item, however, the responses are between "neutral" and "disagree," indicating that some participants are concerned that EPA awards are not always given to the most deserving employees. Table 12 Employee Perceptions of Evaluations and Awards Item Mean received a fair evaluation on APR 2.2 would like more recognition 2.4 awards given to most deserving employees 3.3 We also asked employees how often their immediate supervisor praised them or thanked them for "doing a good job" (question 20) and how important it is to them to have their work "recognized publicly by management" (question 21). In response to the question about how often the employee receives praise from her or his supervisor, 40 percent said "sometimes," 28 percent said "often," and 23 percent said "seldom." Women more frequently said "often" than did men (35% compared to 21%) and less frequently said "seldom" (18% compared to 28%). We found the reverse pattern for minorities: 14 percent of the minorities said "often" compared to 30 percent of the whites, and 40 percent of the minorities said "seldom" compared to 21 percent of the whites. Responding to the question about the importance of public recognition, 41 percent of the employees said it is "important," followed by 30 percent who said it is "somewhat important" and 22 percent who said it is "very important." We found no gender or race differences for this question. These responses suggest that recognition is important to employees and that the majority, but certainly not all, believe that they receive praise from their supervisors. -32- ------- Summary — The majority of Region 1 employees have received at least one award. — Men were more likely than women to have received the Bronze Medal. — Minorities were less likely than whites to have received an award of any kind. — Employees tended to agree that they received a fair APR but would also like more public recognition. — Employees tended to think that awards are not always given to the most deserving employees. — The majority of employees said that their supervisors praise them. — Women were more likely than men to say they are praised for doing a good job; minorities were less likely than whites to say they are praised for doing a good job. -33- ------- V. EVALUATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS We asked several kinds of questions designed to tap employees' evaluations of the training that is available in Region 1. First, two questions focused on the effectiveness of the EPA in preparing its employees for their current and possible future jobs in the Agency. Second, one question asked employees to rate the EPA's commitment to train- ing and development. Third, employees were asked to rate the effectiveness of specific training programs. EPA and Job Preparation We asked employees to rate both how well Region 1 had prepared them for their current job (question 10) and how well Region 1 was preparing them for higher level positions (question 11). In response to the question about preparation for employees' current positions, the majority (68%) rated Region 1 as good or fair. A sizeable number also said that Region 1 had no role in preparing them for their current jobs. There were no significant differences according to respondents' gender or race on this question. The response distribution is shown below. Table 13 Ratings of Preparation for Current Job Response % respondents excellent 6 good 38 fair 30 poor 7 no role 21 The majority (69%) also said that Region 1 was providing them good or fair preparation for advancement within the organization. Compared to the responses -34- ------- regarding preparation for the present job, however, the evaluations of the preparation for advancement were more likely to be fair than good. Further, a sizeable minority (23%) said that preparation for advancement was poor. Although men and women did not differ significantly in their responses, whites and minorities did: minorities were more likely than whites to rate their preparation for advancement as poor (chi- square = 10.06, df = 3, £ = .02). The response pattern is shown below. Table 14 Ratings of Preparation for Advancement by Race Response % minority % white excellent 0 8 good 21 26 fair 32 45 poor 46 21 We also examined the responses to the questions on job satisfaction and prepara- tion by job categories. The small cell sizes weaken the power of the statistical tests, but the breakdowns reveal some interesting patterns. The responses evaluating job preparation show significant differences by job category (chi-square = 54.95, df = 32, £ = .01). Environmental Protection Assistants appeared most satisfied with their job preparation: 33 percent rated it as excellent, 33 percent rated it as good, and the remaining third rated it as fair. Technical Support employees (67%) and attorneys (65%) said that EPA-Region 1 played no role in preparing them for their jobs; these employees seemed least satisfied with their job preparation at the Agency. The breakdowns for the evaluations of preparation for advancement showed a sig- nificant trend by job category (chi-square = 33.75, df = 24, £= .09). Technical Special- ists appeared most satisfied with the preparation for advancement they receive: 33 percent rated it as excellent and 67 percent rated it as good. Professional employees and Clerical employees were the least satisfied with their preparation for advancement. -35- ------- One-quarter or more of the engineers, scientists, attorneys, clerks, and secretaries rated the Agency's efforts in preparing them for job advancement as poor. EPA's Commitment to Training and Development We analyzed answers to the question, "Based on your own experiences as an employee, how would you describe EPA-Region l's commitment to staff training and development?" (question 22) in several ways. We first compared female and male and minority and white responses. Second, we analyzed the responses according to the employee's length of service at the EPA, job category, job satisfaction, and evaluation of the EPA's performance in job preparation. The chi-square test did not reveal significant differences in the manner in which males and females responded to the question about EPA's commitment to training and development. Most of the respondents rated EPA's commitment as either genuine (44%) or superficial (51%), with a small number (5%) indicating they think the EPA is not committed to training and development. An analysis of the responses by race was close to statistically significant (chi- square = 5.81, df = 2, £= .06), with whites more likely than minorities to say that the EPA's commitment is genuine. Table 15 EPA's Commitment to Training and Development by Race Response % minority % white EPA genuinely committed 23 46 EPA superficially committed 73 48 b EPA not at all committed 4 6 There were significant differences in the response to the question depending on how the individual responded to the item regarding job satisfaction (chi-square = 50.32, df = 8, £= .01). Not surprisingly, those who reported that they were very satisfied with -36- ------- their current job also rated the EPA's commitment to training as genuine. Those who indicated that they were satisfied or just felt okay about their job were more likely to rate the EPA's commitment as superficial. There were also significant differences in judging the commitment of the EPA to job training depending on both how well employees thought the EPA prepared them for their current job (chi-square = 35.03, df = 8, £ = .01) and how well the EPA was prepar- ing them for higher positions within the organization (chi-square = 33.66, df = 6, 2 = .01). In both cases, lower ratings on job preparation correlate with lower ratings of the EPA's commitment to training and development. The same relationship exists between ratings of EPA-Region 1 as a place to work and ratings of the EPA's commit- ment to training and development. Those who rate commitment to training as genuine are more likely than all others to rate the EPA as an excellent place to work, with lower ratings on each variable occurring together (chi-square = 59.12, df = 6, £ = .01). We found no significant differences by years of service, grade level, or job category. Effectiveness of Training Programs Nine different training programs were listed on the questionnaire (question 23), and respondents were asked to rate their usefulness on a scale with the following choices: "very useful," "useful," "somewhat useful," "not at all useful," and "no basis for judgment." To ensure that the analysis was not biased by responses from people who would be unfamiliar with the programs, we analyzed only answers from those respon- dents who were eligible to participate in the specific program being considered. We used the following selection criteria for each program: • Zenger-Miller Supervisory Program—GS-13 and above; • Zenger-Miller Working Program—GS-13 and above; -37- ------- • Special Topic Seminars for Engineers, Scientists, and Technical Staff- Engineers, Scientists, Environmental Protection Specialists, Environmental Protection Assistants, Technical Support Personnel; • Computer Training—Secretaries and Clerks; • In-house Training for Secretaries and Clerks—Secretaries and Clerks; • OPM Courses for Secretaries and Clerks—Secretaries and Clerks; • Lunchtime Learning Series—all employees; • Federal Women's Program Seminars—all women. For the questions on the training programs designed for supervisory personnel (the two Zenger-Miller programs), there were no significant differences in response accord- ing to gender of the participant. (Note: Too few minorities are eligible for these programs to provide a valid and reliable comparison between minorities and whites.) As the table below illustrates, of those employees who had some basis for judgment, most responded that the Supervisory Program was useful or very useful. Employees rated the Working Program less favorably, with most saying it was not at all useful. Table 16 Ratings of Zenger-Miller Programs Z-M Supervisory Z-M Working Response % respondents % respondents very useful 20 2 useful 30 17 somewhat useful 14 19 not useful 4 31 no basis 32 31 The Special Topic Seminars for Engineers, Scientists, and Technical Staff were most often judged useful (38%). A statistical trend suggests that women were more likely than men to say they have no basis for judgment, and less likely to judge the seminars as useful (chi-square = 8.17, df = 4, £ = .09). There was also a statistical trend -38- ------- by race: minorities more often said that the seminars are useful or not useful, and whites more often said they had no basis for judgment (chi-square = 8.56, df = 4, £ = .08). The percentage breakdowns according to gender and race are displayed below. Table 17 Ratings of Special Topic Seminars by Gender and Race Response 96 women 96 men 96 white 96 minority very useful 6 14 11 12 useful 30 42 36 47 somewhat useful 21 22 22 24 not useful 6 1 2 12 no basis 36 21 29 6 Overall, the three training programs designed for secretaries and clerks (Computer Training, In-house Training, and OPM Courses) were judged positively by those who had participated, which was about two-thirds of the secretaries and clerks in the sample. There were no differences by race for any of these three programs. The distribution of responses by percentage is shown below. Table 18 Ratings of Programs for Secretaries/Clerks Computer In-house OPM Response 96 respondents 96 respondents % respondents very useful 15 19 21 useful 22 26 21 somewhat useful 29 19 21 not useful 2 9 5 no basis 32 28 33 For the Lunchtime Learning Series, which 55 percent of the respondents indicated having some experience with, the ratings indicated that the experience had been either useful or somewhat useful. There were no gender or race differences in the responses. -39- ------- Table 19 Ratings of Lunchtime Learning Series Response % respondents very useful useful somewhat useful not useful no basis 2 22 27 4 45 The Federal Women's Program Seminars were also given generally favorable ratings by those who had some basis for judgment, which was about 60 percent of the women in the sample. We also looked at the responses to the FWP seminars according to the grade level, job category, and race of the respondent to determine if different groups of women made different judgments. Neither grade nor race accounted for differing responses, but there were some differences according to job category. Generally, women who are Administrative employees or Environmental Protection Specialists found the series the most useful, while those in Technical Support and Secretarial posi- tions most often said the series was somewhat useful. Only 25 percent of the Clerks indicated any basis for judgment. Table 20 Ratings of Federal Women's Program Seminars Response 96 respondents very useful useful somewhat useful not useful no basis 9 22 26 6 38 -40- ------- Summary — Most employees rated the EPA as good or fair in preparing them for their current job and for advancement. — Minorities were more likely than whites to rate preparation for advancement as poor. — Over half of the employees rated EPA's commitment to training and development as superficial; close to half rated it as genuine. — Whites were more likely than minorities to rate the commitment to training as genuine. — Those employees who reported that they were very satisfied with their jobs also rated EPA's commitment to training as genuine. — Those who gave lower ratings to EPA's role in job preparation also gave lower ratings to the Agency's commitment to training and development. — Those who rated commitment to training as genuine were more likely than others to rate EPA as an excellent place to work. — The Zenger-Miller Supervisory Program was rated more positively than the Zenger-Miller Working Program. — Minorities and whites differed in their ratings of the Special Topic Seminars for Engineers, Scientists, and Technical Staff; a greater percentage of minorities than whites reported a basis for judging the seminars. — The training programs for secretaries and clerks were generally judged to be useful or somewhat useful. — The Lunchtime Learning Series was generally judged to be useful or somewhat useful. — The Federal Women's Program Seminars were generally judged to be useful or somewhat useful; Administrative employees and Environmental Protection Specialists found the series the most useful. -41- ------- VL PROMOTIONS AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT To assess employees' perceptions of and attitudes toward the career development efforts of EPA-Region 1, we asked participants a series of questions about five career development issues: (1) the involvement and interest of supervisors in the career development of employees, (2) prerequisites for promotion, (3) prerequisites for promo- tion to manager, (4) the Upward Mobility Program, and (5) the emphasis on career development for particular groups of employees. To provide some context, however, for understanding employees' attitudes toward these issues, we also asked each participant to describe her or his promotional history in EPA-Region 1 (question 7). We coded the descriptions in two ways. First, we noted whether the employee had ever been promoted. Second, we noted the number of times she or he had been promoted. For all participants, the results indicate no differences by gender for whether or not the individual had been promoted. Ninety percent of the men and ninety percent of the women said that they had been promoted at least once. There were, however, sig- nificant differences by race (chi-square = 5.65, df = 1, £ = .02). While 92 percent of the white employees reported having been promoted, only 74 percent of minority employees said that they had been promoted. We also looked at the data by job category, and found no differences between Professional, Administrative/Technical, and Clerical employees. Overall, then, most employees in the Region have been promoted at least once; a significantly smaller percentage of minority employees, however, have been promoted. We found no statistically significant differences for either gender or race when we analyzed the number of times participants had been promoted. The ranges for the number of times, however, did vary dramatically. While a few white women reported being promoted 7, 8, or 10 times, no white men reported being promoted more than 6 -42- ------- times, and no minority employees, male or female, said they had been promoted more than 5 times. We also analyzed the data on promotions by job category to see if there were either gender or race differences within categories. We found no differences by either gender or race for Professional or Clerical employees. Although no statistically signifi- cant differences emerged, a smaller percentage of women (89%) than men (94%), and an even smaller percentage of minorities (83%) than whites (95%), reported having been promoted at least once. We did find a statistically significant difference by race for whether or not Administrative/Technical employees had ever been promoted (chi-square = 10.73, £ = .01). While 95 percent of white employees in this job category reported being pro- moted at least once, no minority employees reported ever being promoted. Among the white men and women who had been promoted at least once, no significant differences emerged for the number of times they had been promoted. The range, however, did differ, with the women reporting as many as 10 promotions and the men no more than 4 promotions. Supervisors' Interest in Career Development We asked employees if their supervisors discussed career advancement opportuni- ties with them when they first started working at EPA-Region 1 (question 24). There were no differences in the responses by either gender or race. The most frequent response to the question was yes (men = 44%, women = 47%, minorities = 4896, and whites = 45%). Even more employees (80%) said that they are able to talk freely with their supervisors about career development (question 25); again there were no differ- ences by gender or race. Employees also indicated that they are able to talk freely with personnel special- ists about career planning (question 26). More than half of the men (54%) and women -43- ------- (60%) said that they could talk with personnel specialists. Only 45 percent of the minorities, however, responded yes to the question. Although the difference is not statistically significant, it suggests that minority employees perceive that they have less access to personnel specialists than do white employees. We found a similar pat- tern when we asked employees if they feel that their supervisors are interested in their career development (question 27). Although a majority of white employees (54%) said yes, only 45 percent of minority employees said yes. A majority of both women and men responded yes. Overall, then, employees in EPA-Region 1 perceive that they are able to talk about career development issues with the appropriate people, i.e., their supervisors and personnel specialists, and that their supervisors are interested in their careers. Minor- ity employees, however, appear to believe that they have less access to personnel specialists and that their supervisors are not as interested in their careers. In a related question we asked employees how likely they were to model their career after that of some other employee at the Agency (question 31). While there were no differences between the responses of white and minority employees, women were much more likely to say that they model their careers after someone's at the Agency (chi-square = 9.52, df = 4, £ = .05). While only 30 percent of the men said that they were either somewhat likely, likely, or very likely to use a role model from the Agency, 46 percent of the women said that they were. The result suggests that role models play a much more important role in the career development of women than of men. That conclusion is not surprising since men see successful men around them throughout the Agency and, therefore, may not need to focus on the career path of a particular man. On the other hand, since women do not see many successful women at the Agency, they may feel a need to emulate the efforts of a particular woman who has succeeded. -44- ------- Prerequisites for Promotion We asked the participants to indicate which, if any, of the following attributes were necessary to be promoted to a higher grade level in EPA-Region 1 (question 29): "be competent in your current job," "be able to perform at the next level," "have senior- ity," "have friends in the right places," and "be an Affirmative Action candidate." Table 21 provides a summary of responses by gender and race. Table 21 Prerequisites for Promotion by Gender and Race % female % male % minority % white Competent in current job 71 76 71 73 Able to perform at next level 64 58 64 61 Have seniority 34 30 50 29 Have friends in right places 26 32 32 28 Affirmative Action candidate 8 11 11 9 Women and men named the same attributes; approximately three-quarters of each group said that employees must be competent in their current jobs, and approximately three-fifths said that employees must be able to perform at the next level. Both women and men said that promotion to a higher grade level did not depend on seniority, having friends in the right places, or being an Affirmative Action candidate. The similarity of responses is interesting. Women and men in the sample report having simi- lar promotional histories. The similarity of their experiences may be the basis for the similarity of their perceptions about the prerequisites for promotion. The responses broke down in similar ways by race. Nearly three-quarters of both white and minority employees said that employees need to be competent in their current jobs, and over three-fifths said that employees need to be able to perform at the next level. Both groups agreed that employees did not need either to have friends in the right places or to be an Affirmative Action candidate. They disagreed, however, on whether employees need to have seniority (chi-square = 3.88, df = 1, £ = .05). While -45- ------- 50 percent of the minority employees said that seniority was necessary for promotion to the next level, only 29 percent of the white employees believed that seniority was necessary. That perception may be based on a reasonable inference for minority employees. The promotional histories of minorities and whites in the sample differ, with most minorities reporting that they have never been promoted. Among those employees who have been promoted, whites have been promoted more often. Minority employees are also often the newest employees in the Agency. Thus, they may justify their promotional histories to themselves, or others may justify personnel actions to them, on the basis of their relatively shorter time with the Agency, leading minority employees to conclude that seniority is a prerequisite for promotion (at least for minor- ity employees). We also analyzed the data by the respondents' division. We found no differences in responses except for the item, "have friends in the right places" (chi-square = 15.46, df = 5, £ = .01). Although most participants say that having friends in the right places is not a prerequisite for promotion, a significant minority of employees in the various administrative offices (46%), in the Environmental Services Division (36%), in the Water Management Division (35%), and in the Planning and Management Division (32%) believe that having friends is a prerequisite. Prerequisites for Promotion to Manager We found far less agreement when we asked the participants to identify the pre- requisites for promotion to manager. Table 22 summarizes the responses by gender and race. Although the data for women and men only show statistical trends or differences for four of the six responses, the percentages for men and women vary considerably on all items. -46- ------- Table 22 Prerequisites for Promotion to Manager by Gender and Race % female % male % minority % white Have a science degree Work hard Have friends in the right places Affirmative Action candidate Have seniority Be a team player 40 53 38 11 43 44 28 65 49 20 33 67 46 58 58 23 54 73 33 58 42 14 36 53 We found statistical trends for having a degree in science or technology (chi- square = 3.06, df = 1, £ = .08), working hard (chi-square = 2.66, df = 1, £ = .10), and being an Affirmative Action candidate (chi-square = 3.32, df = 1, £= .07). While both women and men agree that having a science degree is not a prerequisite for being promoted to manager, women (40%) were more likely than men (28%) to believe that it is. Even though over half of the women (53%) said that working hard is necessary, a much larger percentage of men (65%) said that hard work is a prerequisite for promotion to manager. And, although most participants agreed that an employee does not have to be an Affirmative Action candidate to be promoted to manager, a larger number of men (20%) than women (11%) believe that being an Affirmative Action candidate is a prerequisite for promotion to managerial rank. The quality that showed a striking statistical difference between women and men was being a team player (chi-square = 10.33, df = 1, £= .00). While 67 percent of the men said that being a team player was a prerequisite for being promoted to manager, 56 percent of the women said that it was not a prerequisite. Clearly, men see being part of the team as essential to becoming a manager. Women, on the other hand, either believe that being a team player is not essential or that since they are, by virtue of their gender, not typically part of the team, being a team player will not help fulfill their managerial aspirations. Whether women believe that the workplace is a meritocracy where employees are rewarded for their individual competence or they feel -47- ------- excluded from the male team is unknown. But that women, who are promoted less often than men to managerial positions, perceive the prerequisites for promotion to managerial levels differently suggests that they may act within the organization in ways that are substantially different from the ways in which men act. We also analyzed the responses to this question by race. See Table 22 for a sum- mary of the responses. Although only the responses to being a team player show a statistical trend by race (chi-square = 2.96, df = 1, £=.08), the percentages suggest some differences in perceptions between minority and white employees. The most striking differences occur for having friends in the right places, having seniority, and being a team player. While nearly three-fifths of the minority employees in the sample said that employees need to have friends in the right places to be promoted to manager, three-fifths of the white employees said that employees do not need friends in the right places. Over half of the minority employees indicated that seniority is a prerequisite for promotion to manager, while only 36 percent of the white employees said that seniority is necessary. Although a majority of all employees said that being a team player is a prerequisite for promotion to manager, only half of the white employees said the attribute is necessary while nearly three-quarters of the minority employees perceived it as necessary. The differences by race suggest that minority employees believe that, in addition to working hard, employees must have seniority, have friends in the right places, and be a team player to enter the managerial ranks. The pattern of responses suggests that minority employees may feel like outsiders: since minority employees generally lack seniority, do not have friends in the right places, and are not members of the team, they may surmise that the prerequisites for promotion are those qualities or advantages that they lack. Their promotional history vis-a-vis managerial positions could easily lead them to that conclusion. -48- ------- The analysis of responses by division showed no significant statistical differences except for the prerequisite of being an Affirmative Action candidate (chi- square = 15.65, df = 5, £ = .01). Although the overwhelming percentage of employees said that being an Affirmative Action candidate was not a prerequisite for promotion to manager, 36 percent of the employees in the Environmental Services Division and 24 percent of the employees in the Water Management Division said that they believed being an Affirmative Action candidate was necessary for promotion. The greater likelihood that employees in these two divisions would believe that being an Affirmative Action candidate is necessary for promotion suggests that the experience of employees in these divisions with Affirmative Action policies may have been different from the experience of employees in other divisions. Upward Mobility Program We asked several questions designed to assess employee interest in and percep- tions of the Upward Mobility Program. Almost all employees indicated that they were either not eligible to participate or were not interested in participating in the program. We found no differences between minority employees and white employees, with 85 percent of minority employees indicating that they were not eligible and 82 percent of white employees indicating that they were not eligible for the Upward Mobility Pro- gram. We did find significant differences, however, between male and female employees (chi-square = 15.34, df = 4, p. = •00). While 92 percent of the men said that they were not eligible to participate, only 72 percent of the women said that they were not eligible. Although over one-quarter of the women in the sample were eligible to participate in the Upward Mobility Program, 68 percent of those who were eligible said that they were not interested. The responses suggest that employees believe that the Upward Mobility Program is designed to help women in the Agency improve their career opportunities, but most women are either not eligible or not interested in the program. -49- ------- That perception also emerged when we asked employees to respond to the statement, "If I were eligible, I would participate in the Upward Mobility Program" (question 70). The mean response was 2.42 on a five-point scale (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree), indicating general agreement with the statement. There were, however, significant differences between women and men (F = 5.56, n = 205, £ = .02). The mean score for women was 2.27 and mean score for men was 2.58, indicating that women more strongly agreed that they would participate in the program if they were eligible. We also asked employees to respond to the statement, "The Upward Mobility Pro- gram has been a failure" (question 64). We found no differences by either race or gender; the mean response was 3.13, indicating only slight disagreement with the statement. That response was substantiated by the employees' own estimates of the number of people who has successfully completed the Upward Mobility Program. The largest number of employees said that between 5 and 10 employees had completed the program (minorities = 5996, whites = 43%; men = 41%, women = 48%) and an almost equally large number estimated between 20 and 25 employees had completed the program (minorities = 32%, whites = 38%; men = 38%, women = 39%). Most employees, then, either recognized that only a few people had successfully completed the program (only 25 people have actually completed the Upward Mobility Program), or underesti- mated the number, suggesting that employees do not view the Upward Mobility Program as very successful. Although there were no significant differences by either gender or race, it is interesting to note that a greater number of minority employees underesti- mated the success of the program. That response lends further support to our finding that minority employees are less satisfied with the training and development efforts of the Agency. -50- ------- Agency Emphasis on Career Development The table below summarizes employees' responses by gender to a series of questions about the emphasis EPA-Region 1 places on the career development of particular groups of employees in the Agency. For each group, participants were asked if the Agency places too much, just enough, or too little emphasis on their career development. Table 23 Perceived Emphasis on Career Development by Gender* Supervisors & Managers Engineers 3c Scientists Technical Staff Non-Technical Staff Attorneys Secretaries 3c Clerks Female Employees Male Employees Minority Employees % women too too much enough little 26 52 20 13 48 37 11 48 36 2 37 54 14 56 25 2 31 64 6 47 46 16 56 26 7 47 41 96 men too too much enough little 24 52 24 7 40 53 6 37 57 3 37 58 28 44 23 4 32 62 36 46 17 9 50 40 21 51 27 ~Percentages may total less than 100 because some participants indicated that they had no basis on which to respond to the question. Women and men agreed that managers receive just enough emphasis on their ca- reer development and that non-technical staff and secretaries/clerks receive too little. We found significant differences by gender, however, for the responses on the career development of engineers (chi-square = 8.07, df = 3, £ = .04), technical staff (chi- square = 12.10, df = 3 , £ = .01), women employees (chi-square = 33.35, df = 3, £ = .00), and minority employees (chi-square = 10.19 , df = 3, £ = .02). Although over half of the men (53%) said that the Agency places too little emphasis on the career development of engineers, only 37 percent of the women agreed. Fifty-seven percent of the men also said that the Agency places too little emphasis on the career development of technical -51- ------- staff, while only 36 percent of the women agreed. The results suggest that women and men have different perceptions of the need for technical/scientific training in the Agency. For the questions on both female employees and minority employees, women were more likely than men to believe that the Agency places too little emphasis on their career development. The difference was particularly striking for the question on female employees, with 46 percent of the women saying that the Agency places too little emphasis on their career development and only 17 percent of the men agreeing. On the other hand, 36 percent of the men felt that the Agency places too much emphasis on the career development of women. The men's response suggests some feeling of reverse discrimination vis-a-vis the career development of women. That feeling also emerged in the responses to the question on the career development of male employees. Although there were no significant differences by gender, 40 percent of the men said that the Agency places too little emphasis on their career development, while only 26 percent of the women agreed. Table 24 Perceived Emphasis on Career Development by Race* Supervisors & Managers Engineers & Scientists Technical Staff Non-Technical Staff Attorneys Secretaries & Clerks Female Employees Male Employees Minority Employees % minority too too much enough little 24 31 38 7 37 52 15 26 57 4 26 63 19 31 42 0 30 63 24 28 44 15 35 46 4 31 62 % white too too much enough little 25 55 19 10 45 44 8 46 44 2 39 54 21 54 21 4 31 64 18 49 32 12 57 30 15 53 30 * Percentages may total less than 100 because some participants indicated that they had no basis on which to respond to the question. -52- ------- We found few significant differences between the responses of minority and white employees for these questions. Table 24 summarizes the responses by race. There were differences by race for supervisors/managers (chi-square = 13.61, df = 3, £=.00) and minority employees (chi-square = 10.80, df = 3, £ = .01), and a significant trend by race for attorneys (chi-square = 7.20, df = 3, £ = .07). For all questions on the emphasis that the Agency places on the career development of specific groups of employees, regardless of whether the differences were statistically significant, minorities were more likely than whites to say that the Agency places too little emphasis on career development. The only exception was for the question on secretaries, with 63 percent of minority employees and 64 percent of white employees saying that the Agency places too little emphasis on the career development of secretaries. The differences between minorities and whites were particularly striking for the question on minorities: 62 per- cent of minority employees said that the Agency places too little emphasis on their career development, while only 30 percent of white employees agreed. The responses to all of the questions on career development reveal a pattern that is consistent with other questions in the survey: minority employees indicate greater dissatisfaction with the Agency than do white employees. We also analyzed these data by division within EPA-Region 1. We found significant differences for the questions on engineers/scientists (chi-square = 25.31, df = 15, £ = .05), attorneys (chi-square = 39.60, df = 15, £= .00), and female employees (chi-square = 25.75, df = 15, £ = .04). The pattern of responses for engineers/scientists and attorneys is not surprising; each set of answers appears to reflect that division's experience with or need for personnel in these areas. The majority of participants from the Waste Management Division, Water Management Division, and Environmental Services Division said that the Agency places too little emphasis on the career development of engineers/scientists. A sizeable number of employees in the Environ- mental Services Division (40%) also said that the Agency places too much emphasis on -53- ------- the career development of attorneys; 70 percent of the employees in the Water Management Division said that the Agency places just enough emphasis on their careers; and over half of those employed in the various administrative offices said that the Agency places too little emphasis on attorneys' career development. The responses to the question on female employees may reflect the gender com- position of the divisions. While one-third of the employees in the Environmental Services Division and the Water Management Division and one-fifth of those in the Waste Management Division felt that the Agency places too much emphasis on the career development of women, nearly three-fifths of the employees in the Air Manage- ment Division and the Planning and Management Division believed that the Agency places just enough emphasis on women's career development, and almost half of the employees in the administrative offices said that the Agency places too little emphasis on the career development of women. The numbers may also reflect a particular division's experience with Affirmative Action programs. Although employees in most divisions said that the Agency places just enough emphasis on the career development of men, over half of the employees in the Environmental Services Division said that the Agency places too little emphasis on developing men's careers. Coupled with their response on the career development of women, this response suggests that some employees in the Environmental Services Division may believe that the Agency is discriminating against male employees. -54- ------- Summary — Minority employees reported having been promoted less often than white employees. — Most employees said that they can talk with their supervisors about career development issues. — Most employees believed that their supervisors are interested in their careers. — Men and women agreed that competence is the necessary prerequisite for promotion in the Agency. Minority employees, however, said that seniority is also necessary. — Men and women did not agree on the prerequisites for promotion to manager. Men were more likely to believe that employees must work hard, have friends in the right places, and be a team player. Minority employees believed that employees must have friends in the right places, be a team player, and have seniority. — Most employees were either not eligible for or not interested in the Upward Mobility Program. — Minority employees expressed greater dissatisfaction with the career development efforts of the Agency than did white employees. — Women and minorities indicated greater support for the career development of each other than did white men. -55- ------- VXI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY To assess employee awareness of Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity practices at EPA-Region 1, we asked respondents several questions about the representation of women and minorities in the regional workforce (questions 37-39, 44). We also asked respondents to express their opinions on the practice of setting Affirmative Action goals for various employee groups (questions 34, 52). We compared women's and men's responses to these questions, as well as minorities' and whites' responses. Results of the analyses are reported below. Representation of Women and Minorities EPA's Office of Civil Rights reported that, at the close of FY86, Region 1 employed 202 women and 275 men (see Affirmative Action Tracking Report, Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986). Sixty-three percent (n = 127) of the women and ninety- eight percent (n = 269) of the men were listed as Professional or Administrative/ Technical employees. Men clearly dominate the non-clerical ranks at EPA-Region 1, and the vast majority of the survey respondents knew that. We asked employees to select, among four choices, the approximate percentages of women and men working in EPA-Region 1 excluding those persons who hold Clerical positions (question 44). Forty-nine percent of the respondents correctly described the non-clerical workforce as approximately 30 percent female and 70 percent male. Another 27 percent of the surveyed employees claimed even fewer women in the Professional or Administrative/Technical job categories. Twenty-four percent of the surveyed employees said, incorrectly, that women and men are equally represented in the non-clerical ranks at EPA-Region 1. There were no statistically significant differences in the estimates of women and men, or the estimates of minority and white respondents. -56- ------- We also studied employees' perceptions of (a) the number of women, and (b) the number of minorities in supervisory positions at EPA-Region 1. Workforce statistics collected by the Agency's Office of Civil Rights provide some context for these data. In Region 1, 107 employees performed jobs graded GS-13 through GS-15 (at the close of FY86). This group of employees included 4 minority men, 21 white women, and 82 white men. The Region's senior executive officers were five white men (see Affirmative Action Tracking Report, Office of Civil Rights, October 2, 1986). Some men tended to see more women, however, at the GS-13 level or above than actually exist. When asked to select, among four choices, the approximate percentage of supervisory positions filled by women, few respondents overestimated the number (question 37). Those respondents who did are mostly men, and this finding is statisti- cally significant (chi-square = 14.35, df = 3, £ = .00). Most respondents said that 7 to 14 percent of the regional supervisors are women. Table 25 shows the breakdown of women's and men's estimates. Table 25 Estimates by Gender of the Percentage of Female Supervisors Possible Estimates % women % men zero% female 8 3 7% female 74 57 14% female 16 34 32% female 2 6 Further, 37 percent of the men surveyed claimed that minority females fill some supervisory positions in EPA-Region 1 (question 39). Yet, the 17 minority women in the regional workforce (at the close of FY86) performed only jobs graded GS-12 or below. While 71 percent of all respondents knew that minority females are not supervisors, women were more likely than men to perceive accurately the lot of minority women in -57- ------- EPA-Region 1. The differences in women's and men's estimates of the percentage of regional supervisors who are minority females were statistically significant (chi- square = 8.33, df = 3, £=.04). These data are shown in Table 26. Responses to question 39 did not differ by race. Table 26 Estimates by Gender of the Percentage of Minority Female Supervisors Possible Estimates % women % men zero% female 80 63 7% female 19 34 14% female 1 2 32% female 0 1 Although the four minority males at the GS-13 to GS-15 level are visible to most women and men in EPA-Region 1 (question 38), a significant number of employees do not see them. Sixty-nine percent of all respondents correctly estimated that four percent of the regional supervisors are minority men; 19 percent, however, claimed minority men are not represented at all in the region's supervisory ranks. Fewer respondents (12%) overestimated the percentage of regional employees at or above the GS-13 level who are minority males. The responses showed no significant differences by gender or race. Establishing Affirmative Action Goals The agency's Affirmative Action Plan requires regional management to improve the representation of women and ethnic/racial minorities in the workforce. In support of Affirmative Action recruitment, EPA-Region 1 sets hiring goals for underrepre- sented groups each year. We assessed employees' opinions of this practice, and found -58- ------- partial support for Affirmative Action goals. Women and minorities were more likely than white men to endorse various hiring goals based on Affirmative Action principles. For each of the following groups, we asked employees to indicate whether or not there should be Affirmative Action goals (question 52): American Indians/Alaskan Natives; Asian/Pacific Islanders; Blacks; Hispanics; and Women. Table 27 reports the percentages of women and men and minorities and whites who supported Affirmative Action goals for these groups. Table 27 Support for Affirmative Action Goals Group % women % men % minorities % whites American Indians/ 64 52 89 54 Alaskan Natives Asian/Pacific Islanders 61 44 79 49 Blacks 70 64 89 64 Hispanics 66 52 85 56 Women 68 40 61 54 The differences in the numbers of women and men who supported Affirmative Action goals for the following three groups were statistically significant: 1. Asian/Pacific Islanders: chi-square = 5.38, df = 1, p = .02; 2. Hispanics: chi-square = 3.90, df = 1, £ = .05; and, 3. Women: chi-square = 15.76, df = 1, £ = .00. In each case, a greater percentage of the female respondents indicated their support for Affirmative Action goals. Chi-square tests revealed no significant gender differences among those respondents who believed Affirmative Action goals should exist for American Indians/Alaskan Natives and Blacks. Both men and women indicated greatest support for Affirmative Action goals for Blacks, but women showed greater support overall for all listed employee groups. -59- ------- According to most of the minority respondents, EPA-Region 1 should set or continue to set Affirmative Action goals for ethnic/racial groups. Significantly fewer white respondents supported Affirmative Action goals for the following four groups: 1. American Indians/Alaskan Natives: chi-square = 10.41, df = 1, £ = .00; 2. Asian/Pacific Islanders: chi-square = 7.26, df = 1, £ = .01; 3. Blacks: chi-square = 5.41, df = 1, £ = .02; and, 4. Hispanics: chi-square = 7.25, df = 1, £= .01. While the percentage of minority respondents who believed Affirmative Action goals should exist for women was greater than the percentage of white respondents, the difference was not statistically significant. Employees who believed that there should be Affirmative Action goals for various underrepresented groups were most often women and minorities. Overall support for Affirmative Action notwithstanding, nearly half of all respon- dents (48%) maintained that the hiring and promotion of women and minorities should be "based on qualifications alone with no concern for Affirmative Action goals" (ques- tion 34). Only a small number of employees favored hiring and promoting "as many women and minorities as possible." Respondents who supported affirmative, but restricted, hiring and promotion of women and minorities perceived the basis of such personnel decisions differently: 28 percent said Affirmative Action hires should be "based on the distribution of women and minorities in the fields in which hiring is taking place," and 15 percent believed Affirmative Action goals should be "based on the distri- bution of women and minorities in the general population." Responses to question 34 did not vary by respondent's gender, but there were, however, statistical differences by race (chi-square = 16.14, df = 3, £ = .00). Fifty-four percent of the white employees, compared to 35 percent of the minor- ity employees, said that qualifications alone should guide the hiring and promotion of women and minorities. Another 35 percent of the minority respondents believed that -60- ------- the representation of women and minorities in EPA-Region 1 should reflect the distri- bution of women and minorities in the general population; only 12 percent of the white respondents agreed. Those who maintained that the number of women and minorities in each job category should reflect the distribution of women and minorities in the fields in which hiring occurs included 30 percent of the white employees and 17 percent of the minority employees. Minority employees were much more likely than white employees to say that Affirmative Action should play some role in personnel decisions. Summary — Almost half of all respondents correctly described EPA-Region l's non-clerical workforce as approximately 30 percent female and 70 percent male. — Men saw more women at the GS-13 level or above than actually exist. — More than one-third of the men surveyed claimed that minority women fill some positions graded GS-13 or above, despite the fact that at the close of FY86, the region's supervisory ranks included no minority women. — Women and minorities were more likely than white men to endorse various hiring goals based on Affirmative Action principles. -61- ------- VHI. SEXUAL HARASSMENT Sexual harassment is just beginning to receive some degree of public attention. The recognition that sexual harassment violates the civil rights of the harassed has led to various policies and programs designed to assist harassed individuals and educate men and women about the issue. Yet, sexual harassment remains a serious problem for women and one whose remedy is still not close at hand. In any work organization, both the frequency of sexual harassment and the organization's real and perceived stance regarding such behavior contribute to the climate of the workplace, especially for women. We asked employees if they had experienced any form of sexual harassment (ques- tion 53), and how serious a problem they think it is at EPA-Region 1 (question 54). We also presented eight statements (question 55) regarding various aspects of sexual harassment and asked respondents to rate the statements on a scale from "strongly agree" (equal to 1) to "strongly disagree" (equal to 5). Finally, we asked respondents to indicate which, if any, of nine actions they would take if sexually harassed. Experiences of Sexual Harassment Of the 119 women who answered the question about experiencing sexual harass- ment while working at EPA-Region 1, 77 percent said they had never been sexually harassed, 9 percent said they had been harassed once, 12 percent said they had been harassed several times, and 2 percent said they had been harassed many times. These results suggest two different views of Region l's work environment. First, sexual harassment is not part of the experience of most women in Region 1. On the other hand, it is part of the experience of nearly one-fourth of the women in the Region, a disturbingly large minority. -62- ------- Of the 112 men, only one percent reported one sexually harassing incident. Two percent reported several and many. Consistent with their experience, most women (76%) and men (85%) reported that sexual harassment in Region 1 is "not serious." Twenty percent of the women thought it is "somewhat serious," compared to 13 percent of the men. Again, although most employees did not believe that sexual harassment is a serious problem in Region 1, a sizeable minority of women disagreed. Defining Sexual Harassment We listed statements that were designed to define sexual harassment through examples. We were interested in whether women and men define sexual harassment differently and, if so, in what ways. An analysis of variance revealed that women and men differed significantly from one another on two of the items. First, contrary to what might be expected, women agreed with the following statement less strongly than men: "It is sexual harassment when a supervisor requests sexual favors from an employee and the employee agrees" (F = 4.50; df = 1, 210; £ = .04). Second, women dis- agreed more strongly than men with the statement that "Sexual harassment is usually reported to the proper authority" (F_ = 4.95; df = 1, 210; £ = .03). The respondents agreed that sexual harassment occurs when: • a person makes sexual advances to another who is in a lower position within the organization; and • a supervisor touches a subordinate on a regular basis, and this makes the subordinate feel uneasy or intimidated. The other items drew more neutral responses. -63- ------- Responses to Sexual Harassment We provided nine possible actions that employees could take if they were sexually harassed while working at EPA-Region 1. The respondents were asked to check any of the actions they would be able to take. The percentage of respondents who said they would be able to take each action is presented below. The only statistically significant difference by gender was in response to the option to discuss the incident with the Federal Women's Program Manager, where not surprisingly more women (64%) than men (39%) said they could take this action (chi-square = 11.32, df = 1, £ = .01). Table 28 Responses to Sexual Harassment tell the offending individual 93% document the incident 70% discuss with EEO counselor 65% file an internal complaint 57% discuss with Federal Women's Program Manager 52% take legal action 48% request informal hearing 41% discuss with union representative 37% contact Employee Assistance Program 36% Summary — About three-quarters of the women said they have never experienced sexual harassment at EPA-Region 1, but the other one-quarter reported having experienced it at least once. — Most employees thought that sexual harassment is not a serious problem at EPA-Region 1. — Women were less likely than men to say that sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor requests sexual favors from an employee and the employee agrees. -64- ------- Women were less likely than men to believe that sexual harassment is usually reported to the proper authorities. The responses to sexual harassment that the most employees said they would be able to take is telling the offending individual, followed by documenting the incident, and discussing it with the EEO counselor. Women were more likely than men to say they would be able to discuss an incident of sexual harassment with the Federal Women's Program Manager. -65- ------- IX. SPECIAL EMPHASES PROGRAMS The Federal Women's Program (FWP) and the Minority Equal Opportunity Committee (MEOC) are two Special Emphases Programs in force at EPA-Region 1. The region's Employee Handbook contains a one-sentence description of the FWP: "... a program which brings women together around common concerns to broaden their aware- ness about women's issues as employees of the EPA, and to work towards the ultimate goal of full participation of women—equally with men—in the Agency workforce" (see Employee Handbook, p. 7). The FWP Manager, a member of the Deputy Regional Administrator's staff, coordinates the program and its activities. Although not mentioned in the region's Employee Handbook, MEOC seeks full and equal participation of minority employees in EPA-Region 1, specifically, and the Agency workforce, generally. The Employee Handbook does not name any particular administrative employee as responsible for MEOC. We listed several human resource activities that the FWP (question 57) or MEOC (question 58) could support to serve the employment needs of their constituencies. The two Special Emphases Programs have sponsored many of the activities listed, some, however, with more frequency and continuity than others, and some they have never sponsored. We asked employees to identify the activities currently sponsored by the FWP and by MEOC, and to indicate the activities that each program should sponsor. We report only the perceptions of those employees served directly by the Special Emphases Programs, i.e., we discuss women's responses to the two-part question on the FWP, and minority employees' responses to the two-part question concerning MEOC. By limiting our discussion in this way, we offer an assessment of the Special Emphases Programs in EPA-Region 1 provided by the constituencies the programs are intended to serve. Eighty-five percent of the women who participated in the Needs Assessment -66- ------- survey responded to the FWP question; seventy-nine percent of the minority employees in the sample answered the MEOC question. Federal Women's Program The list of activities associated with the FWP included the following 10 items: • Newsletter; • Career workshops for men and women; • Recruiting women employees; • Identifying qualified women employees for promotion; • Conducting briefings on Affirmative Action statistics; • Developing programs for working mothers; • Networking for women; • Consciousness-raising groups for women; • Extra-curricular events for women. The FWP has been involved, to varying degrees, in every activity listed except one: The program has never sponsored extra-curricular events for women, and will not do so in the future. Fortunately, most women in the sample (77%) knew that the FWP is not a social organization. Nearly every woman also recognized that the FWP publishes a newsletter. While 93 percent of the women surveyed knew about the FWP's newsletter, only a smaller percentage (56%) said the FWP should publish a newsletter. The career development of women employees was also widely recognized as a cur- rent concern of the FWP. Most female respondents (80%) knew that the FWP sponsors career workshops for women, but this group included significantly fewer secretaries and clerks than women in any other job category. Sixty-three percent of the Clerical employees, compared to 80 percent of the Professional employees and 97 percent of the -67- ------- Administrative/Technical employees, identified this activity as one currently sponsored by the FWP (chi-square = 11.31, df = 2, £ = .00). Respondents who believed the FWP should sponsor career workshops for women do not differ by job category. Fifty-eight percent of the women surveyed supported the FWP's continued involvement in this activity. The same percentage thought the pro- gram should sponsor career workshops for men and women. About one-fifth indicated that the FWP currently sponsors such workshops. Secretaries and clerks were the least likely to recognize the current role (however restricted) the FWP plays in recruiting women employees. Overall, 59 percent of the women believed the FWP sponsors specific recruiting efforts. While this group includes a minority (37%) of the Clerical employees, it represents the vast majority (7996) of the Administrative/Technical employees. Most women in Professional job positions (5996) also said the specified activity is on FWP's agenda today (chi-square = 11.51, df = 2, £= .00). There was mixed support for the FWP's involvement in recruitment efforts aimed at women. Sixty percent thought the FWP should bring other women into the regional workforce, including six Clerical employees who indicated that the FWP does not currently recruit women employees. Four Professional employees who acknowledged FWP's current role in recruiting female colleagues did not support the FWP's future activity. Engineers, scientists, and attorneys were less convinced that the FWP should identify qualified women for promotion. Fewer Professional employees supported the FWP's involvement in promotion activities. Fifty-one percent of the Professional staff, compared to sixty percent of the Clerical personnel and seventy-six percent of the Administrative/Technical employees, endorsed the FWP's role in promoting the careers of qualified women (chi-square = 4.59, df = 2, £=.10). The number of women who believed the FWP should identify qualified female colleagues for promotion (n = 63) is -68- ------- greater than the number of women who said the FWP currently does (n = 39). Again, Administrative/Technical employees were more likely to recognize the specified activity as currently sponsored by the FWP. While 55 percent of the women holding Administrative or Technical jobs knew the FWP identifies qualified women for promotion, only 33 percent of the Clerical women and 28 percent of the Professional women had similar knowledge (chi-square = 5.68, df = 2, £ = .06). The female respondents who knew that the FWP Manager conducts briefings on Affirmative Action statistics (59%) were mostly Professional or Administrative/ Technical employees. Only 33 percent of the Clerical personnel, compared to 64 percent of the Professional staff and 76 percent of the Administrative/Technical staff, recognized that the FWP Manager participates in such briefings (chi-square = 12.40, df = 2, £ = .00). Secretaries and clerks were not only the least aware, but also the least supportive of FWP's involvement in the briefings. Only 18 percent of the women who believed that the FWP should brief EPA personnel on Affirmative Action statistics held Clerical positions; almost half of the supporters (48%) were Administrative or Technical employees (chi-square = 12.22, df = 2, £ = .00). When the Needs Assessment survey was distributed, the FWP was considering how best to meet the unique employment needs of working mothers. Only 36 percent of the women knew, however, that the FWP was developing programs for working mothers. On the other hand, the majority (71%) believed the FWP should sponsor activities designed to help working mothers balance career and family responsibilities. Women from each of the major job categories supported the FWP's increased activity on behalf of working mothers. Sixty percent of the women surveyed saw networking as a current activity of the FWP. Respondents who recognized that the FWP provides networking opportunities for women were mostly Professional employees (n = 23) or Administrative/Technical employees (n = 24). Almost half (46%) of the women who said the FWP should sponsor -69- ------- networking activities hold Administrative or Technical positions (n = 26) at EPA- Region 1. The 56 women who supported the FWP's continued involvement in networking also include 16 Professional employees and 14 Clerical employees. The overwhelming support for networking activities among Administrative/Technical employees is statis- tically significant (chi-square = 11.45, df = 2, £ = .00.) An explicit objective of the FWP is to broaden women's awareness about their unique employment needs as employees of EPA (see Employee Handbook—EPA- Region 1, p. 7). Forty percent of the women surveyed said that the FWP is currently involved in consciousness-raising activities. Those women who recognized FWP's con- sciousness-raising mission were almost exclusively Professional employees (42%) and Administrative/Technical employees (46%). The five Clerical employees (12%) who reported that the FWP sponsors consciousness-raising groups for women represent a statistically significant minority (chi-square = 11.24, df = 2, £ = .00). The numbers of Professional, Administrative/Technical, and Clerical employees who believed that the FWP should sponsor consciousness-raising activities for women also differ statistically. The 46 percent of the women surveyed who supported the organization of consciousness-raising groups includes mostly Administrative/Technical employees and Clerical employees (n = 16). While more than half of the women in these two job categories favor such groups, only 31 percent of the women in Professional categories indicated support (chi-square = 6.07, df = 2, £ = .05). Minority Equal Opportunity Committee MEOC, like the FWP, is not a social organization, and most minority employees knew that. Approximately 80 percent of the minority employees who participated in the Needs Assessment survey knew that MEOC does not sponsor extra-curricular events for minorities. On the other hand, most MEOC activities were not widely recognized by minority respondents. -70- ------- The activities we associated with MEOC are listed below. In column A we specify the percent of minority respondents who said MEOC currently sponsors the activity listed. Column B includes the percentages of minority respondents who believed that MEOC should sponsor the specified activity. Table 29 Activity Newsletter Career workshops for minority employees Career workshops for all employees Recruit minority employees Identify qualified minority employees for promotion Conduct briefings on Affirmative Action statistics Networking for minorities Consciousness-raising groups for minorities Extra-curricular events for minorities MEOC Activities Column A 'Currently Sponsors" 35% 26% 17% 70% 48% 52% 39% 44% 22% Column B "Should Sponsor" 65% 74% 61% 52% 70% 39% 56% 48% 52% Overall, there was little awareness of MEOC activities among minority employ- ees. The vast majority (70%), however, knew that MEOC aims to increase minority representation in the EPA workforce, and, therefore, sponsors recruitment activities. Respondents indicated much support for MEOC's role in serving minorities' employment needs. In addition to recruiting minority employees, they said MEOC should offer career workshops for minorities, identify qualified minorities for promotion, publish a newsletter, and sponsor career workshops for all regional employees. At least 60 -71- ------- percent of the minority respondents thought MEOC should be more actively involved in career development activities. Summary — The Federal Women's Program (FWP) and the Minority Equal Opportunity Committee (MEOC) are two Special Emphases Programs in force at EPA- Region 1. — Nearly every woman in the survey knew that the FWP publishes a newsletter. — Most women also knew that the FWP sponsors career workshops for women, provides networking opportunities for women, supports the recruitment of women, and conducts briefings on Affirmative Action statistics. — Women who supported various FWP activities often differed by job category. — Although most MEOC activities were not widely recognized by minority employees, the bulk of minority respondents knew that MEOC works to increase minority representation in the EPA workforce. — Minority employees want MEOC to offer career workshops, identify qualified minorities for promotion, and publish a newsletter. — The constituencies of the FWP and MEOC knew that the Special Emphases Programs are not social groups at EPA-Region 1. -72- ------- X. FAMILY-RELATED ISSUES More than half of the employees who completed the Needs Assessment survey have no children; this group includes 70 percent of the women and 50 percent of the men. Significantly fewer women than men in EPA-Region 1 are parents (chi- square = 8.64, df = 1, jd = .00). Survey respondents who do have children typically have youngsters less than four years old. Compared to the number of respondents who identify themselves as the "sole head of household" (36%), nearly twice as many employees consider themselves the "joint head of household" (64%). The results of the Needs Assessment survey indicate much support among EPA- Region 1 employees for human resource initiatives designed to assist working parents. We asked employees to respond to a series of statements related to the general topic of family and work (questions 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, and 82). Respondents used a five-point scale to indicate the extent of their agreement (1 = strongly agree) or disagreement (5 = strongly disagree) with each statement. In this section of the report we present a summary of the regional employees' opinions on particular issues confronting working parents. The vast majority of respondents agreed with both of the following statements: • "Paid maternity leave would increase employee satisfaction in EPA-Region 1" (77 persons strongly agreed, 74 persons agreed); • "Paid paternity leave would increase employee satisfaction in EPA-Region 1" (77 persons strongly agreed, 72 persons agreed). Most respondents (n = 165) also believed that "On-site daycare services would increase the productivity of employees who have young children." Even the hypothetical statement, "If I had young children, I would use on-site daycare services if they were available" provoked little disagreement: 65 respondents strongly agreed with this state- ment, and 75 respondents agreed. Employees without children, as well as working -73- ------- parents, associated parental leaves and on-site daycare with increased job satisfaction and productivity. Analysis of the employees' responses by gender, however, indicated that women agreed more strongly with each of the specified statements, including the one about paid paternity leave. The mean responses to each of these statements, as well as the results of the analyses of variance in women's and men's responses, appear in Table 30. Minority respondents, as a group, also believed more strongly that a paternity leave policy would increase employee satisfaction than did white respondents. Table 31 pre- sents a summary of mean responses to the specified statements by ethnic/racial identity. Table 30 Responses to Family-Related Issues by Gender Mean Responses Statement Women Men Paid maternity leave/ 1.86 a 2.47 more satisfaction Paid paternity leave/ 1.98 ^ 2.40 more satisfaction On-site daycare/ 1.96 c 2.27 more productivity Would use daycare 2.12 ^ 2.59 a Women agreed more strongly with the statement than did men (F = 18.86; df =1, 217; £= .00). b Women agreed more strongly with the statement than did men (F = 8.06; df =1, 217; £= .00). c Women agreed more strongly with the statement than did men (F = 6.17; df =1, 217; £= .01). d Women agreed more strongly with the statement than did men (F = 8.92; df =1, 217; £= .00). -74- ------- Table 31 Responses to Family-Related Issues by Race Mean Responses Statement Paid maternity leave/ more satisfaction Minorities Whites 1.86 2.20 Paid paternity leave/ more satisfaction 1.71 a 2.26 On-site daycare/ more productivity 1.89 2.14 Would use daycare 2.07 2.38 a Minority employees agreed more strongly with the statement than did white employees (F = 5.90; df =1, 218; £= .02). Responses to the statement, "A woman who chooses to work part-time while raising her children is less serious about her career than a woman who works full-time," showed no significant differences by race but did show significant differences by gender. The mean rating for women was 4.13 and the mean rating for men was 3.82, indicating that while both women and men disagreed with the statement, women disagreed more strongly (F = 4.60, df = 1, £= .03). The results confirm the perception of the women we interviewed prior to developing the questionnaire: men are more likely than women to devalue professionally women who work part-time. Responses to the statement, "A manager who chooses to move from full-time to part-time employment while raising children will have difficulty being promoted," fur- ther supported women employees' concerns about balancing the responsibilities of family and career. Most respondents agreed with this notion, as indicated by a mean rating of 2.09. Mean responses did not vary significantly by gender or by race. Sixty persons reported that the Federal Women's Program (FWP) is presently developing programs for working mothers. Many more employees (n = 132) said that the FWP should focus some attention on working mothers and their particular concerns: 76 -75- ------- women, 54 men, and 2 respondents who did not specify their gender indicated support for the FWP's involvement. (Fifty-nine respondents did not offer an opinion on this issue.) There were no significant statistical differences in the numbers of women and men who think the FWP now sponsors specialized programs for working mothers, or should do so in the future. Employees without children were as supportive of the FWP's interest in working mothers as were employees with children. Women and men employed at EPA-Region 1 share a concern for working parents, particularly working mothers. Both women and men think the FWP should address family-related issues. The Federal Women's Program could, as an initial project, investigate progressive alternatives to the region's current maternity leave policy and on-site daycare services. Summary — Significantly fewer women than men are parents at EPA-Region 1. — The majority of respondents agreed that paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave would increase employee satisfaction. — Most respondents also agreed that on-site daycare services would increase the productivity of working parents. — Men were more likely than women to devalue professionally those women who work part-time while raising children. — Most of the respondents who are knowledgeable about the Federal Women's Program believed the FWP should sponsor specialized activities for working mothers. -76- ------- XL OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS The major advantage of a survey instrument in which the answers to questions are specified is that many people can respond to the questions and their responses can be easily counted and analyzed. The disadvantage is that the responses are limited to those listed in the survey instrument. To offset this disadvantage, we structured the questionnaire so that a sample of employees would receive a set of open-ended ques- tions to complete in addition to the 102 items for which responses were structured. This longer form of the questionnaire was distributed to 200 employees: all minority employees and a random sample of white employees. Of the 242 employees who returned their questionnaires, 83 returned long forms. Of these 83, 72 completed the open-ended questions; this represents 30 percent of the entire sample. The breakdown of long-form questionnaires by gender and race is shown below. Table 32 Profile of Those Completing Long Form white 53 (74%) female 35 (49%) minority 19 (26%) male 37 (51%) The 10 questions included in the open-ended section focused on the obstacles and special needs of women and minorities within the EPA, EPA's commitment to Affirma- tive Action, and equal opportunity within the EPA for women and minorities. Separate questions were asked about Region 1 and about the Agency as a whole. We content analyzed responses to all questions using a system where the cate- gories for analysis were derived from the responses themselves rather than being selected in advance. The derived categories for each question will be described below under each section. Two raters established intercoder reliability for all category -77- ------- systems using a subset of the questionnaires. After the reliability of the systems was established, one person coded the remainder of the questionnaires. More detailed infor- mation on the coding system is supplied in Appendix A. Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action We based the first judgment about the answers to the open-ended questions on the responses to all 10 questions. The responses as a whole were characterized as falling into one of four categories: • sympathetic to Affirmative Action; • unsympathetic to Affirmative Action; • mixed views about Affirmative Action; • no clear perspective on Affirmative Action. Of the 72 questionnaires, 56 percent were characterized as sympathetic compared to 24 percent which were characterized as unsympathetic. The remaining 20 percent were divided between mixed and no clear perspective. We found no statistically significant differences between women and men or between minorities and whites. A greater percentage of minorities than whites, however, were sympathetic, and a greater percentage of whites were unsympathetic. The percentages are displayed below. Table 33 Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: Whites and Minorities % white % minority sympathetic unsympathetic mixed no clear perspective 49 11 30 9 74 11 11 5 -78- ------- Obstacles to Promotion We asked respondents if women (question 1) and if minorities (question 2) "face unique obstacles to promotion within EPA-Region 1." The answers to these questions were characterized in two ways. First, we noted if the answer was "yes," "no," "mixed," or if the person said she or he had "insufficient knowledge" to answer the questions. For the question about women, female respondents were significantly more likely than male respondents to answer yes (chi-square = 9.72, df = 3, £= .03): 57 percent of the women said yes compared to 27 percent of the men. Percentages in each category are shown in the table below. Table 34 Do Women Face Obstacles to Promotion? Response % women % men yes 57 27 no 29 65 mixed 11 5 insufficient knowledge 3 3 The comparison between whites and minorities showed no significant difference on this item. For the item about minorities, a similar response pattern occurred. Here males and females did not differ in their responses, but whites and minorities did differ (chi- square = 10.40, df = 3, £= .02). Minorities were much more likely than whites to see obstacles to promotion for minorities. Table 35 shows a breakdown of responses to the item by race. -79- ------- Table 35 Do Minorities Face Obstacles to Promotion? Response 96 minority % white yes 79 42 no 11 45 mixed 10 6 insufficient knowledge 0 8 The second level of analysis for the two questions involved characterizing the responses that were provided. In interpreting the results below, keep in mind that a person may have given more than one reason for his or her answer, i.e., there are many more coded responses than there are participants. Those who said that women do face obstacles to promotion most often said that (1) women must work against a male culture and an "old boys" network where women are often isolated, and (2) women are negatively stereotyped based on gender. The distribution of responses by percentage is shown below. Table 36 Reasons for Obstacles to Women's Promotion Reason % women % men white male culture/network 46 2 stereotyping 17 14 miscellaneous other 28 2 no reason given 6 5 Those who said that women do not face obstacles to promotion most often said that (1) government and Agency programs and standards are in place to assist women, and (2) women are, in fact, often given preferential treatment over men. The responses that women do not face obstacles are largely from men. The distribution of responses appears in Table 37. -80- ------- Table 37 Reasons for No Obstacles to Women's Promotion Reason % women % men government and Agency help 14 24 preferential treatment 3 14 miscellaneous other 14 16 no reason given 6 22 The responses suggest that many women in Region 1 feel that the male organi- zational culture and stereotyping of women limit their opportunities for promotion. Men, on the other hand, tend to believe that women are provided with government and Agency assistance and are, in fact, sometimes given preferential treatment. We analyzed the responses to the obstacles to promotion for minorities in the same way. For those responding that minorities do face obstacles to promotion, the most common reasons given were that (1) minorities must work within a white male culture, and (2) minorities face negative stereotyping. The responses here are analogous to those about the problems women face. The distribution of responses by race is shown below. Table 38 Reasons for Obstacles to Minorities' Promotion Reason % minority % white white male culture/network 47 26 stereotyping 37 11 lack of government controls 5 6 miscellaneous other 26 21 no reason given 3 3 These results indicate that many employees, especially minorities, believe that racial stereotypes and white male culture limit the promotional opportunities of minor- ity employees. -81- ------- The most frequent reason given by those who said that minorities do not face unique obstacles to promotion was that government and Agency standards and programs are in place to assist minorities. The distribution of responses follows. Table 39 Reasons for No Obstacles to Minorities' Promotion government and Agency help preferential treatment miscellaneous other no reason given Reason % minority 11 0 5 16 % white 13 2 15 6 The responses to the questions about promotional obstacles for women and minor- ities reveal a pattern in which women and minorities identify attitudinal and cultural barriers to their success within the organization, while white men believe that structural changes (government policies and programs) have eliminated those barriers. Special Needs of Women and Minorities We asked two questions in the open-ended section about the special needs of women and of minorities in EPA-Region 1 (questions 3 and 4). For both questions, the following categories characterized the needs named in the responses: (1) more oppor- tunities for professional advancement and training, (2) more professional networking and mentoring, (3) more positive recognition of the individual, and (4) education of the white male culture to alleviate prejudice. For the question regarding women's needs, we added a fifth category to describe the need for a more effective Agency response to the dual domestic and professional roles that many women play (for example, several employees specifically mentioned childcare and maternity leave). For the question about women's needs (question 3), the greatest number of responses were in the categories of dual role and positive recognition; the former was -82- ------- mentioned by both women and men, and the latter was more often mentioned by women. Also, more men than women said that women have no special needs. The dis- tribution of responses according to gender appears below. Table 40 Special Needs of Women Special Need % women % men recognize dual role of women more opportunities positive recognition networking/mentoring educate white male culture none insufficient information 20 17 20 17 11 17 6 26 5 5 0 11 30 11 The equivalent question regarding special needs of minorities (question 4) revealed quite different responses from minority and white employees. Whites most often noted no special needs of minorities or insufficient information to judge. When they did identify special needs, they named more opportunities and more networking and mentoring. Minorities, on the other hand, most often noted the need for positive recog- nition, followed by the need for more opportunities, and the education of the white male culture to alleviate prejudice. Table 41 Special Needs of Minorities Special Need % minority 96 white more opportunities positive recognition networking/mentoring educate white male culture none insufficient information other 16 26 5 16 0 5 11 13 7 17 4 21 15 9 -83- ------- EPA's Commitment to Affirmative Action We also asked two questions about the commitment of EPA-Region 1 (question 5) and the EPA as a whole (question 8) to Affirmative Action. For these two questions, responses were first rated "yes," "no," "mixed," or "insufficient knowledge"; we then categorized the reasons. About twice as many people (61%) said that Region 1 is committed to Affirmative Action as said that it is not (29%). When asked about the EPA as a whole, approxi- mately the same number said that it is not committed to Affirmative Action (32%), but only 46 percent said that the EPA as a whole is committed. Fewer employees had sufficient knowledge to judge the commitment of the EPA as a whole. The percentages responding in each category are shown below. There were no gender or race differences in the responses. Table 42 Affirmative Action Commitment Response Region 1 EPA/whole yes 61 46 no 29 32 mixed 7 6 insufficient knowledge 3 17 We coded the specific responses to these two questions in the same manner as the previous questions. For those employees who responded yes (which was the most frequent response for both questions), we placed each of their comments into one of four reasons: (1) government and Agency programs and standards; (2) those who qualify are given preferential treatment; (3) commitment exists, but more in theory than in practice; and (4) other. The most common response to Region l's commitment was that the commitment exists because of government and Agency standards and programs. Some employees -84- ------- also noted that commitment exists in theory but not as much as it should in practice. The distribution of responses appears below. Table 43 EPA-Region 1: Reasons for Affirmative Action Commitment Reason 96 women 96 men % minorities 96 white government 34 24 32 34 preferential treatment 9 16 5 15 theory, not practice 14 14 16 13 miscellaneous other 3 3 5 2 no reason given 9 19 0 19 We categorized the reasons that indicate a lack of commitment by Region 1 to Affirmative Action into two categories: (1) the lack of standards and programs and (2) the isolation of women and/or minorities. Employees most often said that Region 1 lacked standards and programs. Table 44 EPA-Region Is Reasons for No Affirmative Action Commitment Reason % women 96 men % minorities % white no standards 20 16 32 13 isolation 3 8 5 6 miscellaneous other 3 0 0 2 no reason given 0 8 11 0 As did those for Region 1, the affirmative answers to the question about the EPA as a whole most often mentioned government and Agency standards as proof that the EPA as a whole is committed to Affirmative Action. Minorities were most likely to say that the Agency's commitment exists in theory but not in practice. The responses to this question are shown in Table 45. -85- ------- Table 45 EPA: Reasons for Affirmative Action Commitment Reason 96 women % men % minorities % white government 17 14 5 19 preferential treatment 0 5 0 4 theory, not practice 6 8 21 2 miscellaneous other 3 8 11 4 no reason given 17 30 0 32 Those who said that the EPA as a whole did not have a commitment to Affir- mative Action pointed to both a lack of Agency standards and the isolation of women and minorities. Employees' responses are displayed in Table 46. Table 46 EPA: Reasons for No Affirmative Action Commitment Reason % women % men % minorities % white no standards 11 5 11 8 isolation 3 11 16 4 miscellaneous other 6 3 11 2 no reason given 9 8 16 6 -86- ------- Opportunities for Success The last set of open-ended questions focused on perceptions about the opportun- ities for success of men and women, and of minorities and whites, both in Region 1 (questions 6 and 7) and in the EPA as a whole (question 9 and 10). The questions regarding gender asked if "men and women have equal opportunity for success" in EPA-Region 1 and in the EPA as a whole. For Region 1, half of the respondents said no, and less than half said yes. For the EPA as a whole, the affirmative responses were the same as for Region 1. More employees indicated, however, that they had insufficient knowledge to answer the question. The percentages are reported below. Table 47 Do Women and Men have Equal Opportunity for Success? Response 96 women % men EPA-Region 1 yes 34 46 no 51 49 mixed 11 5 insufficient knowledge 3 0 EPA as a whole yes 34 46 no 43 38 mixed 9 8 insufficient knowledge 14 8 Approximately half of the employees, male and female, said that women and men do not have equal opportunity for success in Region 1. The low number of mixed responses may indicate some polarization on the issue. The reasons that employees gave for believing that the EPA provides equal oppor- tunity for women and men were most often in the category of "equal opportunity." -87- ------- Their comments included references to Agency policies and practices that are designed to provide equal opportunity and to the increasing number of women in various positions throughout the EPA. A significant number of respondents, however, did not provide reasons for their answers. The distribution of responses by question and gender is shown below. Table 48 Reasons Supporting Women's and Men's Equal Opportunity Reason % women 96 men EPA-Region 1 equal opportunity 20 22 preferential treatment 3 5 miscellaneous other 3 0 no reason given 20 24 EPA as a whole equal opportunity 9 16 preferential treatment 3 0 miscellaneous other 9 0 no reason given 23 35 Employees who said that the EPA does not give equal opportunity for success to men and women gave reasons that point once again to the existence of a white male culture that provides norms and networks for men which function to exclude women. These questions also tapped the sentiment among about one-quarter of the male respon- dents that the Region and Agency engage in reverse discrimination and are thus not giving equal opportunity to men. The percentage of men who earlier responded that men and women do not have equal opportunity for success should be interpreted with that sentiment in mind. Thus, a significant minority of men believe that equal oppor- tunity does not exist because men have less opportunity than women. -88- ------- Table 49 Reasons Against Women's and Men's Equal Opportunity Reason % women 96 men EPA-Region 1 white male culture 20 8 reverse discrimination 3 24 isolation of women 9 5 stereotyping of women 6 0 miscellaneous other 14 5 no reason given 3 5 EPA as a whole white male culture 14 11 reverse discrimination 3 19 isolation of women 9 3 stereotyping of women 6 3 miscellaneous other 6 3 no reason given 9 5 The parallel question regarding minorities asked if the EPA provides equal oppor- tunity for success for minorities and whites. One question focused on Region 1 and one on the EPA as a whole. As with the question about gender, more respondents said no than yes, but the response pattern was even more marked. Minorities, especially, believe that they are not given equal opportunities for success, but both minority and white employees do not believe minorities and whites have equal opportunity for success. Also, Region 1 is rated more severely than is the EPA as a whole: 65 percent said that Region 1 does not provide equal opportunity for minorities, and 51 percent said that the EPA as a whole does not. More employees, however, indicated they have insufficient knowledge of the Agency than of Region 1. -89- ------- Table 50 Do Minorities and Whites have Equal Opportunity for Success? Response % minorities % whites EPA-Region 1 yes 5 30 no 90 57 mixed 5 8 insufficient knowledge 0 6 EPA as a whole yes 16 32 no 74 43 mixed 0 8 insufficient knowledge 10 17 For those who said that the EPA does offer equal opportunities for success to minorities and whites, most referred to Agency opportunities. No other type of response occurred more than once. Table 51 Reasons Supporting Minorities' Equal Opportunity Reason % minorities 96 whites EPA-Region 1 equal opportunity 5 11 miscellaneous other 0 8 no reason given 5 21 EPA as a whole equal opportunity 5 8 miscellaneous other 11 8 no reason given 0 26 Those who believe that the EPA does not provide equal opportunity for success to minorities and whites most often noted the existence of white male culture and the -90- ------- closely related problem of the isolation of minorities. Although some respondents mentioned reverse discrimination, the number was small compared with the comparable question about gender, suggesting that reverse discrimination is an issue of gender, not race, in Region 1. Table 52 Reasons Against Minorities' Opportunity Reason % minorities 96 whites EPA-Region 1 white male culture 26 13 stereotyping 21 4 isolation of minorities 26 15 reverse discrimination 5 9 miscellaneous other 11 8 no reason given 5 9 EPA as a whole white male culture 16 8 stereotyping 5 6 isolation of minorities 21 8 reverse discrimination 0 8 miscellaneous other 5 0 no reason given 21 4 Summary — The majority of employees were sympathetic to Affirmative Action, although almost one-quarter were unsympathetic. — Women were more likely than men to perceive that women face unique obstacles to promotion. The most frequently cited obstacles were male culture/male networks and stereotyping. -91- ------- Minorities were more likely than whites to perceive that minorities face unique obstacles to promotion. The most frequently cited obstacles were white male culture and stereotyping. Both women and men believed that balancing job and family responsibilities is a special concern for female employees. Women also expressed their needs for more positive recognition, networking, and mentoring. More women than men believed that women have special needs. Special needs for minorities included more opportunities within the Agency. Minorities also cited the need for more recognition, while whites thought that minorities need more mentoring and networking. Somewhat less than two-thirds of the employees believed that Region 1 is committed to Affirmative Action, but somewhat less than one-third believed that commitment is only superficial. More employees believed that women do not have equal opportunity for success at the EPA than believed that they do. Most believed that the male culture is the major impediment, but a minority of men also believed that women's opportunities for success lead to reverse discrimination. More employees believed that minorities do not have equal opportunity for success at the EPA than believed that they do. Employees perceived the major impediments to be the existence of white male culture and the isolation of minorities; minorities also saw negative stereotyping of themselves as an impediment. -92- ------- Appendix A CODING FOR OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS We content analyzed the answers to the 10 open-ended questions by developing categories derived from the responses to the questions. After a training period in which one of the investigators instructed a coder both about the method to use in deriving categories and about the system to be used in recording observations, the coder worked independently to derive category systems to be used with each question. As the first step in establishing intercoder reliability, the investigator then coded approximately 25 percent of the questionnaires using the system derived by the coder. A particular answer could have more than one code depending on the way in which the person responded. Disagreements were discussed, and in some cases modifications were made to the coding system prior to proceeding with additional questionnaires. In those cases where the system was modified, the investigator again coded approximately 25 percent of the questionnaires in order to determine intercoder reliability. Intercoder reliability statistics using Scott's Pi are reported below under each set of definitions. System for Questions 1 and 2 The first judgment about these questions was if the answer was YES, NO, MIXED, or if the person indicated INSUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE to provide an answer. If the answer was mixed, at least one category from the "yes" and "no" lists was required. Intercoder reliability was .94. The second judgment related to the specific content of the responses. The system for categorizing the answers consisted of categories for reasons rated as "no" and categories for reasons rated as "yes." -93- ------- NO 1. Government and/or Agency standards are in place to assist in the promotion of Affirmative Action goals, to provide special programs, or in other ways to promote Affirmative Action (either a general statement or examples pointing to standards and programs may be given) 2. Preferential treatment is given that may result in careful consideration of Affirmative Action candidates and may also give preference to these candi- dates 3. No comment or reason is provided 4. Miscellaneous other YES 1. Male culture and an old boys' network exist and result in isolation of women or minorities, and in a high concentration of males in decision-making positions (reference may be made to white male culture) 2. Stereotyping, bias, and prejudice exist, and there is unfair categorization or treatment of women or minorities 3. Government controls are lacking to protect women or minorities 4. No comment or reason is provided 5. Miscellaneous other Intercoder reliability for judging the content of Questions 1 and 2 was .84. System for Questions 3 and 4 Judgments were required within the following categories: 1. More opportunities for professional advancement are required that include promotions, training, and commitment to women or minorities 2. More professional networking and professional mentoring are needed 3. Greater recognition of the contributions and qualities of women or minorities is needed 4. The (white) male culture within the organization needs to be educated to alleviate prejudice and stereotyping 5. No special needs 6. Insufficient knowledge and experience to respond 7. Miscellaneous other -94- ------- * 8. Question 3 only: need to recognize and respond to the problems that women face because of dual work and domestic roles Intercoder reliability for the two questions together was .85. System for Questions 5 and 8 The first judgment about these questions was if the answer was YES, NO, MIXED, or if the person indicated INSUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE to provide an answer. Inter- coder reliability was .83. The system for judging the content of the responses consisted of categories for reasons rated as "no" and categories for reasons rated as "yes." NO 1. Lack of commitment by government and Agency; lack of standards and procedures; lack of priority given to Affirmative Action 2. Isolation of women or minorities occurs within the workplace 3. No comment or reason given 4. Miscellaneous other YES 1. Government and Agency standards and programs exist which promote Affir- mative Action goals and practices 2. Policies exist to promote Affirmative Action goals and practices even though these policies are not always applied; theory is ahead of practice 3. Preferential treatment is given to women or minorities that may lead to reverse discrimination 4. No comment or reason given 5. Miscellaneous other Intercoder reliability for judging the content of Questions 5 and 8 was .78 for the two questions. -95- ------- System for Questions 6, 7, 9, and 10 The first judgment, again, was if the answer was YES, NO, MIXED, or if the person indicated INSUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE to provide an answer. Intercoder reliability for Questions 6 and 7 was .98 and for Questions 9 and 10 was .97. Judgments about the content of the answer were made using the following cate- gories for "no" and "yes" comments. NO 1. Existence of (white) male culture, as previously defined 2. Stereotyping, bias, and prejudice exist 3. Isolation of women or minorities, as previously defined 4. No comment or reason is provided 5. Miscellaneous other YES 1. Government and Agency standards and programs provide equal opportunity to everyone 2. Preferential treatment is given to women or minorities 3. No comment or reason given 4. Miscellaneous other Intercoder reliability for judging the content of Questions 6 and 7 was .91, and for Questions 9 and 10 was .83. -96- ------- Appendix B EPA-REGION 1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE -97- ------- EPA-Region 1 Needs Assessment Questionnaire Please read each of the following questions carefully and choose the answer which best represents your opinion, attitude, or perception. For each question, place a check mark ( ) on the line to the left of the response you select. 1. How many years have you worked at EPA-Region 1? less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-7 years 8 or more years 2. How many years full-time work experience did you have prior to joining the EPA? less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-7 years 8 or more years 3. How many years have you been working at your current grade level? less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-7 years 8 or more years 4. Please indicate the division and the branch (or office if applicable) that you work in now: Air Management Division State Air Program Branch Technical Support Branch Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch Immediate Office, Director's Staff Environmental Services Division Surveillance Branch Technical Support Branch Immediate Office, Director's Staff Planning and Management Division Comptroller's Office Human Resources and Support Branch Information Management Branch Program Planning and Coordination Branch Immediate Office, Director's Staff Waste Management Division VT, RI, and NH Waste Management Branch (Superfund Lead) CT and ME Waste Management Branch (Enforcement Lead) MA Waste Management Branch (RCRA Lead) Immediate Office, Director's Staff Water Management Division Compliance Branch Municipal Facilities Branch Office of Groundwater Protection Water Quality Branch Water Supply Branch Immediate Office, Director's Staff Office of Government Relations and Environmental Review Office of Public Affairs Office of the Regional Administrator Office of Regional Counsel ------- 5. What is your current grade level? 1 6 11 Senior Executive Staff 2 7 12 (ES, GS/GM 16-18) 3 8 13 4 9 14 5 10 15 6. What is your job category? Professional Engineer ___ Scientist Attorney Administrative and Technical Administrative Environmental Protection Specialist Environmental Protection Assistant Technical Support Clerical Secretary Clerk 7. If you have been promoted in EPA-P».egion 1, that is, upgraded in your job level, please list all positions you have held and your time in that position. Job Category Grade level Approximate Time in Grade 8. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Please specify area of study, if appropriate). Some high school High School diploma Vocational or technical training beyond high school Some College Associate's degree, please specify Bachelor's degree, please specify Some graduate school, area of study Master's degree, please specify Doctoral degree, please specify Law degree 9. Which of the following best describes your degree of satisfaction with your current job? Very satisfied Satisfied It's okay Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied ------- -3- 10. How would you rate EPA-Region 1 in terms of preparing you for your current job? Excellent Good Fair Poor EPA had no role in preparing me for my current job. 11. How would you rate EPA-Region 1 in terms of preparing you for higher level positions within the organization? Excellent Good Fair Poor 12. How would you rate EPA-Region 1 as a place to work? Excellent Good Fair Poor 13. I prefer to work with . (Choose one.) women men both women and men either 14. I prefer to be supervised by . (Choose one.) women men both women and men either 15. I prefer to work with . (Choose one.) members of my own race. members of another race. members of any race. 16. I prefer to be supervised by . (Choose one.) members of my own race. members of another race. members of any race. 17. Have your co-workers at EPA-Region 1 been ? (Choose one.) mostly women mostly men evenly mixed 18. Have your supervisors at EPA-Region 1 been ? (Choose one.) mostly women mostly men evenly mixed ------- -4- 19. Have you ever received an award for your work at EPA-Region 1? (Please check all that apply and specify the number of awards per category.) I have not received an award for my work at EPA. I've received Superior Performance Award(s). I've received Special Act Award(s). I've received Quality Step Increases. I've received Merit Pay Award(s). I've received Bronze Medal(s) for Commendable Service. I've received Suggestion Award(s). I've received Headquarters Honor Award(s), i.e., Gold Medal, Silver Medal, Administrator's Award for Excellence. I've received Federal Executive Board Award(s). I've received non-EPA government award(s) for my work at the EPA. I've received award(s) from private organizations for my work at EPA. 20. How often does your immediate supervisor praise you or thank you for "doing a good job?" Often Sometimes Seldom Never 21. How important is it to you to have your work recognized publicly by management? Very important Important Somewhat important Not at all important 22. EP A's national and regional administrators have introduced, in recent years, many new human resource initiatives (e.g., Zenger-Miller Training Program for Managers; Human Resources Council; etc.). Based on your own experiences as an employee, how would you describe EPA-Region l's commitment to staff training and development? Genuinely committed Superficially committed Not at all committed ------- -5- EPA- No basis for judgment Zenger-Miller's Working Program Special Topic Seminars for Engineers, Scientists, and Technical Staff Computer Training In-house Training for Secretaries and Clerks OPM Courses for Secretaries and Clerks Lunchtime Learning Series Federal Women's Program Seminars Other, please specify: 23. Please rate the usefulness of the following training programs offered at Region 1: Very Somewhat Not at useful Useful useful all useful Zenger-Miller's Supervisor Program 24. When you first started working at EPA-Region 1, did your supervisor/manager discuss career advancement opportunities with you? Yes, I discussed job advancement with my supervisor/manager. No, but I discussed job advancement with a personnel specialist. No, but I discussed job advancement with a peer in the organization. I did not discuss job advancement with anyone at EPA-Region 1. 25. Are you able to talk freely with your supervisor/manager about career planning? Yes No 26. Are you able to talk freely with personnel specialists about career planning? Yes No 27. Do you feel that your supervisor/manager is interested in your career development and advancement? Yes No I don't know. ------- -6- 28. Check all that apply. To become a manager in EPA-Region 1, you must: have a degree in science or technology. work hard. have "friends in the right places". be an Affirmative Action candidate. have seniority. be a team player. none of the above. 29. Check all that apply. To be promoted to a higher grade level in EPA-Region 1, you must: be competent in your current job. be able to perform at the next level. have seniority. have "friends in the right places." be an Affirmative Action candidate. 30. How often does your supervisor/manager discuss new job opportunities with you? Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never 31. How likely are you to model your career after that of some other employee at the agency? Very likely Likely Somewhat likely Not at all likely No basis for judgment 32. For each group listed below, please indicate whether you think EPA-Region 1 places too much, just enough, or too little emphasis on their career development (i.e., training and promotion). Too much Just enough Too little Group emphasis emphasis emphasis Supervisors & Managers Engineers and Scientists Technical Staff Non-technical staff ¦ Attorneys Secretaries & Clerks Female employees Male employees Minority employees 33. Do you believe that Affirmative Action policies lead to hiring less qualified employees? Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never ------- -7- 34. The hiring and promotion of women and minorities should be: based on the distribution of women and minorities in the general population. based on the distribution of women and minorities in the fields in which hiring is taking place. conducted in order to hire as many women and minorities as possible, based on qualifications alone with no concern for Affirmative Action goals. 35. Have you participated in the Upward Mobility Program? No, not eligible No, not interested Yes, completed Yes, currently participating Yes, but discontinued 36. In your opinion, approximately how many people have successfully completed the Upward Mobility Program at EPA-Region 1 since 1976? 5-10 employees 20-25 employees 35-45 employees 50 or more employees 37. In your opinion, approximately what percentage of employees in EPA-Region 1 at the G.S. 13 level or above are women? zero% 7% 1496 32% 38. In your opinion, approximately what percentage of employees in EPA-Region 1 at the G.S. 13 level or above are minority males? zero% 4% 12% 25% 39. In your opinion, approximately what percentage of employees in EPA-Region 1 at the G.S. 13 level or above are minority females? zero% 5% 12% 25% 40. In the past two years, how do you think promotions into supervisory positions in EPA-Region 1 have been balanced between males and females? About equal numbers have been given to males and females More have been given to females than to males More have been given to males than to females 41. In the past two years, how do you think promotions into supervisory positions in EPA-Region 1 have been balanced between minorities and non-minorities? About equal numbers have been given to minorities and non-minorities. More have been given to minorities than non-minorities. More have been given to non-minorities than minorities. ------- -8- 42. In the past two years, how do you think hiring into supervisory positions in EPA- Region 1 has been balanced between males and females? About equal numbers have been given to males and females More have been given to females than to males More have been given to males than to females 43. In the past two years, how do you think hiring into supervisory positions in EPA- Region 1 has been balanced between minorities and non-minorities? About equal numbers have been given to minorities and non-minorities. More have been given to minorities than non-minorities. More have been given to non-minorities than minorities. 44. What are the approximate percentages of women and men working in EPA- Region 1 excluding clerical and secretarial employees? 10% female and 9096 male 25% female and 75% male 30% female and 70% male 45% female and 55% male 45. How would you rate the record of EPA-Region 1 in actively recruiting women? Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor 46. How would you rate the record of EPA-Region 1 in actively recruiting minorities? Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor 47. How would you rate the record of EPA-Region 1 in promoting minorities into managerial positions? Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor 48. How would you rate the record of EPA-Region 1 in promoting women into managerial positions? Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor ------- -9- 49. If a management position is available in EPA-Region 1, how likely do you think it is that the position will be filled by a minority? Extremely likely Somewhat likely Unlikely Extremely unlikely A person's race has no role in employment decisions. 50. If a management position is available in EPA-Region 1, how likely do you think it is that the position will be filled by a woman? Extremely likely Somewhat likely Unlikely Extremely unlikely A person's sex has no role in employment decisions. 51. Do you think that Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity programs promote reverse discrimination, that is, discrimination against white males? Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never 52. For each group listed below, please indicate whether or not there should be Affirmative Action goals: Group Yes No Women Blacks Asian or Pacific Islanders Hispanics White, Non-Hispanics American Indians/Alaskan Natives Handicapped persons Employees over forty years old 53. Have you ever experienced any form of sexual harassment while working at EPA- Region 1? Never One time Several times Many times 54. How serious a problem do you think sexual harassment is in EPA-Region 1? Not serious Somewhat serious Serious Very serious ------- -10- 55. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements, using the following ratings: l=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neutral, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree It is sexual harassment when a person makes sexual advances to another who is in a lower position within the organization. It is sexual harassment when a supervisor touches a subordinate on a regular basis, and this behavior makes the subordinate feel uneasy and intimidated. It is sexual harassment when a man tells a sexual joke in front of a woman. It is sexual harassment when a person shows sexually explicit pictures to a person of the opposite sex. It is sexual harassment when a female manager gives an unfair performance appraisal to a male who she supervises. It is sexual harassment when a supervisor requests sexual favors from an employee and the employee agrees. It is sexual harassment when a person displays sexually explicit pictures in his or her work area. Sexual harassment is usually reported to the proper authority. 56. If I am sexually harassed while working at EPA-Region 1, I am able to: (Check all that apply.) tell the offending individual that specific behaviors are unwelcome. document incidents of the offending behavior. discuss the incident with an EEO counselor. discuss the incident with the Federal Women's Program Manager. discuss the incident with a Union representative. contact the Employee Assistance Program. request an informal hearing about the incident. file an internal complaint (with the Agency). take legal action. 57. Please indicate in column 1 those activities that are sponsored by the EPA- Region 1 Federal Women's Program and in column 2 those activities that should be sponsored by the FWP. Check both columns if you believe that the FWP currently sponsors an activity and that it should continue to sponsor that activity. Column 1 Column 2 "Are Sponsored" "Should Be Sponsored" Newsletter Career workshops for women Career workshops for men and women Extra-curricular events for women Consciousness raising groups for women Recruiting for women employees Developing programs for working mothers Identifying qualified women employees for promotion Briefings on Affirmative Action statistics Networking for women ------- -11- 58. Please indicate in column 1 those activities that are sponsored by the EPA- Region 1 Minority Equal Opportunity Committee, and in column 2 those activities that should be sponsored by MEOC. Check both columns if you believe that MEOC currently sponsors an activity and that it should continue to sponsor that activity. Column 1 Column 2 "Are Sponsored" "Should Be Sponsored" Newsletter Career workshops for minority employees Career workshops for all employees Extra-curricular events for minorities Consciousness raising groups for minorities Recruiting for minority employees Identifying qualified minority employees for promotion Networking for minorities Briefings on Affirmative Action statistics For questions 59 through 87, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each, using the following ratings: l=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neutral, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree 59. EPA-Region 1 has top many managers. 60. EPA Headquarters in Washington exerts strong leadership. 61. Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity programs at EPA- Region 1 have been successful. 62. Given a choice, I would prefer to work for a female supervisor. 63. EPA-Region 1 needs more secretarial support. 64. The Upward Mobility Program has been a failure. 65. Managers in EPA-Region 1 receive adequate training. 66. Most secretaries in EPA-Region 1 are highly skilled professionals. 67. EPA managers need an educational background in science or technology. 68. I received a fair evaluation on my Annual Performance Evaluation. 69. Women and minority employees require special programs to help them get ahead. 70. If I were eligible, I would participate in the Upward Mobility Program. 71. Women often lack the skills to be good managers. 72. I would like to receive more public recognition for "doing a good job." ------- -12- l=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neutral, 4=disagree, 5=strongly disagree 73. EPA awards are given to the most deserving employees. 74. To get ahead, female employees have to perform at a higher level than their male peers. 75. Disabled employees receive special accommodations from the Agency. 76. Women and men in EPA-Region 1 are promoted at equal frequency. 77. A woman who chooses to work part-time while raising her children is less serious about her career than a woman who works full-time. 78. A manager who chooses to move from full-time to part-time employment while raising children will have difficulty being promoted. 79. On-site daycare services would increase the productivity of employees who have young children. 80. If I had young children, I would use on-site daycare services if they were available. 81. Paid maternity leave would increase employee satisfaction in EPA-Region 1. 82. Paid paternity leave would increase employee satisfaction in EPA-Region 1. 83. EPA-Region l's best managers are male. 84. Secretaries and clerks in EPA-Region 1 do not receive adequate job training. 85. Older workers have equal opportunities for advancement in EPA-Region 1. 86. Managers in EPA-Region 1 do a good job managing their employees. 87. Given a choice, I would prefer to be supervised by a person of my own race. For questions 88 through 95, think of three people at work with whom you talk about work-related problems and issues most often. Label these people A, B, and C. Please answer the following questions about each person. 38. How often do you talk to this person about work-related problems? Person A Person B Person C rarely sometimes frequently 89. What sex is this person? Person A Person B Person C female male ------- -13- 90. What race is this person? American Indian/Alaskan Native Black Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic White, Non Hispanic Other, please specify: 91. Where is this person located in the organizational structure? in my Division or Office in another Division or Office in my Program in another Program in my immediate Section in another Section 92. Where is this person located in the organizational hierarchy? at my level above my level below my level 93. How often do you have lunch with this person? one or two times per month once a week a few times per week everyday never 94. How often do you socialize with this person after work or on weekends? several times each year one or two times per month once a week a few times per week never 95. How often do you talk to this person about non-work-related topics? never rarely sometimes frequently Person A Person B Person C Person A Person B Person C Person A Person B Person C Person A Person B Person C Person A Person B Person C Person A Person B Person C ------- -14- 96. What is your age? 17-25 26-35 36-39 40-45 46-55 56-65 97. What is your gender? female male 98. How would you identify yourself ethnically/racially? American Indian/Alaskan Native Black Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other, please specify: 99. What is your annual salary? $ 9,000 - $15,000 $30,001 - $35,000 $15,001 - $20,000 $35,001 - $45,000 $20,001 - $25,000 $45,001 - $58,000 $25,001 - $30,000 over $58,000 100. Do you consider yourself the sole head of your household or do you share that responsibility with another or other adults? Sole head of household Joint head of household 101. How many children do you have in the following age categories? (Fill in the number per category). I have no children. Newborn-3 years of age 4-6 years of age 7-11 years of age 12-18 years of age 19 or over 102. In the Code of Federal Regulations a handicapped person is defined as any person who (1) has a physical or mental impairment* which substantially impairs one or more major life activities (for example, walking, hearing, learning, working, performing manual tasks); (2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. Are you a handicapped person? Yes, I am. I have told my employer about my handicapping condition. Yes, I am. I have not told my employer about my handicapping condition. No, I am not a handicapped person. * Handicapping conditions include but are not limited to alcoholism, blindness, deafness, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, mental or emotional illness, orthopedic impairments, learning disabilities, and speech impairments. ------- -15- To gain greater understanding of employment issues in EPA-Region 1, we are asking a small random sample of employees to answer the following questions. We ask you to answer these as completely as possible. Feel free to use the back side of these pages if you need additional space. 1. Do women face unique obstacles to promotion within EPA-Region 1? Why or why not? 2. Do minorities (e.g., Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.) face unique obstacles to promotion within EPA-Region 1? Why or why not? Do different minority groups face different obstacles? 3. What special needs do you think women in EPA-Region 1 have? 4. What special needs do you think minorities in EPA-Region 1 have? Do different minority groups have different needs? ------- -16- 5. Do you think EPA-Region 1 has a commitment to Affirmative Action? Why or why not? 6. Do men and women have equal opportunity for success in EPA-Region 1? Why or why not? 7. Do minorities and non-minorities have equal opportunity for success in EPA- Region 1? Why or why not? 8. Do you think EPA as a whole has a commitment to Affirmative Action? Why or why not? 9. Do men and women have equal opportunity for success in EPA as a whole? Why or why not? 10. Do minorities and non-minorities have equal opportunity for success in EPA as a whole? Why or why not? ------- |