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?

-------