>^tD srx
*
*1 PR0^°
Management Directive 715 Report
Fiscal Year 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection
Protecting Human Health and the
environment
-------
Table of Contents
Part A - Department or Agency Identifying Information 1
Part B - Total Employment 1
Part C - Head of Agency and Agency Officials 1
Part C.l - Head of Agency and Head of Agency Designee 1
Part C.2 - Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s) 2
Part D - Components and Mandatory Documents 5
Part D.l - List of Subordinate Components Covered in this Report 5
Part D.2 - Mandatory and Optional Documents for this Report 8
Part E - Executive Summary 10
Part E.l - Executive Summary: Mission 10
Part E.2 - Executive Summary: Essential Element A-F 10
Part E.3 - Executive Summary: Workforce Analyses 17
Part F - Certification of Establishment of Continuing Equal Employment Opportunity Programs 24
Part G - Self-Assessment Towards a Model EEO Program Checklist 25
Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership 25
Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Agency's Strategic Mission 28
Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability 34
Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention 42
Essential Element E: Efficiency 45
Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance 50
Part H - Plan to Correct Deficiencies 51
Part H-l 51
Part H-2 52
Part H-3 53
Part H-4 54
Part H-5 55
Part H-6 56
Part H-7 59
Part I - EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier for Race, Sex, and National Origin 61
Part 1-1: Applicant and Hires for Major Occupations 61
Part 1-2: Internal Competitive Promotions 67
Part 1-3: Senior Grades 74
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Part 1-4: Senior Executive Service (SES) 79
Part 1-5: Lower Than Expected Rates of Participation for Hispanics 82
Part J- Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons with
Disabilities 87
Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals 87
Section II: Model Disability Program 87
A. Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program 88
B. Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program 89
Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities 90
A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities 90
B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations 91
C. Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) 92
Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities 94
A. Advancement Program Plan 94
B. Career Development Opportunities 96
C. Awards 98
D. Promotions 100
Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities 105
A. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations 105
B. Accessibility of Technology and Facilities 106
C. Reasonable Accommodation Program 107
D. Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the Workplace 108
Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data 108
A. EEO Complaint data involving Harassment 108
B. EEO Complaint Data involving Reasonable Accommodation 108
Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers 109
APPENDIX: EPA DATA TABLES 118
LIST OF ADDITIONAL APPENDICES 150
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
EEOC FORM 715-01
PARTS A-D
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM
EPA STATUS REPORT
Part A - Department or Agency Identifying Information
Agency
Second Level
Component
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Agency
Code (xxxx)
FIPS Code
(xxxx)
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW
Washington
D.C.
20460
EP00
6800
Part B - Total Employment
Total Employment
Permanent Workforce
Temporary Workforce
Total Workforce
Number of Employees reported between
October 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017
14,869
878
15,747
Part C - Head of Agency and Agency Officials
Part C.l - Head of Agency and Head of Agency Designee
Agency Leadership
Name
Title
Head of Agency
Scott Pruitt
Administrator
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
n
-------
Agency Leadership
Name
Title
Head of Agency Designee
Helena Wooden-Aguilar
Acting Deputy Chief of Staff
Part C.2 - Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s)
EEO Program
Staff
Name
Title
Occupational
Series (xxxx)
Pay Plan and
Grade (xx-xx)
Phone Number
(202-564-xxxx)
Email Address
Principal EEO
Director/Official
Tanya Lawrence
Khesha Reed
Acting Director,
Office of Civil Rights
Acting Deputy Director,
Office of Civil Rights
0905
SES
X2916
202-566-0594
Lawrence.Tanva(® eoa.gov
Reed. Khesha(® eoa.gov
Affirmative
Employment
Program
Manager
Tina Lancaster
Assistant Director,
Affirmative
Employment, Analysis,
and Accountability
Staff
0260
GS-15
X8151
Lancaster.Tina(® eoa.gov
Complaint
Processing
Program
Manager
Cynthia Darden
Assistant Director
Employee Complaint
Resolution Staff, Title
VII
0260
GS-15
X1587
Darden.Cvnthia(® eoa.gov
Diversity &
Inclusion Officer
Bisa Cunningham
Director, Diversity,
Recruitment, and
Employee Services
Division
0201
GS-15
X6635
Cunningham. Bisa (Seoa.gov
Hispanic
Program
Manager (SEPM)
Christopher Emanuel
EEO Manager/ National
Disability Employment
Program
0260
GS-14
X7286
Emanuel.Christooher(® eoa.gov
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2
-------
EEO Program
Staff
Name
Title
Occupational
Series (xxxx)
Pay Plan and
Grade (xx-xx)
Phone Number
(202-564-xxxx)
Email Address
Women's
Program
Manager (SEPM)
Christopher Emanuel
EEO Manager /
National Disability
Employment Program
0260
GS-14
X7286
Emanuel.Christopher(® eoa.gov
Disability
Program
Manager (SEPM)
Christopher Emanuel
EEO Manager/ National
Disability Employment
Program
0260
GS-14
X7286
Emanuel.Christopher(® eoa.gov
EEO Program
Staff
Name
Title
Occupational
Series (xxxx)
Pay Plan and
Grade (xx-xx)
Phone Number
(202-564-xxxx)
Email Address
Special
Placement
Program
Coordinator
(Individuals with
Disabilities)
Christopher Emanuel
EEO Manager/ National
Disability Employment
Program
0260
GS-14
X7287
Emanuel.Christopher(® eoa.gov
Reasonable
Accommodation
Program
Manager
Amanda Sweda
National Reasonable
Accommodations
Coordinator
0260
GS-14
202-566-0678
Sweda. Amanda(® eoa.gov
Anti-Harassment
Program
Manager
Randolph Ferrell
Program Manager,
"Order 4711" Anti-
Harassment
0201
GS-14
X1927
Ferrell. Randoloh(® eoa.gov
ADR Program
Manager
Norwood Dennis
OCR ADR Coordinator
0260
GS-14
919-541-4249
Dennis. Norwood (Seoa.gov
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3
-------
EEO Program
Staff
Name
Title
Occupational
Series (xxxx)
Pay Plan and
Grade (xx-xx)
Phone Number
(202-564-xxxx)
Email Address
Principal MD-
715 Preparer
Jerome King
EEO Manager, National
LGBT, Black, NACE, and
EFEDs Program
0260
GS-14
X7429
King.Jerome(® epa.gov
Other EEO Staff
Kristin Tropp
Assistant National
Reasonable
Accommodations
Coordinator
0343
GS-12
202-559-0006
Tropp. Kristin(® eoa.gov
Renee Clark
EEO Specialist/Team
Lead, Title VII
0260
GS-14
X7269
Clark. Renee(® epa.gov
Mirza Baig
EEO Manager/API,
AI/AN, Data
Coordinator
0260
GS-14
X7288
Baig. Mirza(® epa.gov
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Part D - Components and Mandatory Documents
Part D.l - List of Subordinate Components Covered in this Report
Please identify the subordinate components within the Agency (e.g., bureaus, regions, etc.).
If the Agency does not have any suborc
inate components, please chec
< the box.
Subordinate Component
City
State
Country
(Optional)
Agency Code
FIPS
Codes
Headquarters Program Offices in Washington, DC
Office of the Administrator
Washington
DC
EPOOAM
6800
Office of Administration and Resources
Management
Washington
DC
EPOOHG
6800
Office of Air and Radiation
Washington
DC
EPOOLA
6800
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Washington
DC
EPOOFJ
6800
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Washington
DC
EPOOBE
6800
Office of General Counsel
Washington
DC
EPOOCN
6800
Office of the Inspector General
Washington
DC
EPOODP
6800
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
Washington
DC
EPOOEL
6800
Office of Environmental Information
Washington
DC
EPOOGH
6800
Office of Chemical, Safety and Pollution
Prevention
Washington
DC
EPOOMC
6800
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5
-------
Subordinate Component
City
State
Country
(Optional)
Agency Code
FIPS
Codes
Office of Research and Development
Washington
DC
EPOONF
6800
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Washington
DC
EPOOKD
6800
Office of Water
Washington
DC
EPOOJB
6800
Human Resources Support
Shared Service Centers
Research Triangle Park
NC
EPOOHG
6800
Shared Service Centers
Cincinnati
OH
EPOOHG
6800
Shared Service Centers
Las Vegas
NV
EPOOHG
6800
Regional Offices
Region 1
Boston
MA
EP00Q1
6800
Region 2
New York
NY
EP00R2
6800
Region 3
Philadelphia
PA
EP00S3
6800
Region 4
Atlanta
GA
EP00T4
6800
Region 5
Chicago
IL
EP00U5
6800
Region 6
Dallas
TX
EP00V6
6800
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
6
-------
Subordinate Component
City
State
Country
(Optional)
Agency Code
FIPS
Codes
Region 7
Lenexa
KS
EP00W7
6800
Region 8
Denver
CO
EP00X8
6800
Region 9
San Francisco
CA
EP00Y9
6800
Region 10
Seattle
WA
EP00ZX
6800
Program Labs
OAR/ORIA/NAREL
Montgomery
AL
EP00LA
6800
OAR/ORIA/NVFEL:
Ann Arbor
Ml
EPOOLA
6800
OAR/ORIA/NCRFO
Las Vegas
NV
EPOOLA
6800
ORD, NRM Research Lab
Ada
OK
EPOONF
6800
ORD/NERL
Athens
GA
EPOONF
6800
ORD/NHEER Labs
Narragansett
Rl
EPOONF
6800
Gulf Breeze
FL
EPOONF
6800
Duluth
MN
EPOONF
6800
Corvallis
OR
EPOONF
6800
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
7
-------
Part D.2 - Mandatory and Optional Documents for this Report
In the table below, the Agency must submit these documents with its MD-715 report.
Did the Agency submit the following mandatory documents?
Please respond
Yes or No
Comments
Organizational Chart
YES
EEO Policy Statement
YES
The Policy issued in FY16 remains in effect.
Agency's Strategic Plan
YES
FY 2018 - FY 2022 EPA Strategic Plan was finalized
February 12, 2018. The Strategy was drafted in
FY17.
Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures
YES
The procedures that were issued in FY16 are still in
effect
Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
YES
The Agency has two RA procedures: the American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
National Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
(NRAP) and the EPA Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures.
Personal Assistance Services Procedures
YES
An addendum to meet new 501 Rule and EEOC
guidance was drafted in FY18. A memo outlining the
plan to finalize the addendum is included as an
Appendix.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
YES
ADR and Workplace Resolution is marketed to all
employees on the OHR intranet webpage and link at
https://workplace.epa.gov/facilitation-mediation/).
An ADR program was piloted for the EEO informal
complaint process in FY16, which has been extended
through FY17.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
8
-------
In the table below, the Agency may decide whether to submit these documents with its MD-715 report.
Did the Agency submit the following optional documents?
Please respond
Yes or No
Comments
Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report
YES
Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) Report
YES
The FY 2016 DVAAP Report and FY 2017 DVAAP Plan
are included as Appendices.
Operational Plan for Increasing Employment of Individuals with Disabilities
under Executive Order 13548
NO
The Agency utilizes alternatives such as the Diversity
and Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP), Plan for
Addressing Unconscious Bias, and Agency
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) (e.g.,
Rochester Institute of Technology/National
Technical Institute for the Deaf (RIT/NTID) MOU), for
increasing awareness of employment opportunities
for Individuals with Disabilities.
Diversity and Inclusion Plan under Executive Order 13583
YES
The FY 2017-2021 DISP was issued January 13, 2017.
Diversity Policy Statement
NO
The Agency drafted a new statement anticipated for
issuance in FY18.
Human Capital Strategic Plan (HCSP)
NO
OPM informed all federal Agency Chief Human
Capital Officers that the requirement to
modernize/reduce HC has been waived as of January
16, 2016.
EEO Strategic Plan
NO
The Agency will consider a new plan after all
reshaping efforts have been considered and
implemented.
Results from most recent Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or Annual
Employee Survey
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
9
-------
Part E - Executive Summary
All agencies must complete Part E. 1; however, only agencies with 199 or fewer employees in permanent FT/PT
appointments are required to complete Part E.2 to E.5. Agencies with 200 or more employees in permanent FT/PT
appointments have the option to complete Part E.2 to E.5.
Part E.l - Executive Summary: Mission
Introduction
This Federal Agency Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status Report for Fiscal Year 2017
(FY17) outlines the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) Program activities, as required by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC)
Management Directive 715 (MD-715). The report highlights the EPA's accomplishments in establishing and
maintaining a model EEO program.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mission
The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the enviromnent. Fostering and maintaining a highly-skilled,
diverse, and engaged workforce through EEO is essential to fulfilling our mission to protect human health and the
enviromnent, including our commitment to the American people. The following priorities are at the heart of the
EPA's purpose: improving air quality, providing for clean and safe water, revitalizing land and preventing
contamination and ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace.
Part E.2 - Executive Summary: Essential Element A-F
Model EEO Program - Essential Elements
The EPA Office of Civil Rights (OCR) conducted an annual self-assessment along with an analysis of the EPA's
workforce to identify triggers and coordinate planned activities to eliminate any potential discrimination. To most
efficiently and effectively accomplish this, OCR coordinated several partnerships. Its primary partnerships
included many offices and programs in the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM).
Specific partners include the Shared Services Centers (SSCs) and the Office of Human Resources (OHR). The
overarching partnership with OARM is critical to the Agency's Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan and
effective management of human, financial and physical resources, as well as the data access to employee and
applicant characteristics related to race, national origin (RNO) and disability1. Moreover, OCR consulted with the
Office of General Counsel (OGC) for legal sufficiency review of the Federal Agency Annual EEO Program
Status Report. Additionally, OCR worked closely with regional EEO Officers and Deputy Civil Rights Officials
in regional and programmatic offices to assess the Agency's EEO program and implement plans. OCR also
relied on support from senior managers in the Administrator's Office to achieve a model EEO program.
The Agency reviewed its EEO and personnel programs and policies, and evaluated their performance considering the
following elements that enhance the effectiveness of its EEO program. The results within the following six elements
serve as the organizing principles by which the EPA can assess and improve its program.
Essential Element A - Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership
Element A identifies areas where the Agency head has communicated a commitment to equal employment
opportunity and a discrimination-free workplace.
The EPA is dedicated to the principles of EEO and maintaining a successful EEO Program. This commitment is
seen at all levels of the Agency from senior executives, managers and supervisors to employees. The effort to
1 For purposes of this report, the EPA incorporated the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) definition of workforce diversity which refers to
a collection of individual attributes that, together, help the Agency pursue organizational objectives efficiently and effectively. These include, but
are not limited to, characteristics such as national origin, language, race, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation,
gender identity, socioeconomic status, veteran status, and family structures. The concept also encompasses differences among people concerning
where they are from, where they have lived and their differences of thought and life experiences. OPM further defines inclusion as a set of
behaviors (culture) that encourages employees to feel valued for their unique qualities and experience a sense of belonging; and inclusive
diversity as a set of behaviors that promote collaboration amongst a diverse group.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
10
-------
demonstrate this commitment includes, but is not limited to activities that help maintain an enviromnent free from
discrimination retaliation and harassment.
In addition to Gold, Silver and Bronze awards that recognize individual or team efforts in any area, the Agency
also grants the Suzanne E. Olive Award for Exemplary Leadership in National EEO and the Vivian Mai one Jones
Legacy Award. The Olive Award annually recognizes individuals and/or groups for their significant contributions
to EEO and civil rights and diversity and inclusion while advancing the Administrator's mission of a high-
performing organization. The Malone Legacy Award annually recognizes an individual who has demonstrated
consistent integrity and regular contributions to leadership, diversity, social justice (affirmative action, civil
rights, and enviromnental justice) in the Agency or in the community at large, through personal leadership,
mentoring, and/or program management. In addition, the OCR Director serves as an ex-officio member to the
Agency's National Honor Awards Review Panel. The Panel evaluates award nominations and makes
recommendations on final awardees.
Essential Element B - Integration of EEO into the Agency's Strategic Mission
Element B identifies the structure of the EPA EEO programs that help to maintain a workplace that is free from
discrimination while supporting the Agency's strategic mission of a high performing organization.
The Agency's Core Mission is to deliver real results to provide Americans with clean air, land, and water. To
improve efficiency and effectiveness, the Agency's Strategic Plan commits to developing, and maintaining a
highly-skilled, diverse, and engaged workforce.
Additionally, the EPA has committed to the integration of EEO into several other critical areas of management to
include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Reporting Structure: The OCR Director has appropriate authority and resources to effectively carry out
a successful EEO program and reports day-to-day operations to the Deputy Chief of Staff to ensure
accountability throughout the EPA. OCR provides technical guidance in the implementation of EEO
programs at the national level, including action plans in accordance with MD-715 guidance. Regional
EEO Officers report directly to their respective Regional Administrators/Deputy Regional
Administrators.
• Communication: InFY17, the annual MD-715 report, coveringFY16 activities, was made available
and posted on the Agency's internal website. The OCR Director attends weekly senior management
meetings to inform top management officials of the effectiveness, efficiency, and legal compliance of
the Agency's EEO program. In addition, OCR collaborates with OARM on planned activities to address
identified triggers and eliminate potential barriers.
• Self-Identification of the Workforce: The EPA committed to a re-survey initiative of its workforce in
FY17. OHR encouraged all employees to self-identify or update their information using descriptions
from the Office of Personnel Management's revised Standard Form 256 - Self Identification of
Disability through Employee Express, https://www.employeeexpress.gov/. OHR posted virtual flyers,
banners, issued reminders to supervisors, and published articles in the EPA Newsletter regarding this
initiative.
The Agency continued implementation of its pilot program to provide a tool for employees to
voluntarily self-disclose their sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Employee Express was
also updated to allow EPA employees to voluntarily provide this information. Results indicated 216
(1.43%) of 15,093 employees provided SOGI information in FY17.
• Special Emphasis Programs: The EPA Special Emphasis Programs (SEPs) support equal opportunities
throughout the Agency to include areas within the employment life cycle: outreach and recruitment,
hiring, advancement, training, and awards/promotions. By establishing and utilizing SEPs and engaging
with affinity groups, the EPA continued to raise employee awareness of EEO and diversity and inclusion
while demonstrating the Agency's commitment to a model EEO workplace. Agency managers and
supervisors supported SEPs by identifying programmatic level SEP Managers (SEPMs) to implement
their local level SEPs. The Agency engaged up to 125 SEPMs to assist in the planning of activities
related to MD-715 as well as diversity and inclusion initiatives.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
11
-------
• Employee Viewpoint: Managers and supervisors support employee engagement as a resource to gain
more context about employee perspectives and ideas to improve employee satisfaction. The EPA
gathers employee opinions though tools including the OPM Employee Viewpoint Survey, the Annual
Employee Survey, and other documents that report employee engagement, such as the Partnership for
Public Service and Deloitte - Best Places to Work in the Federal Government® rankings. A SharePoint
site was created to disseminate all communication and results for the surveys.
• Barrier Analysis Team: In FY16, OCR proposed the development of a National Barrier Analysis Team
with a cross-functional, program, regional, and multi-grade structure designed to provide senior
leadership with comprehensive and long-term analyses and insights into the EPA's workforce processes,
including recruitment and retention. In FY 17 this team engaged in sustained and systematic inquiry into
anomalies (triggers) as they relate to workplace policies, procedures, and practices, with a focus on
identifying barriers to diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity, and devising plans to eliminate any
identified barriers.
• Talent Hub: The Agency explored optional resources and methods to achieve a model EEO program,
such as the continued use of Talent Hub for full- and part-time details and short-term projects and other
shared resources to maintain its EEO programs. The Talent Hub website grants all employees access to
advancement and internal/external opportunities. In FY17, SES positions were added to Talent Hub.
Efforts to streamline plans and activities that improve EEO include national efforts to increase the use of hiring
panels and special hiring authorities (i.e.. Schedule A and disabled veterans). These efforts extend to the
enhancement of career-developing opportunities; employee engagement; and the roles and responsibilities of
SEPMs as they pertain to affirmative program initiatives, i.e., outreach recruitment, and leveraging internal and
external partnerships and alliances. The Agency develops and maintains partnerships and alliances with diverse
professional organizations and educational institutions. The Agency leverages these relationships to broaden its
public outreach/recruitment strategy. In FY17, partner organizations included, among others: Association of
Latino Professionals in Finance and Accounting; Pan-Asian Leaders in Finance and Accounting; Hispanic Bar
Association of the District of Columbia; Hispanic National Bar Association; National Association of Asian
MB As; National Association of Black Accountants; National Bar Association; National Black MBA Association;
South Asian Bar Association of Washington, D.C.; Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia;
Diverse Partners Network; and the Thurgood Marshall College Fund.
The Agency developed and published the FY 2017 - 2021 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (D/I Plan). The
D/I Plan was strategically implemented to strengthen management of Agency outreach diversity and inclusion
efforts, including development of a strategy to safeguard against unconscious bias in the hiring and selection
process. The D/I Plan serves to support and facilitate education, outreach and training on diversity and inclusion
by:
• Featuring numerous initiatives, including employing culture change strategies, such as the New
Inclusion Quotient (New IQ) Initiative and Diversity and Inclusion Dialogues.
• Implementing a vehicle to track the annual D/I Plan.
• Most importantly to MD-715, incorporating several objectives to eliminating any potential barriers to
employment (potential barriers for Schedule A hires and career development), and tracking and
monitoring areas within the employment life cycles (e.g., career development to the SES).
The Agency's lead EEO offices, OHR and OCR, work collaboratively to engage other partners, such as the
Agency's Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee (DIAC), to incorporate and implement EEO and D/I
strategic priorities into the FY 2017-2021 Roadmap and Implementation Plan - June 2017. The results of the first
year were reported to the DIAC senior executive members in September 2017.
• OHR, in conjunction with OCR, completed a strategic plan for mitigating bias on September 30, 2017.
This strategy included:
o Employing culture change strategies, such as the New Inclusion Quotient (New IQ) Initiative
and Diversity and Inclusion Dialogues; and
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
12
-------
o Providing training and education on cultural competency, implicit bias awareness, and inclusion
learning for all employees.
Although the Agency conducted minimal recruitment in FY17, it continued to work with partners in diverse
professional organizations and educational institutions. The Agency measured its overall success this year
through the assessment of recruitment strategies and existing tools intended to increase equal employment
opportunity. For example:
• Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs): The EPA reviewed existing MOUs with Minority Serving
Institutions (MSIs) to plan effective outreach opportunities. The review process resulted in the following
engagement: 1) the renewal of the MOU with the Vermont Law School on Distant Learning for the
advancement of enviromnental education between the Vermont Law School and MSIs; 2) the renewal of
the Gallaudet University MOU; 3) the extension of the Howard University MOU; and 4) the creation of
the Rochester Institute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the Deaf MOU. The review and
renewal of MOUs affords an opportunity for the EPA to expand its outreach activities, disseminate
information on careers at the EPA, and increases interactions with the next generation of potential
Agency employees. Additionally, during the first quarter of FY17, the EPA signed a MOU with UMASS
Boston to expand upon the existing relationship that results in sharing publicly available information
about potential employment and experiential opportunities with minority and low income students
interested in enviromnental careers. This MOU also facilitates the EPA's ability to recruit from a
talented and diverse pool of students for future vacancies as they become available.
• Communications and Tracking: OHR, along with OCR, assessed the internal communication and
tracking methods used in monitoring areas of affirmative promotion of EEO, including streamlining
efforts to capture data on outreach, professional development, employee engagement, and retention.
OHR and OCR continued efforts to collaborate on strategies related to promoting EEO. Strategic focus
remained on cross-communication creating an internal and external exchange of information, and
standardizing reporting requirements, such as the MD-715, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment
Program (FEORP), Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP), and other annual reports
that require the collection of workforce data and analysis.
Essential Element C - Management and Program Accountability
Element C identifies areas where the Administrator's Office holds managers, super\>isors, and EEO officials
responsible for the effective implementation of the Agency's EEO Program and Plan.
• Diversity Civil Rights Officials (DCROs): The Agency appoints a minimum of twenty-three (23)
DCROs who provide leadership and effective implementation of the EPA's Civil Rights Programs and
Plans, including diversity and inclusion consistent with Agency policy and directives. DCROs ensure
accountability of Equal Employment Opportunity Officers and national civil rights efforts and oversight
of EEO programs and deficiencies within their respective offices. In FY17, DCROs engaged their
respective program offices and regions in conducting a self-assessment against the essential elements of
a model EEO program.
DCROs also supported EEO practitioners and SEPMs with annual training (e.g., the EPA personnel
database system on EEO, managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Oracle Business
Intelligence Enterprise Edition (OBIEE)). Additionally, DCROs ensured active engagement on EEO
complaints of discrimination and reasonable accommodations within their respective program offices.
• Reasonable Accommodations Program and Procedures/Personal Assistance Services: Through the
EPA SSCs, job applicants can request and receive reasonable accommodations during the application
and placement processes. The National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator (NRAC) coordinates
updates, such as the release of the Section 501 Affirmative Action Plan specific to reasonable
accommodations and personal assistance services to the EPA Local Reasonable Accommodation
Coordinators (LORACs).
InFY17, the Agency processed 343 of the 356 RA requests (or 96.3%) within the applicable timeframes
identified in both the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National Reasonable
Accoimnodation Procedures (NRAP) and the EPA Reasonable Accoimnodation Procedures. The
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
13
-------
Agency has attained the 90% or greater processing rate for the seventh consecutive year in compliance
with the requirements outlined inMD-715.
• Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee (DIAC): The DIAC launched a new structure in FY17 to
strengthen its platform of engagement around plans and activities that support EEO and diversity and
inclusion and to evaluate the committee's effectiveness by identifying appropriate goals and objectives
with metrics to measure outcomes.
• Employee Engagement Advisory Committees: In response to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey,
various EPA program offices and regions established Employee Engagement Committees. These
committees have diverse participation, including members of related groups, such as SEPs. In
November 2016, the EPA established the Employee Engagement Community of Practice (ECoP), led by
OHR's Workforce Planning Branch. The ECoP was established to promote information sharing, dialog
and collaboration among program and regional offices. Members meet monthly to discuss issues and
exchange ideas on furthering employee engagement and creating healthy workplaces. The ECoP
provides a forum for members to share success stories and lessons learned. Members report the ECoP
lias enhanced problem solving, promoted knowledge exchange and fostered the implementation of new
ideas that have brought about positive change. The EPA's 2017 EVS results reveal that Agency scores
rose in nearly all major employee engagement and satisfaction categories. A SharePoint site was also
created to host ECoP documents and resources that include EVS data and FAQs, office engagement
action plans, and ideas for marketing and promoting EVS participation and best practices.
• Performance Measures: Performance plans include language for commitment to EEO principles and
practices to ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination including harassment. As a
standing practice, EPA Senior Executives and general schedule (GS) 13-15 supervisors and managers
are rated on performance standards that ensure development and promote success of EPA EEO and
diversity and inclusion initiatives.
• Training: The EPA tracked and monitored participation and completion of required EEO trainings (e.g..
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of2002 (No FK4R Act)). In
FY17, new employees in their first 90 days of on-boarding were required to complete the training
(98.62% completion rate). In addition, newly promoted supervisors were provided EEO related materials
and training during the EPA Successful Leaders Program.
• Review of Potential Systemic Barriers: OHR and OCR continued their partnership to identify strategic
areas to assess programs, policies, and procedures that may have systemic barriers impacting full
participation in areas such as application and selection processes, career development, and training.
Additional efforts included the continued education of SEPs on how they may expand their
programmatic roles and responsibilities.
• Recruitment of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) and Persons with Targeted Disabilities (PWTDs):
OHR and OCR attended an annual federal inter-agency meeting sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Labor, EEOC, OPM, and the White House on hiring PWDs, including best practices on the
dissemination of job announcements among PWDs. OHR and OCR collaborated to share this
information with EPA management, increasing their awareness of the various hiring authorities (e.g..
Schedule A, conversion of Schedule A employees to the competitive service, and recruitment sources for
PWD, PWTD, and disabled veterans) for PWDs and PWTDs. Additionally, OHR and OCR continued
their partnership to enhance the Agency's PWD resume database.
Essential Element D - Proactive Prevention
Element D identifies the Agency's early efforts to prevent discrimination and to identify and eliminate barriers to
equal employment opportunity.
• Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC): The Selective Placement Program Coordinator
(SPPC) helps Agency management recruit, hire and accommodate people with disabilities. InFY17,
OHR and OCR expanded efforts to appropriately respond to job seekers who need further assistance on
disability-related questions by sharing the role of Selective Placement Program Coordinators
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
14
-------
(SPPCs)/Disability Employment Program Coordinators (DEPCs). OPM has updated their Federal
Agency wide SPPC Directory to include EPA SPPCs.
• Sign Language Interpreter Program: The EPA is committed to providing quality sign language
interpreting services to its Deaf and Hard of Hearing (D/HH) employees, job applicants, and the public
attending EPA events. These services enable EPA employees and job applicants to perform the essential
duties of their job and have full access to EPA employment opportunities. OHR initiated efforts to
strengthen the contract procedures associated with the Sign Language Interpreter Program by forming a
working group to collaborate with the EPA OCR National Reasonable Accommodation Program and
OGC. This working group was tasked to develop procedures that would enable users of the EPA
headquarters Sign Language Interpretation Services contract to identify personal preferences when
requesting services. The procedures developed:
o Ensure a consistent process for indicating personal preferences and receiving sign language
interpretation services; and
o Improve the ability for users of the contract to:
¦ identify their support requirements;
¦ identify key behaviors, skills and knowledge that an interpreter must have to
effectively support communication;
¦ identify Preferred Providers they wish to work with;
¦ provide feedback on their experience using the contract and the interpreters they work
with; and
¦ identify interpreters they do not want to work with.
Prior to implementation of the procedures, OHR conducted a pilot (September through December 2017)
to gather additional input from D/HH employees at EPA headquarters and to:
o understand the impact of the draft procedures on the user community;
o provide an opportunity for users of the contract to identify needed improvements;
o identify any additional resources and tools that were needed to support understanding and/or
execution of the procedures; and
o recommended a roll-out strategy.
The EPA stresses awareness by offering free seminars (e.g., "Interacting and Working with Individuals
who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing" conducted on May 17, 2017) that provide useful information to
employees for appropriate interactions with D/HH individuals in the local community and workplace.
• EPA Procedures for Addressing Workplace Harassment: The Agency offered federal employees and
non-federal staff Anti-Harassment Procedures training (Procedures for Addressing Allegations of
Workplace Harassment - EPA Order 4711). Additionally, in FY 17 OGC's Employment Law Practice
Group (ELPG) conducted eight EEO & anti-harassment training sessions for Agency supervisors. These
sessions, with a total of over 500 attendees, covered a variety of topics including reasonable
accommodations and EPA Order 4711. ELPG also conducted anti-harassment training for Agency
interns. During FY17, 610 fall, spring and summer interns were trained.
• Diversity Ally Pledge: In FY17, EPA SEPs teamed up to leverage senior management support on the
expansion of the Lesbian Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Ally Pledge, piloted in the previous year.
This Agency-wide expansion encourages employees to pledge their support to not only the LGBT
community, but to any EEO group. The Diversity Ally Pledge mission is to provide a place where
employees can promise their support for the cultivation of unique voices and perspectives working
collaboratively. The objective also fosters an inclusive and diverse work enviromnent to enhance
employee engagement. The Diversity Ally Pledge initiative is the first step in addressing a key diversity
milestone.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
15
-------
• Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of2002 (No FEAR Act):
In FY17, 98.62% of new EPA employees participated in No FEAR Act training. The next biennial
period for all EPA employees to take No FEAR training is scheduled for FY18.
Essential Element E - Efficiency
Element E requires the Agency head to ensure that there are effective systems for e\>aluating the impact and
effectiveness of the Agency's EEO programs and an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.
• Informal EEO Complaints of Discrimination: The EPA's success in meeting processing times include
the following areas: timely fact-finding for informal complaints of discrimination the number of ADR
acceptance responses, and increased resolution rates with and without ADR. Participation rates increased
from 47% in FY16 to 56% in FY17. In FY17, 47.3% of all cases were resolved, and 45.8% of ADR
cases were resolved. However, rates for ADR offers for informal EEO complaints of discrimination
decreased from 96% in FY 16 to 86.1% in FY17.
• EEO Training for Counselors. InFY17, the EEO Counselor Training Committee identified and/or
delivered fourteen (14) 1.0 to 1.5-hour training sessions as re-certification opportunities. In FY17, 16
collateral-duty EEO Counselors earned 135.0 credit hours. In addition 19 full-time EEO employees also
participated in the training sessions and additional training and received 313.0 credit hours.
• Continuous Improvement: In FY 17, a Chief of Operations (COO) was appointed to lead the Agency' s
transformation to an organization of continuous improvement. The COO began deploying a Lean
Management System (LMS) to reduce waste and maximize value-added work. In FY18, the LMS lias
begun to create more effective ways to better serve the EPA's customers while freeing up the capacity of
EPA employees to achieve the Agency's mission. Specific workforce measures that highlight areas of
interest identified through barrier analysis will be routinely reported and tracked by senior managers.
Measures related to the EPA's EEO programs include complaint investigation time, final agency
decision volume, and reasonable accommodation decision time. Tracking these metrics more closely
will provide opportunities for further improving EPA's performance.
Essential Element F - Responsiveness and Legal Compliance
Element F requires federal agencies to comply with EEO statutes and EEOC regulations, policy guidance, and
other written instructions.
The EPA continued to focus on compliance with the EEO laws and EEOC regulations, policy guidance, and other
written guidance. Plans for addressing newly identified gaps from prior fiscal years are further discussed in Part
H of this report. (See EEO Plan for Attaining the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program.)
• The total number of investigations completed in FY17 increased by 17%. The Agency completed 59
investigations in FY16 and completed 69 in FY17.
OCR reduced the docket of final agency decisions, using OCR staff attorneys, detailees. and Agency volunteers.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
16
-------
Part E.3 - Executive Summary: Workforce Analyses
The EPA analyzed cumulative workforce profile data from October 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 to identify any
triggers that may require further inquiry as to the existence of barriers to equal employment opportunities for an
employee group based on race and national origin (RNO), sex, or disability. The Agency's plans to complete
barrier analyses are included with this EEO Program Status Report where necessary. The EPA's total workforce
consists of permanent and temporary employees. The workforce distribution by disability includes: permanent
and temporary employees, employees with "no disability," "with a disability," "with a targeted disability," and
those who "did not identify" any disability. In the MD-715 report, when comparisons are made, only the triggers
with statistical significant decreases or increases are noted. In the Appendices, the triggers are highlighted.
Total Workforce
As of June 30, 2017, the EPA's total workforce consisted of a total of 15,747 employees, of which 14,869
(94.4%) were full-time/part-time permanent (permanent with status) employees, and 878 (5.6%) were temporary
(temporary or term appointment having no permanent status) employees. In comparison as of June 30, 2016, the
EPA employed a total of 15,742 employees, of which 14,732 (93.58%) were full-time/part-time permanent
employees and 1,010 (6.42%) were temporary employees. Between June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, there was
an increase of 137 (+0.93%) full-time/part-time permanent employees, and a decrease of 132 (-13.07%)
temporary employees, for a total net increase in FY17 of 5 (+0.03%) employees in the total workforce.2
As of June 30, 2017, males comprised 7,693 (48.85%) of the total workforce, which is below the 2010 National
Civilian Labor Force (CLF)3 benchmark of 51.84%. Females comprised 8,054 (51.15%) of the EPA's total
workforce, which is above the 2010 CLF benclunark of 48.16%. In comparison, as of June 30, 2016, males
comprised 7,694 (48.88%) and females comprised 8,048 (51.12%) of the EPA's total workforce. Between June
30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, the number of male employees decreased by 1 (-0.01%) while the number of female
employees increased by 6 (0.07%). (See Appendices for FY17 Workforce Data Table A-l.)
As of June 30, 2017, there were a total of 1,185 (7.53%) persons with disabilities (PWD) in the EPA's permanent
and temporary workforce. This number represented an increase of 13 (1.11%) PWD from FY16. Asasubset of
PWD, there were 303 (1.92%) persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD) in EPA's permanent and temporary
workforce as of June 30, 2017. In comparison, there were 345 (2.19%) PWTD in EPA's workforce as of June 30,
2016, a decrease of 42 (-12.17%) employees, and 364 (2.34%) PWTD as of June 30, 2015, a decrease of 19 (-
5.2%) employees.
Snapshot 1 below displays the disability status in the third quarter (June 30th) for the EPA total workforce in
FY17 as compared to EEOC's Federal Benchmarks of 12% for PWD and 2.00% for PWTD:
2 The EPA recognizes that fiscal year to fiscal year data may contain some known or suspected limitations based on when
employee EEO data was uploaded into the EEOC tables that may impact the year-to-year analysis. Objective and valid
interpretation of the results requires that the underlying analysis recognizes and acknowledges the degree of reliability and
integrity of the data.
3 The 2010 Civilian Labor Force (CLF) is the national labor force and is derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Current Population Survey (CPS). In comparison, the Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF) is the CLF data that are directly
comparable (or relevant) to the occupational population being considered in the federal workforce. For purposes of this report,
which provides Agency data at the national level, the CLF benchmarks are used.
As of:
June 30, 2017
June 30, 2016
June 30, 2015
PWTD (#/% of Workforce)
303 (1.92%)
345 (2.19%)
364 (2.34%)
#/% Decrease from Prior Year
42(12.17%)
19 (5.2%)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
17
-------
Snapshot 1
EPA FY17 Total Workforce (Permanent/Temporary) Percentages (%)
For Persons with Disabilities/Persons with Targeted Disabilities
June 30, 2017 Total
Workforce
(Permanent/Temporary)
Non-
Disabled
Non-
Identified
Disabled
EEOC
Disabled Federal
Benchmark
Targeted
Disabled
(Subset
of
Disabled)
EEOC
Targeted
Disabled
Federal
Benchmark
15,747
89.36%
3.12%
7.53%
12.0%
1.92%
2.00%
Permanent Workforce (excluding temporary employees)
The permanent employee workforce identified in Snapshot 2 reflects an area where the EPA can undertake a
wide-range of barrier analyses to identify triggers and potential barriers and develop and execute plans to
eliminate any identified barriers. The EPA's temporary employee workforce does not comprise a significant
portion of its total workforce; therefore, an examination of EEO data relating to these employees may not assist
the Agency in identifying any meaningful disparities resulting from barriers to equal opportunity. It is recognized
that temporary employees will not experience the same career progression as the permanent workforce, and
certain data, such as promotion rates, may not be relevant to temporary employees.
Interpretation of Snapshot 2 exhibiting the EPA permanent workforce will provide a diagnostic tool to focus on
meaningful disparities and areas where potential barriers may exist and may require closer attention. (See
Appendices for FY17 Table A-1.)
Snapshot 2
EPA Permanent FY17 Workforce % Compared to 2010 Civilian Labor Force (%)
RNO
Total EPA %
National
CLF %
Male EPA %
Male
CLF %
Female EPA %
Female
CLF %
Hispanic or Latino
7.01
9.96
3.14
5.17
3.87
4.79
White
66.36
72.36
35.71
38.33
30.65
34.03
Black or African
American
17.86
12.02
5.01
5.49
12.85
6.53
Asian
7.0
3.9
3.33
1.97
3.67
1.93
Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander
0.11
0.14
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.07
American Indian/Alaska
Native
1.06
1.08
0.47
0.55
0.59
0.53
Two or More Races
0.51
0.54
0.17
0.26
0.34
0.28
The EEOC and OPM provided further guidance in FY 17 that instructed all federal agencies to conduct a root
cause analysis of their Hispanic workforce. Although there may be less than expected rates of participation for
other demographics, the EPA focused its efforts this year in conducting barrier analysis for Hispanic males and
females.
Participation by Grade Level
Snapshot 3 highlights the 3rd Quarter FY 17 full-time/part-time permanent workforce participation rates at each
grouped grade level compared to EPA gender participation rates. The EPA workforce participation rates at the
GS 1-8 level is 3.49%, of which 71.5% are female. The EPA workforce participation rates at the GS 9-12 level is
19.00%, of which 58.0% are female. Notably, female participation rates are higher than male participation rates at
the lower grade levels (),
toward the SES level. (See Appendices for Table A4-1.)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
18
-------
Snapshot 3
Permanent EPA Employees Participation Rates by Grade and Gender FY17
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
¦ ¦ ¦ I
GS1-8 GS 9-12 GS-13 GS -14 GS-15 SES
¦ Male ¦ Female
When comparing participation rates for RNO groups at mid and senior grade levels (GS 9 - SES) to their
participation rates in the EPA permanent workforce, the Agency identified groups with less than anticipated
participation rates. Snapshot 4 identifies low participation rates by RNO and gender in grades GS-09 to SES. (See
Appendices for Table A-1 andA-4-1.)
Snapshot 4
RNO/Gender Participation in Grade Level is Lower than RNO Rates of Participation in Permanent Workforce
GRADE
RNO Males
RNO Females
GS-09
White
N/A
GS-10
N/A
N/A
GS-11
White
N/A
GS-12
White
N/A
GS-13
N/A
White, Black
GS-14
Black
Hispanic, Black
GS-15
Black, Asian
Hispanic, Black, Asian, American Indian/Alaska
Native
GS-SES
N/A
Black, Asian
The Agency further analyzed the less than expected participation rates represented by the permanent EPA
workforce of the following seven EPA Mission Critical Occupations (MCO): Enviromnental Protection Specialist
(0028), Miscellaneous Administrative and Program Specialist (0301), Management/Program Analyst (0343),
General Biological Science (0401), Enviromnental Engineer (0819), General Attorney (0905), and
Physical/Environmental Scientist (1301). These seven MCOs represent 67.38% of the EPA's full-time/part-time
permanent workforce (14,869). For this report, the Agency will use MCO to represent the seven major
occupations referenced in previous reports. {See Appendices for Table A-6.)
Snapshot 5
RNO/Gender Participation by EPA MCO Lower than RNO Rates of Participation in Permanent Workforce
EPA MCOs
RNO and Gender
Environmental Protection Specialist (0028):
White Males and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males.
General Administrative (0301):
Hispanic Males, White Males and Females, Asian Pacific Islander
Males and Females, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females,
American Indian/Alaska Native Females, and Two or More Races
Males.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
19
-------
Management Analyst (0343):
Hispanic Males, White Males, Asian Pacific Islander Males, and
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males and Females.
Biologist (0401):
Hispanic Males White Males, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Males and Females, American Indian/Alaska Native Males and
Two or More Races Males.
Environmental Engineering (0819):
White Males, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females,
American Indian/Alaska Native Males, and Two or More Races
Males.
Attorney (0905):
*
General Physical Science (1301):
White Males, Asian Pacific Islander Males and Females, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females, American Indian/Alaska
Native Females, and Two or More Races Males.
* RNO and sex data for 0905 Attorneys not tracked in FY 17 using the same procedures as other job series due to
the unique selection process for excepted sen'ice positions.
Applicant Flow Data
Although GS 0905 General Attorneys constitute one of EPA's MCOs, applicant flow data is captured using a
separate internal method due to the excepted service selection process. Therefore, the EPA developed a pilot to
collect and track applicant flow data for this occupation in accordance with EEOC guidance and expects to have
its first available data in FY18.
The data in Snapshot 5 were used to analyze applicant flow data for the EPA MCOs except for GS 0905 General
Attorneys. In addition, the Agency applicant flow data source was used to analyze the less than expected rates of
participation found within two occupations: Environmental Protection Specialist (0028) and the Enviromnental
Engineer (0819). Since RNO is analyzed in the application flow data, selections from applicants who did not self-
identify their RNO were not included. (See Appendices for Table A-7.)
Environmental Protection Specialist (0028)
The EPA received a total of 1,232 applications for the Enviromnental Protection Specialist positions in FY17. Of
those applicants, 831, or 67.5%, voluntarily self-identified their RNO. In addition there were 591, or 48.0%,
applicants who self-identified and met the basic qualifications for the position. Of those who self-identified their
RNO and qualified for the position 57 were selected. Snapshot 6 shows a demographic breakdown of those
individuals who voluntarily self-identified their RNO and sex and applied, qualified, and selected for the
Enviromnental Protection Specialist positions. (See Appendices for Table A-7)
Hispanic Males and Two or More Races Females were qualified at a statistically lower rate than they applied.
Hispanic Females, Black Females and Asian Males were selected at a significantly lower rate than their
qualification rates. Regarding selections, there were no Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males, American
Indian/Alaska Native Males and Two or More Races Males and Females who were selected.
Snapshot 6
FY17 Applicant Flow Data - Environmental Protection Specialist (0028)
RNO Group
# of Individuals Voluntarily Self-
Identified
# of Individuals Voluntarily Self-
Identified/Basic Qualifications
#/% of Individuals Self-
Identified/Selected
Total (831)
Male
Female
Total
(591)
Male
Female
Total
(57)
Male
Female
Hispanic
125
(15.04%)
62
(7.46%)
63
(7.58%)
82
(13.87%)
37
(6.26%)
45
(7.61%)
6
(10.53%)
4
(7.02%)
2
(3.51%)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
20
-------
White
454
(54.64%)
255
(30.69%)
199
(23.95%)
343
(58.04%)
192
(32.49%)
151
(25.55%)
38
(66.66%)
17
(29.82%)
21
(36.84%)
Black
148
(17.81%)
66
(7.94%)
82
(9.87%)
98
(16.58%)
46
(7.78%)
52
(8.80%)
5
(8.77%)
3
(5.26%)
2
(3.51%)
Asian
66
(7.94%)
41
(4.93%)
25
(3.01%)
48
(8.13%)
30
(5.08%)
18
(3.05%)
6
(10.53%)
2
(3.51%)
4
(7.02%)
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
7
(0.84%)
3
(0.36%)
4
(0.48%)
4
(0.68%)
1
(0.17%)
3
(0.51%)
1
(1.75%)
0
(0%)
1
(1.75%)
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
18
(2.16%)
9
(1.08%)
9
(1.08%)
12
(1.86%)
4
(0.68%)
7
(1.18%)
1
(1.75%)
0
(0%)
1
(1.75%)
Two or More
Races
13
(1.58%)
9
(1.08%)
4
(0.48%)
5
(0.85%)
5
(0.85%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Environmental Engineer (0819)
The EPA received a total of 1,832 applications for the Environmental Engineer positions in FY17. Of those
applicants, 1,373, or 74.9%, voluntarily self-identified their RNO. In addition, there were 1,093, or 59.7%,
applicants who self-identified and met the basic qualifications for the position. Of those who self-identified their
RNO and qualified for the position 87 were selected. Snapshot 7 shows a demographic breakdown of those
individuals who voluntarily self-identified their RNO and sex and applied, qualified, and were selected for
Enviromnental Engineer positions. (See Appendices for Table A-7.)
The selection rates for Hispanic Males, Black Females, and Asian Males was significantly lower than their
Qualification rates. White Males self-identified at a rate significantly lower than their application rate, and Black
Males were qualified at a rate significantly below their application rate. Additionally, Black Females, Asian
Males, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females and Males, and Two or More Races Males were not selected.
Overall, the rates of all Males who self-identified, were qualified and were selected was significantly lower than
the CLF, while the rates for Females overall was higher than the CLF.
Snapshot 7
FY17 Applicant Flow Data - Environmental Engineer (0819)
RNO Group
it/%, of Individuals Voluntarily
Self-I dentified/AppI ied
#/% of Individuals
Self-Identified/Basic
Qualifications
#/% of Individuals
Self- Identified/Selected
Total
(1373)
Male
Female
Total
(1093)
Male
Female
Total
(87)
Male
Female
Hispanic
131
(9.54%)
77
(5.61%)
54
(3.93%)
108
(9.88%)
66
(6.04%)
42
(3.84%)
4
(4.60%)
1
(1.15%)
3
(3.45%)
White
888
(64.67%)
516
(37.58%)
372
(27.09%)
722
(66.05%)
404
(36.96%)
318
(29.09%)
73
(83.91%)
34
(39.08%)
39
(44.32%)
Black
170
(12.39%)
108
(7.87%)
62
(4.52%)
116
(10.61%)
68
(6.22%)
48
(4.39%)
3
(3.45%)
3
(3.45%)
0
(0%)
Asian
157
(11.44%)
91
(6.63%)
66
(4.81%)
120
(11.53%)
72
(6.59%)
54
(4.94%)
4
(4.60%)
0
(0%)
4
(4.60%)
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
3
(0.22%)
3
(0.22%)
0
(0%)
3
(0.27%)
3
(0.27%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
16
(1.17%)
10
(0.73%)
6
(0.44%)
11
(1.01%)
6
(0.55%)
5
(0.46%)
2
(2.30%)
1
(1.15%)
1
(1.15%)
Two or More
Races
8
(0.59%)
6
(0.44%)
2
(0.15%)
7
(0.64%)
5
(0.46%)
2
(0.18%)
1
(1.15%)
0
(0%)
1
(1.15%)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
21
-------
New Hires
The EPA had a total (permanent/temporary) of 876 new hires in FY17. Of the total, 691 (78.9%) were permanent
new hires, 337 (48.8%) were Males, and 354 (51.2 %) were Females. There was a total of 185 temporary new
hires, of which 108 (58.38%) were Males, and 77 (41.62%) were Females. (See Appendices for Table A-8.)
Of the 691 permanent new hires, 76 (11.0%) had a disability and 7(1.01%) had a targeted disability. Of the 185
temporary new hires, 16 (8.65%) had a disability and 2 (1.08%) had a targeted disability. EEOC lias provided
federal agencies an ongoing Federal benchmark of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD within the workforce.
Snapshot 8 reflects the RNO and disability demographics of new hires that had rates lower than their CLF rates
(e.g., Hispanic Males, and White Males and Females). (See Appendices for Table B-8.)
Snapshot 8
FY17 New Hires by RNO, Gender, and Disability Status
FY17New
EPA Hires
by Type
Hispanic
White
Black or
African
American
Asian
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
islander
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
Two or More
Races
Disabilities
All
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
PWD
PWTD
Permanent
New Hires
#
691
21
37
244
214
40
66
23
24
1
1
4
7
2
1
76
7
%
100
3.04
5.35
35.31
30.97
5.79
9.55
3.33
3.47
0.14
0.14
0.58
1.01
0.29
0.14
11.00
1.01
Temporary
New Hires
#
185
9
2
79
57
8
11
9
5
0
0
1
0
0
1
16
2
%
100
4.86
1.08
42.70
30.81
4.32
5.95
4.86
2.70
0.0%
0.0%
0.54
0.00%
0.00
0.54
8.65
1.08
2010 CLF
%
100
5.17
4.79
38.33
34.03
5.49
6.53
1.97
1.93
0.07
0.07
0.55
0.53
0.26
0.28
Total
9.58
Total
1.64
*Note - Disclosure of RNO is voluntary; therefore, the totals and percentages by RNO and gender do not sum to the "AM" column.
Separations
During FY17 and when compared to representation in the total permanent workforce, the voluntary separation
rates were higher for the following demographics: White Males; Black Males and Females; Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males; and American Indian/Alaska Native Males and Females. During FY17 and
when compared to representation in the CLF, the involuntary separation rates were higher for the following
demographics: White Males, Black Males and Females, and Two or More Races Males. The voluntary and
involuntary separation rates for both PWD and PWTD during FY17 was higher than the representative CLF rates;
a barrier analysis is needed to determine the root cause. (See Appendices for Table A-14 and B-14.)
Snapshot 9
FY17 Separations by RNO, Gender, and Disability Status
RNO/Disability/Gender
Type of
Separation:
Voluntary
Type of
Separation:
Involuntary
Benchmark:
Total
Permanent
Workforce
(All)
621
(97.34%)
17 (2.66%)
Hispanic Male
1.77%
0.0%
3%
Hispanic Female
2.09%
0.0%
4%
White Male
39.45%
41.18%
36%
White Female
28.99%
11.76%
31%
Black Male
5.64%
17.65%
5%
Black Female
14.81%
23.53%
13%
Asian Male
2.25%
0.0%
3%
Asian Female
3.22%
0.0%
4%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Male
0.16%
0.0%
0%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
22
-------
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Female
0.0%
0.0%
0%
American Indian/Alaska Native Male
0.64%
0.0%
0%
American Indian/Alaska Native Female
0.64%
0.0%
1%
Two or More Races Male
0.0%
5.88%
0%
Two or More Races Female
0.32%
0.0%
0%
PWD - All
9.97%
3.05%
7.64%
PWTD - All
17.65%
5.88%
2.00%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
23
-------
Part F - Certification of Establishment of Continuing Equal Employment
Opportunity Programs
_ „ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EEOC FORM 715-01
FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM
PART F
EPA STATUS REPORT
Certification i»f Establishment of
t iKitininng I quul Employment (Opportunity Programs
I LmU L4»nroc. Acting Director of the Office ol C ivil KMrt* am the Principui 1-,'fcO Director
Otlioal It»r the 1 .S I tr. irnftntcntal CrntcctMHl Ayeno
I PA lu*» conducted an iinmial vrlfVnvscssrncni ol ScclKin 717 arxl Section 5411 programs auaina
llvisM.rnial element* as prcs>rdvd b> EI OMO-715, ITaitcsMMttnlck'Ricnl full;,
cuinplbnt with the Maoilrd c»f EM) \1D-715, a flintier evaluation wu* conduced and. a*
uppftipriaie. I I.O Plans ft* An.i'im v the l s%cniial I lemenlsola Modd fcliO Itunrom are
inelixted with tlv Federal Agency \nmwl I-1-0 Program Suiu* Report
I PA ha* oivt analysed il* wutkloKc prnllk* i>| appropriate are iivluJcd *vlth this f ederal Agency Annual HM»Program Status
Report.
I certify thai proper jLvumc-nUlion of ttlisar* segment i* in place .md is being maintained tor
EE( H re% iew upon request
«^/^K4||L ^ * w , Al hi *t>lY lcW~ hytA 7>U
Signature r.fPrincipal F.FO DirvdorOfficuil Date-
Onirics thai litis federal Agency Annual I KO Program
Status KcporUHin complkwux «iil» I EOC MI>-715.
MgnulUK i>f Afiraev Head »r Ageno IKad Ik^iuiut |>a|C
rl
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
24
-------
Part G - Self-Assessment Towards a Model EEO Program Checklist
Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership
This element requires the Agency head to communicate a commitment to equal employment opportunity and a
discrimination-free workplace.
Compliance
Indicator
~
Measures
A.l - The Agency issues an effective,
up-to-date EEO policy statement
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
1
A.l.a
Does the Agency annually issue a signed
and dated EEO policy statement on
Agency letterhead that clearly
communicates the Agency's
commitment to EEO for all employees
and applicants? If "yes", please provide
the annual issuance date in the
comments column, [see MD-715,11(A)]
NO
An updated EEO policy
statement has not been
issued. However, the 2016
policy remains in effect
and is posted on OCR's
website.
https://www.epa.gov/ocr/
2016-eeo-policy-statement
2
A.l.b
Does the EEO policy statement address
all protected bases (age, color, disability,
sex (including pregnancy, sexual
orientation and gender identity), genetic
information, national origin, race,
religion, and reprisal) contained in the
laws EEOC enforces? [see 29 CFR §
1614.101(a)]
YES
Existing Agency policy,
issued in FY16, addresses
the identified bases.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
A.2 - The Agency has communicated
EEO policies and procedures to all
employees.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
A.2.a
Does the Agency disseminate the following policies and procedures to all employees:
3
A.2.a.l
Anti-harassment policy? [see MD 715,
11(A)]
YES
4
A.2.a.2
Reasonable accommodation
procedures? [see 29 C.F.R §
1614.203(d)(3)]
YES
A.2.b
Does the Agency prominently post the following information throughout the workplace
and on its public website:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
25
-------
5
A.2.b.l
The business contact information for its
EEO Counselors, EEO Officers, Special
Emphasis Program Managers, and EEO
Director? [see 29 C.F.R § 1614.102(b)(7)]
YES
6
A.2.b.2
Written materials concerning the EEO
program, laws, policy statements, and
the operation of the EEO complaint
process? [see 29 C.F.R § 1614.102(b)(5)]
YES
7
A.2.b.3
Reasonable accommodation
procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. §
1614.203(d)(3)(i)] If so, please provide
the internet address in the comments
column.
YES
httos://www. eoa.gov/ocr/
reasonable-
accommodation##unionpr
ocedures
A.2.C
Does the Agency inform its employees about the following topics:
8
A.2.C.1
EEO complaint process? [see 29 CFR §§
1614.102(a)(12) and 1614.102(b)(5)] If
"yes", please provide how often.
YES
Employees are informed
through various trainings
(i.e., New Employee, No
FEAR Act, Supervisory
Leadership Program)
annually, biannually
ongoing.
9
A.2.C.2
ADR process? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(C)]
If "yes", please provide how often.
YES
Employees are informed
through various trainings
(i.e., New Employee, No
FEAR Act, Supervisory
Leadership Program)
annually, biannually,
ongoing. Information
regarding the ADR process
is also provided if an
employee files an informal
or formal complaint.
10
A.2.C.3
Reasonable accommodation program?
[see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If
"yes", please provide how often.
YES
Employees are informed
through various trainings
(i.e., New Employee, No
FEAR Act, Supervisory
Leadership Program)
annually, biannually,
ongoing.
11
A.2.C.4
Anti-harassment program? [see EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious
Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors (1999), §
V.C.I] If "yes", please provide how often.
YES
Employees are informed
through various trainings
(i.e., New Employee, No
FEAR Act, Supervisory
Leadership Program)
annually, biannually,
ongoing.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
26
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
A.2 - The Agency has communicated
EEO policies and procedures to all
employees.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
12
A.2.C.5
Behaviors that are inappropriate in the
workplace and could result in disciplinary
action? [5 CFR § 2635.101(b)] If "yes",
please provide how often.
YES
Employees are informed
through various trainings
(i.e., New Employee, No
FEAR Act, Supervisory
Leadership Program)
annually, biannually,
ongoing.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
A.3 - The Agency assesses and ensures
EEO principles are part of its culture.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
13
A.3.a
Does the Agency provide recognition to
employees, supervisors, managers, and
units demonstrating superior
accomplishment in equal employment
opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)
(9)] If "yes", provide one or two
examples in the comments section.
YES
The Agency recognizes
employees, supervisors,
managers, and units (e.g.,
the Susan E. Olive National
Award for Exemplary
Leadership in Equal
Employment Opportunity).
14
A.3.b
Does the Agency utilize the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) or
other climate assessment tools to
monitor the perception of EEO principles
within the workforce? [see 5 CFR Part
250]
YES
The Agency utilized the
FY16 FEVS to address
unconscious bias (UB) and
piloted activities to
mitigate UB through the
Agency's Diversity and
Inclusion Strategic Plan
and MD-715.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
27
-------
Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Agency's Strategic Mission
This element requires that the Agency's EEO programs are structured to maintain a workplace that is free from
discrimination and support the Agency's strategic mission.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
B.l - The reporting structure for the EEO
program provides the principal EEO
official with appropriate authority and
resources to effectively carry out a
successful EEO program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
15
B.l.a
Is the Agency head the immediate
supervisor of the person ("EEO Director")
who has day-to-day control over the EEO
office? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]
YES
There is a direct reporting
chain to the Office of the
Administrator. The EEO
Director has the
opportunity to raise EEO
concerns with senior
leadership.
16
B.l.a.l
If the EEO Director does not report to
the Agency head, does the EEO Director
report to the same Agency head
designee as the mission-related
programmatic offices? If "yes," please
provide the title of the Agency head
designee in the comments.
NA
17
B.l.a.2
Does the Agency's organizational chart
clearly define the reporting structure for
the EEO office? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(b)(4)]
YES
18
B.l.b
Does the EEO Director have a regular
and effective means of advising the
Agency head and other senior
management officials of the
effectiveness, efficiency and legal
compliance of the Agency's EEO
program? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(1);
MD-715 Instructions, Sec. 1]
YES
The EEO Director relays
EEO related guidance
through the following
vehicles: Chief of Staff,
Office of General Counsel,
Deputy Civil Rights Officials
and Equal Employment
Opportunity Officers
(Regional).
19
B.l.c
During this reporting period, did the EEO
Director present to the head of the
Agency, and other senior management
officials, the "State of the Agency"
briefing covering the six essential
elements of the model EEO program and
the status of the barrier analysis
process? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec.
1)] If "yes", please provide the date of the
briefing in the comments column.
NO
Due to the leadership
transition, the Agency's
Head and senior
management officials did
not receive the "State of
the Agency's EEO" from
the EEO Director. The FY16
MD-715 report was made
available and posted on
the Agency's internal
website. Please see Part H-
1 for further explanation.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
28
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
B.l - The reporting structure for the EEO
program provides the principal EEO
official with appropriate authority and
resources to effectively carry out a
successful EEO program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
20
B.l.d
Does the EEO Director regularly
participate in senior-level staff meetings
concerning personnel, budget,
technology, and other workforce issues?
[see MD-715,11(B)]
YES
The EEO Director attends
weekly Agency wide senior
staff meetings. The EEO
Director also attends
monthly meetings of all
Office Directors in the
Administrator's Office.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
B.2 - The EEO Director controls all
aspects of the EEO program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
21
B.2.a
Is the EEO Director responsible for the
implementation of a continuing
affirmative employment program to
promote EEO and to identify and
eliminate discriminatory policies,
procedures, and practices? [see MD-110,
Ch. 1(III)(A); 29 CFR §1614.102(c)]
YES
22
B.2.b
Is the EEO Director responsible for
overseeing the completion of EEO
counseling? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(4)]
YES
23
B.2.C
Is the EEO Director responsible for
overseeing the fair and thorough
investigation of EEO complaints? [see 29
CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may
not be applicable for certain subordinate
level components.]
YES
24
B.2.d
Is the EEO Director responsible for
overseeing the timely issuing final
Agency decisions? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may not
be applicable for certain subordinate
level components.]
YES
25
B.2.e
Is the EEO Director responsible for
ensuring compliance with EEOC orders?
[see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(e); 1614.502]
YES
26
B.2.f
Is the EEO Director responsible for
periodically evaluating the entire EEO
program and providing
recommendations for improvement to
the Agency head? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(2)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
29
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
B.2 - The EEO Director controls all
aspects of the EEO program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
27
B.2.g
If the Agency has subordinate level
components, does the EEO Director
provide effective guidance and
coordination for the components? [see
29 CFR §§ 1614.102(c)(2) and (c)(3)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
B.3 - The EEO Director and other EEO
professional staff are involved in, and
consulted on, management/personnel
actions.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
28
B.3.a
Do EEO program officials participate in
agency meetings regarding workforce
changes that might impact EEO issues,
including strategic planning, recruitment
strategies, vacancy projections,
succession planning, and selections for
training/career development
opportunities? [see MD-715,11(B)]
YES
29
B.3.b
Does the Agency's current strategic plan
reference EEO / diversity and inclusion
principles? [see MD-715,11(B)] If "yes",
please identify the EEO principles in the
strategic plan in the comments column.
YES
Agency EEO principles are
included in the Diversity
and Inclusion Strategic
Plan FYs 2017 - 2021 (See
Appendices); for example,
management and program
accountability.
Compliance
Indicator
~
Measures
B.4 - The Agency has sufficient budget
and staffing to support the success of its
EEO program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
B.4.a
Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(l), has the Agency allocated sufficient funding and
qualified staffing to successfully implement the EEO program for the following areas:
30
B.4.a.l
to conduct a self-assessment of the
Agency for possible program
deficiencies? [see MD-715,11(D)]
YES
31
B.4.a.2
to enable the Agency to conduct a
thorough barrier analysis of its
workforce? [see MD-715,11(B)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
30
-------
32
B.4.a.3
to timely, thoroughly, and fairly process
EEO complaints, including EEO
counseling, investigations, final Agency
decisions, and legal sufficiency reviews?
[see 29 CFR § 1614.102(c)(5) &
1614.105(b) - (f); MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D) &
5(IV); MD-715, 11(E)]
YES
33
B.4.a.4
to provide all supervisors and employees
with training on the EEO program,
including but not limited to retaliation,
harassment, religious accommodations,
disability accommodations, the EEO
complaint process, and ADR? [see MD-
715, 11(B) and 111(C)] If not, please identify
the type(s) of training with insufficient
funding in the comments column.
YES
34
B.4.a.5
to conduct thorough, accurate, and
effective field audits of the EEO
programs in components and the field
offices, if applicable? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(2)]
YES
35
B.4.a.6
to publish and distribute EEO materials
(e.g. harassment policies, EEO posters,
reasonable accommodations
procedures)? [see MD-715,11(B)]
YES
36
B.4.a.7
to maintain accurate data collection and
tracking systems for the following types
of data: complaint tracking, workforce
demographics, and applicant flow data?
[see MD-715,11(E)], If not, please
identify the systems with insufficient
funding in the comments section.
YES
37
B.4.a.8
to effectively administer its special
emphasis programs (such as, Federal
Women's Program, Hispanic
Employment Program, and People with
Disabilities Program Manager)? [5 (JSC §
7201; 38 USC § 4214; 5 CFR § 720.204; 5
CFR § 213.3102(t) and (u); 5 CFR §
315.709]
YES
38
B.4.a.9
to effectively manage its anti-
harassment program? [see MD-715
Instructions, Sec. 1); EEOC Enforcement
Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability
for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors
(1999), § V.C.I]
YES
39
B.4.a.l0
to effectively manage its reasonable
accommodation program? [see 29 CFR §
1614.203(d)(4)(ii)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
31
-------
40
B.4.a.ll
to ensure timely and complete
compliance with EEOC orders? [see MD-
715,11(E)]
YES
41
B.4.b
Does the EEO office have a budget that is
separate from other offices within the
Agency? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(1)]
NO
The Agency apportions its
civil rights appropriations
among the EEO office, the
External Civil Rights
Compliance Office (Title
VI), and the 10 regional
offices.
42
B.4.C
Are the duties and responsibilities of EEO
officials clearly defined? [see MD-110,
Ch. 1(III)(A), 2(111), & 6(111)]
YES
43
B.4.d
Does the Agency ensure that all new
counselors and investigators, including
contractors and collateral duty
employees, receive the required 32
hours of training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(A)
of MD-110?
YES
44
B.4.e
Does the Agency ensure that all
experienced counselors and
investigators, including contractors and
collateral duty employees, receive the
required 8 hours of annual refresher
training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(C) of MD-
110?
YES
Compliance
Indicator
~
Measures
B.5 - The Agency recruits, hires,
develops, and retains supervisors and
managers who have effective
managerial, communications, and
interpersonal skills.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
B.5.a
Pursuant to 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5), have all managers and supervisors received training
on their responsibilities under the following areas under the Agency EEO program:
45
B.5.a.l
EEO Complaint Process? [see MD-
715(II)(B)]
YES
46
B.5.a.2
Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. §
1614.102(d)(3)]
YES
47
B.5.a.3
Anti-Harassment Policy? [see MD-
715(II)(B)]
YES
48
B.5.a.4
Supervisory, managerial,
communication, and interpersonal skills
in order to supervise most effectively in
a workplace with diverse employees and
avoid disputes arising from ineffective
communications? [see MD-715,11(B)]
YES
The Agency offers a variety
of training opportunities
through its EPA eLearning
Skillport platform as well
as webinars and in-person
classes.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
32
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
B.5 - The Agency recruits, hires,
develops, and retains supervisors and
managers who have effective
managerial, communications, and
interpersonal skills.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
49
B.5.a.5
ADR, with emphasis on the federal
government's interest in encouraging
mutual resolution of disputes and the
benefits associated with utilizing ADR?
[see MD-715(II)(E)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
Measures
B.6 - The Agency involves managers in
the implementation of its EEO program
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
50
B.6.a
Are senior managers involved in the
implementation of Special Emphasis
Programs? [see MD-715 Instructions,
Sec. 1]
YES
51
B.6.b
Do senior managers participate in the
barrier analysis process? [see MD-715
Instructions, Sec. 1]
YES
52
B.6.C
When barriers are identified, do senior
managers assist in developing Agency
EEO action plans (Part 1, Part J, or the
Executive Summary)? [see MD-715
Instructions, Sec. 1]
YES
53
B.6.d
Do senior managers successfully
implement EEO Action Plans and
incorporate the EEO Action Plan
Objectives into Agency strategic plans?
[29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
33
-------
Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability
This element requires the Agency head to hold all managers, supervisors, and EEO officials responsible for the
effective implementation of the Agency's EEO Program and Plan.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.l - The Agency conducts regular
internal audits of its component and
field offices.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
54
C.l.a
Does the Agency regularly assess its
component and field offices for possible
EEO program deficiencies? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(2)] If "yes", please provide
the schedule for conducting audits in the
comments section.
YES
The Agency requested all
program and regional
offices to participate in
completing an annual Part
G self-assessment to
identify program level
deficiencies. Each office
also meets with OCR
quarterly to assess
progress.
55
C.l.b
Does the Agency regularly assess its
component and field offices on their
efforts to remove barriers from the
workplace? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]
If "yes", please provide the schedule for
conducting audits in the comments
section.
YES
The Agency engaged all
program and regional
offices in the annual self-
assessment to help
identify efforts to remove
potential barriers from the
workplace.
56
C.l.c
Do the component and field offices make
reasonable efforts to comply with the
recommendations of the field audit?
[see MD-715,11(C)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.2 - The Agency has established
procedures to prevent all forms of EEO
discrimination.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
57
C.2.a
Has the Agency established
comprehensive anti-harassment policy
and procedures that comply with EEOC's
enforcement guidance? [see MD-715,
11(C); Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious
Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors
(Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No.
915.002, § V.C.I (June 18, 1999)]
YES
The Agency's Procedures
for Addressing Allegations
of Workplace Harassment
were issued on November
20, 2016.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
34
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.2 - The Agency has established
procedures to prevent all forms of EEO
discrimination.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
58
C.2.a.l
Does the anti-harassment policy require
corrective action to prevent or eliminate
conduct before it rises to the level of
unlawful harassment? [see EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious
Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors (1999), §
V.C.I]
YES
59
C.2.a.2
Has the Agency established a firewall
between the Anti-Harassment
Coordinator and the EEO Director? [see
EEOC Report, Model EEO Program Must
Have an Effective Anti-Harassment
Program (2006]
YES
60
C.2.a.3
Does the Agency have a separate
procedure (outside the EEO complaint
process) to address harassment
allegations? [see Enforcement Guidance
on Vicarious Employer Liability for
Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors
(Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No.
915.002, § V.C.I (June 18, 1999)]
YES
61
C.2.a.4
Does the Agency ensure that the EEO
office informs the anti-harassment
program of all EEO counseling activity
alleging harassment? [see Enforcement
Guidance, V.C.]
YES
62
C.2.a.5
Does the Agency conduct a prompt
inquiry (beginning within 10 days of
notification) of all harassment
allegations, including those initially
raised in the EEO complaint process?
[see Complainant v. Dep't of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123232
(May 21, 2015); Complainant v. Dep't of
Defense (Defense Commissary Agency),
EEOC Appeal No. 0120130331 (May 29,
2015)] If "no", please provide the
percentage of timely-processed inquiries
in the comments column.
YES
63
C.2.a.6
Does the Agency's training materials on
its anti-harassment policy include
examples of disability-based
harassment? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(2)]
YES
The Agency developed
Anti-Harassment training
referencing disability
based directly from the
foundational training
offered by EEOC.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
35
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.2 - The Agency has established
procedures to prevent all forms of EEO
discrimination.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
64
C.2.b
Has the Agency established disability
reasonable accommodation (RA)
procedures that comply with EEOC's
regulations and guidance? [see 29 CFR
1614.203(d)(3)]
YES
The Agency has two
reasonable
accommodations
procedures with very
similar processes (the
American Federation of
Government Employees -
AFGEandthe Non-AFGE
for all others regardless of
bargaining status). An
addendum is being
finalized to comply with
the new Section 501 rule.
65
C.2.b.l
Is there a designated Agency official or
other mechanism in place to coordinate
or assist with processing requests for
disability accommodations throughout
the Agency? [see 29 CFR
1614.203(d)(3)(D)]
YES
The Agency head holds the
National Reasonable
Accommodation
Coordinator (NRAC) at
Headquarters and Local
Official Reasonable
Accommodation
Coordinator (LORAC) in the
Regions responsible for
effective implementation
of disability
accommodations.
66
C.2.b.2
Has the Agency established a firewall
between the Reasonable
Accommodation Program Manager and
the EEO Director? [see MD-110, Ch.
1(IV)(A)]
YES
67
C.2.b.3
Does the Agency ensure that job
applicants can request and receive
reasonable accommodations during the
application and placement processes?
[see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(l)(ii)(B)]
YES
68
C.2.b.4
Do the reasonable accommodation
procedures clearly state that the Agency
should process the request within a
maximum amount of time (e.g., 20
business days), as established by the
Agency in its affirmative action plan?
[see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)(i)(M)]
YES
EPA procedures for AFGE
members indicate
processing times. The
Agency is currently
finalizing an addendum to
the EPA national
reasonable
accommodation
procedures that will
establish timelines for all
employees (see
Appendices).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
36
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.2 - The Agency has established
procedures to prevent all forms of EEO
discrimination.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
69
C.2.b.5
Does the Agency process all
accommodation requests within the
time frame set forth in its reasonable
accommodation procedures? [see MD-
715,11(C)], If "no", please provide the
percentage of timely-processed requests
in the comments column.
YES
The Agency processed
requests timely at a rate of
96.3% in FY17. A rate of
over 90% has been
maintained for over 6
years.
70
C.2.C
Has the Agency established procedures
for processing requests for personal
assistance services that comply with
EEOC's regulations, enforcement
guidance, and other applicable executive
orders, guidance, and standards? [see 29
CFR 1614.203(d)(6)]
YES
Employees can request
PAS under the current
reasonable
accommodation
procedures.
71
C.2.C.1
Does the Agency post its procedures for
processing requests for Personal
Assistance Services (PAS) on its public
website? [see 29 CFR §
1614.203(d)(5)(v)]. If "yes", please
provide the internet address in the
comments column.
NO
The EPA's current
procedures for requesting
RA requests are posted at:
httos://www. eoa.gov/nod
e/38461/view##unionoroc
edures. Those employees
requesting PAS can use
these same procedures.
Please see Part H-2 for
further explanation.
Compliance
Indicator
Measures
C.3 - The Agency evaluates managers
and supervisors on their efforts to
ensure equal employment opportunity
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
72
C.3.a
Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(5), do
all managers and supervisors have an
element in their performance appraisal
that evaluates their commitment to
Agency EEO policies and principles and
their participation in the EEO program?
YES
C.3.b
Does the Agency require rating officials to evaluate the performance of managers and
supervisors based on the following activities:
73
C.3.b.l
Resolve EEO
problems/disagreements/conflicts,
including the participation in ADR
proceedings? [see MD-110, Ch. 3.1]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
37
-------
Compliance
Indicator
Measures
C.3 - The Agency evaluates managers
and supervisors on their efforts to
ensure equal employment opportunity
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
74
C.3.b.2
Ensure full cooperation of employees
under his/her supervision with EEO
officials, such as counselors and
investigators? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(b)(6)]
YES
75
C.3.b.3
Ensure a workplace that is free from all
forms of discrimination, including
harassment and retaliation? [see MD-
715,11(C)]
YES
76
C.3.b.4
Ensure that subordinate supervisors
have effective managerial,
communication, and interpersonal skills
to supervise in a workplace with diverse
employees? [see MD-715 Instructions,
Sec. 1]
YES
77
C.3.b.5
Provide religious accommodations when
such accommodations do not cause an
undue hardship? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(a)(7)]
YES
78
C.3.b.6
Provide disability accommodations when
such accommodations do not cause an
undue hardship? [ see 29 CFR
§1614.102(a)(8)]
YES
79
C.3.b.7
Support the EEO program in identifying
and removing barriers to equal
opportunity, [see MD-715,11(C)]
YES
80
C.3.b.8
Support the anti-harassment program in
investigating and correcting harassing
conduct, [see Enforcement Guidance,
V.C.2]
YES
81
C.3.b.9
Comply with settlement agreements and
orders issued by the Agency, EEOC, and
EEO-related cases from the Merit
Systems Protection Board, labor
arbitrators, and the Federal Labor
Relations Authority? [see MD-715,11(C)]
YES
82
C.3.c
Does the EEO Director recommend to
the Agency head improvements or
corrections, including remedial or
disciplinary actions, for managers and
supervisors who have failed in their EEO
responsibilities? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(2)]
NA
EEO Director did not
identify any manager that
failed their EEO
responsibilities.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
38
-------
Compliance
Indicator
Measures
C.3 - The Agency evaluates managers
and supervisors on their efforts to
ensure equal employment opportunity
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
83
C.3.d
When the EEO Director recommends
remedial or disciplinary actions, are the
recommendations regularly
implemented by the Agency? [see 29
CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]
NA
In FY17 the EEO Director did
not recommend any
remedial or disciplinary
actions.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.4 - The Agency ensures effective
coordination between its EEO programs
and Human Resources (HR) program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
84
C.4.a
Do the HR Director and the EEO Director
meet regularly to assess whether
personnel programs, policies, and
procedures conform to EEOC laws,
instructions, and management
directives? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(2)]
NO
Please see Part H-3 for
further explanation.
85
C.4.b
Has the Agency established
timetables/schedules to review at
regular intervals its merit promotion
program, employee recognition awards
program, employee
development/training programs, and
management/personnel policies,
procedures, and practices for systemic
barriers that may be impeding full
participation in the program by all EEO
groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec.
1]
YES
86
C.4.c
Does the EEO office have timely access
to accurate and complete data (e.g.,
demographic data for workforce,
applicants, training programs, etc.)
required to prepare the MD-715
workforce data tables? [see 29 CFR
§1614.601(a)]
YES
87
C.4.d
Does the HR office provide the EEO
office timely access to other data (e.g.,
exit interview data, climate assessment
surveys, and grievance data), upon
request? [see MD-715,11(C)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
39
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.4 - The Agency ensures effective
coordination between its EEO programs
and Human Resources (HR) program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
C.4.e
Pursuant to Section 11(C) of MD-715, does the EEO office collaborate with the HR office to:
88
C.4.e.l
Implement the Affirmative Action Plan
for Individuals with Disabilities? [see 29
CFR §1614.203(d); MD-715, 11(C)]
YES
89
C.4.e.2
Develop and/or conduct outreach and
recruiting initiatives? [see MD-715,11(C)]
YES
90
C.4.e.3
Develop and/or provide training for
managers and employees? [see MD-715,
11(C)]
YES
91
C.4.e.4
Identify and remove barriers to equal
opportunity in the workplace? [see MD-
715, 11(C)]
YES
92
C.4.e.5
Assist in preparing the MD-715 report?
[see MD-715,11(C)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
~
Measures
C.5 - Following a finding of
discrimination, the Agency explores
whether it should take a disciplinary
action.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
93
C.5.a
Does the Agency have a disciplinary
policy and/or table of penalties that
covers discriminatory conduct? 29 CFR §
1614.102(a)(6); see also Douglas v.
Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280
(1981)
YES
94
C.5.b
When appropriate, does the Agency
discipline or sanction managers and
employees for discriminatory conduct?
[see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(6)] If "yes",
please state the number of
disciplined/sanctioned individuals during
this reporting period in the comments.
NA
The Agency has had no
disciplined/sanctioned
individuals in FY17.
95
C.5.c
If the Agency has a finding of
discrimination (or settles cases in which
a finding was likely), does the Agency
inform managers and supervisors about
the discriminatory conduct? [see MD-
715, 11(C)]
NA
There were no findings in
FY17.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
C.6 - The EEO office advises
managers/supervisors on EEO matters.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
96
C.6.a
Does the EEO office provide
management/supervisory officials with
regular EEO updates on at least an
annual basis, including EEO complaints,
workforce demographics and data
summaries, legal updates, barrier
analysis plans, and special emphasis
updates? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec.
1] If "yes", please identify the frequency
of the EEO updates in the comments
column.
YES
A meeting of Diversity Civil
Rights Officials
(management officials
from each program office
and region with broad
oversight) is scheduled
monthly.
97
C.6.b
Are EEO officials readily available to
answer managers' and supervisors'
questions or concerns? [see MD-715
Instructions, Sec. 1]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
41
-------
Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention
This element requires the Agency head make early efforts to prevent discrimination and to identify and eliminate
barriers to equal employment opportunity.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
D.l - The Agency conducts a reasonable
assessment to monitor progress
towards achieving equal employment
opportunity throughout the year.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
98
D.l.a
Does the Agency have a process for
identifying triggers in the workplace?
[see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. 1]
YES
99
D.l.b
Does the Agency regularly use the
following sources of information for
trigger identification: workforce data;
complaint/grievance data; exit surveys;
employee climate surveys; focus groups;
affinity groups; union; program
evaluations; special emphasis programs;
reasonable accommodation program;
anti-harassment program; and/or
external special interest groups? [see
MD-715 Instructions, Sec. 1]
YES
100
D.l.c
Does the Agency conduct exit interviews
or surveys that include questions on how
the Agency could improve the
recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention
and advancement of individuals with
disabilities? [see 29 CFR
1614.203(d)(l)(iii)(C)]
NO
The Agency utilizes exit
survey for employees;
however, it does not
include relevant questions.
Please see Part H-4 for
further explanation.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
D.2 - The Agency identifies areas where
barriers may exclude EEO groups
(reasonable basis to act).
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
101
D.2.a
Does the Agency have a process for
analyzing the identified triggers to find
possible barriers? [see MD-715, (ll)(B)]
YES
102
D.2.b
Does the Agency regularly examine the
impact of management/personnel
policies, procedures, and practices by
race, national origin, sex, and disability?
[see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
42
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
D.2 - The Agency identifies areas where
barriers may exclude EEO groups
(reasonable basis to act).
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
103
D.2.c
Does the Agency consider whether any
group of employees or applicants might
be negatively impacted prior to making
human resource decisions, such as re-
organizations and realignments? [see 29
CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]
YES
104
D.2.d
Does the Agency regularly review the
following sources of information to find
barriers: complaint/grievance data, exit
surveys, employee climate surveys, focus
groups, affinity groups, union, program
evaluations, anti-harassment program,
special emphasis programs, reasonable
accommodation program; anti-
harassment program; and/or external
special interest groups? [see MD-715
Instructions, Sec. 1] If "yes", please
identify the data sources in the
comments column.
YES
The Agency uses the
following sources to find
barriers: FEVS, EPA Form
462, i-Complaints,
reasonable
accommodation program
data, special emphasis
programs, advisory
councils, affinity groups,
and program evaluations.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
D.3 - The Agency establishes
appropriate action plans to remove
identified barriers.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
105
D.3.a.
Does the Agency effectively tailor action
plans to address the identified barriers,
in particular policies, procedures, or
practices? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]
YES
106
D.3.b
If the Agency identified one or more
barriers during the reporting period, did
the Agency implement a plan in Part 1,
including meeting the target dates for
the planned activities? [see MD-715,
11(D)]
NA
No barriers were identified
in FY17.
107
D.3.C
Does the Agency periodically review the
effectiveness of the plans? [see MD-715,
11(D)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
43
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
D.4 - The Agency has an affirmative
action plan for people with disabilities,
including those with targeted
disabilities
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
108
D.4.a
Does the Agency post its affirmative
action plan on its public website? [see 29
CFR 1614.203(d)(4)] Please provide the
internet address in the comments.
NO
As this is a newly identified
requirement by EEOC, the
affirmative action plan
developed from Part J will
be posted on the public
website in FY19.
109
D.4.b
Does the Agency take specific steps to
ensure qualified people with disabilities
are aware of and encouraged to apply for
job vacancies? [see 29 CFR
1614.203(d)(l)(i)] If so, what?
YES
The Agency conducts
outreach with various
disability source groups to
include colleges and
universities, job fairs and
events, and disabled
veterans.
110
D.4.C
Does the Agency ensure that disability-
related questions from members of the
public are answered promptly and
correctly? [see 29 CFR
1614.203(d)(l)(ii)(A)]
YES
To ensure responses are
properly fielded, the
Agency identified a
Disability Employment
Program Coordinator for
both the Office of Human
Resources and the Office
of Civil Rights.
111
D.4.d
Has the Agency taken specific steps that
are reasonably designed to increase the
number of persons with disabilities or
targeted disabilities employed at the
Agency until it meets the goals? [see 29
CFR 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)]
YES
The Agency promotes the
use of special hiring
authorities to all hiring
officials as their first
option to consider when
filling a vacancy.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
44
-------
Essential Element E: Efficiency
This element requires the Agency head to ensure that there are effective systems for evaluating the impact and
effectiveness of the Agency's EEO programs and an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.
Compliance
E.l - The Agency maintains an efficient,
Measure Met?
Comments
Indicator
fair, and impartial complaint resolution
+
Measures
process.
(Yes/No/NA)
Does the Agency timely provide EEO
112
E.l.a
counseling, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.105?
YES
Does the Agency provide written
notification of rights and responsibilities
113
E.l.b
in the EEO process during the initial
counseling session, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.105(b)(1)?
YES
Does the Agency issue acknowledgment
114
E.l.c
letters immediately upon receipt of a
formal complaint, pursuant to MD-110,
Ch. 5(1)?
YES
Does the Agency issue acceptance
letters/dismissal decisions within a
reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) after
Acceptance/dismissal
115
E.l.d
receipt of the written EEO Counselor
report, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(1)? If
so, please provide the average processing
time in the comments.
YES
letters are issued in an
average of 16 days
Does the Agency ensure all employees
fully cooperate with EEO counselors and
EEO personnel in the EEO process,
116
E.l.e
including granting routine access to
personnel records related to an
investigation, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.102(b)(6)?
YES
117
E.l.f
Does the Agency timely complete
investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.108?
NO
See Part H-5 for further
details.
If the Agency does not timely complete
investigations, does the Agency notify
complainants of the date by which the
118
E-l-g
investigation will be completed and of
their right to request a hearing or file a
lawsuit, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.108(g)?
YES
In FY17, the Agency had
When the complainant does not request
not consistently issued
119
E.l.h
a hearing, does the Agency timely issue
NO
final agency decisions in a
the final Agency decision, pursuant to 29
CFR §1614.110(b)?
timely manner, which was
resolved in the second
quarter of FY18. Please see
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
45
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
E.l - The Agency maintains an efficient,
fair, and impartial complaint resolution
process.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
Part H-5 for further
explanation.
120
E.l.i
Does the Agency timely issue final actions
following receipt of the hearing file and
the administrative judge's decision,
pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(a)?
YES
121
E-l-j
If the Agency uses contractors to
implement any stage of the EEO
complaint process, does the Agency hold
them accountable for poor work product
and/or delays? [See MD-110, Ch. 5(V)(A)]
If "yes", please describe how in the
comments column.
YES
If the Agency receives a
work product deemed of
poor quality, it is not
accepted and returned for
rework.
122
E.l.k
If the Agency uses employees to
implement any stage of the EEO
complaint process, does the Agency hold
them accountable for poor work product
and/or delays during performance
review? [See MD-110, Ch. 5(V)(A)]
YES
123
E.I.I
Does the Agency submit complaint files
and other documents in the proper
format to EEOC through the Federal
Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP)? [See 29 CFR
§ 1614.403(g)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
~
Measures
E.2 - The Agency has a neutral EEO policy.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
124
E.2.a
Has the Agency established a clear
separation between its EEO complaint
program and its defensive function? [see
MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]
YES
125
E.2.b
When seeking legal sufficiency reviews,
does the EEO office have access to
sufficient legal resources separate from
the Agency representative? [see MD-110,
Ch. 1(IV)(D)]. If "yes", please identify the
source/location of the attorney who
conducts the legal sufficiency review in
the comments column.
YES
The Civil Rights Law
Practice Group conducts
legal sufficiency reviews
and is separate from the
agency representatives in
the employment law
practice group.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
46
-------
Compliance
Indicator
~
Measures
E.2 - The Agency has a neutral EEO policy.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
126
E.2.c
If the EEO office relies on the Agency's
defensive function to conduct the legal
sufficiency review, is there a firewall
between the reviewing attorney and the
Agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch.
1(IV)(D)]
NA
127
E.2.d
Does the Agency ensure that its Agency
representative does not intrude upon EEO
counseling, investigations, and final
Agency decisions? [see MD-110, Ch.
1(IV)(D)]
YES
128
E.2.e
If applicable, are processing time frames
incorporated for the legal counsel's
sufficiency review for timely processing of
complaints? EEOC Report, Attaining a
Model Agency Program: Efficiency (Dec. 1,
2004)
YES
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
E.3 - The Agency has established and
encouraged the widespread use of a fair
alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
129
E.3.a
Has the Agency established an ADR
program for use during both the pre-
complaint and formal complaint stages of
the EEO process? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(b)(2)]
YES
130
E.3.b
Does the Agency require managers and
supervisors to participate in ADR once it
has been offered? [see MD-715,11(A)(1)]
YES
131
E.3.C
Does the Agency encourage all employees
to use ADR, where ADR is appropriate?
[see MD-110, Ch. 3(IV)(C)]
YES
ADR participation rates
increased from 47% in
FY16 to 56% in FY17, which
is above the EEOC goal of
50%.
132
E.3.d
Does the Agency ensure a management
official with settlement authority is
accessible during the dispute resolution
process? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(III)(A)(9)]
YES
133
E.3.e
Does the Agency prohibit the responsible
management official named in the dispute
from having settlement authority? [see
MD-110, Ch. 3(1)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
47
-------
Compliance
Indicator
~
Measures
E.3 - The Agency has established and
encouraged the widespread use of a fair
alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
134
E.3.f
Does the Agency annually evaluate the
effectiveness of its ADR program? [see
MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(D)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
E.4 - The Agency has effective and
accurate data collection systems in place
to evaluate its EEO program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
E.4.a
Does the Agency have systems in place to accurately collect, monitor, and analyze data
including:
135
E.4.a.l
Complaint activity, including the issues
and bases of the complaints, the
aggrieved individuals/complainants, and
the involved management official? [see
MD-715,11(E)]
YES
136
E.4.a.2
The race, national origin, sex, and
disability status of Agency employees?
[see 29 CFR §1614.601(a)]
YES
137
E.4.a.3
Recruitment activities? [see MD-715,11(E)]
NO
Please see Part H-6 for
further explanation.
138
E.4.a.4
External and internal applicant flow data
concerning the applicants' race, national
origin, sex, and disability status? [see MD-
715, 11(E)]
NO
Please see Part H-6 for
further explanation.
139
E.4.a.5
The processing of requests for reasonable
accommodation? [29 CFR §
1614.203(d)(4)]
YES
140
E.4.a.6
The processing of complaints for the anti-
harassment program? [see EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious
Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors (1999), §
V.C.2]
YES
141
E.4.b
Does the Agency have a system in place to
re-survey the workforce on a regular
basis? [MD-715 Instructions, Sec. 1]
YES
EPA has a system to
encourage all employees
to self-identify or update
their information through
Employee Express
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
48
-------
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
E.5 - The Agency identifies and
disseminates significant trends and best
practices in its EEO program.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
142
E.5.a
Does the Agency monitor trends in its EEO
program to determine whether the
Agency is meeting its obligations under
the statutes EEOC enforces? [see MD-715,
11(E)] If "yes", provide an example in the
comments.
YES
Trends related to timely
completion of
investigations and timely
issuance of FADs led the
Agency to look to other
Agencies for best
practices.
143
E.5.b
Does the Agency review other agencies'
best practices and adopt them, where
appropriate, to improve the effectiveness
of its EEO program? [see MD-715,11(E)] If
"yes", provide an example in the
comments.
YES
EPA considered other
agency best practices
through EEOC for
processing complaints of
discrimination resulting in
a consult with GSA. GSA
representatives discussed
their LEAN process, which
resulted in significant
improvements with
timeliness within EEO
programs.
144
E.5.C
Does the Agency compare its performance
in the EEO process to other federal
agencies of similar size? [see MD-715,
11(E)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
49
-------
Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance
This element requires federal agencies to comply with EEO statutes and EEOC regulations, policy guidance, and
other written instructions.
Compliance
Indicator
+
Measures
F.l - The Agency has processes in place
to ensure timely and full compliance with
EEOC Orders and settlement agreements.
Measure Met?
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
145
F.l.a
Does the Agency have a system of
management controls to ensure that its
officials timely comply with EEOC
orders/directives and final Agency
actions? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(e); MD-
715, 11(F)]
YES
146
F.l.b
Does the Agency have a system of
management controls to ensure the
timely, accurate, and complete
compliance with resolutions/settlement
agreements? [see MD-715,11(F)]
YES
147
F.l.c
Are there procedures in place to ensure
the timely and predictable processing of
ordered monetary relief? [see MD-715,
11(F)]
YES
148
F.l.d
Are procedures in place to process other
forms of ordered relief promptly? [see
MD-715,11(F)]
YES
149
F.l.e
When EEOC issues an order requiring
compliance by the Agency, does the
Agency hold its compliance officer(s)
accountable for poor work product and/or
delays during performance review? [see
MD-110, Ch. 9(IX)(H)]
YES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
50
-------
Part H - Plan to Correct Deficiencies
Part H-l
Part H-l ! Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the Agency's Strategic Mission - Compliance
Indicator B.l - The reporting structure for the EEO program provides the principal EEO official with appropriate
authority and resources to effectively carry out a successful EEO program.
Statement of Model Program Essential
Element Deficiency:
Part G Compliance Indicator/Measure B.l.c. During this reporting
period, did the EEO Director present to the head of the Agency, and
other senior management officials, the "State of the Agency"
briefing covering the six essential elements of the model EEO
program and the status of the barrier analysis process?
The Agency's EEO State of the Agency was not conducted timely in
FY17.
Objective:
To conduct an annual State of the Agency briefing with the Agency
head or delegate and senior management officials in FY18.
Responsible Official:
Office of the Administrator (AO)
Acting Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Assistant Director, Office of Civil Rights, Affirmative Employment,
Analysis and Accountability Program (AEAA)
Assistant Director, Office of Civil Rights, Employment Complaints
Resolution Staff (ECRS)
National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator (NRAC), OCR
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
October 30, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. The OCR will begin to draft a briefing, in consultation with OGC, covering the six
essential elements and the status of the barrier analysis processes while preparing
to submit the MD-715 to EEOC.
May 31,2018
2. The OCR will deliver briefings inFY18 for Agency stakeholders: (e.g.. Office of
General Counsel (OGC), Civil Rights and Finance Law Office (CRFLO), Office of
Administration and Resources Management (OARM), Office of Human Resources
(OHR), Diversity, Recruitment, and Employee Services Division (DRESD), Deputy
Civil Rights Officials (DCROs)).
September 30,
2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
51
-------
Part H-2
Part H-2 ! Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability - Compliance Indicator C.2 - The
Agency lias established procedures to prevent all forms of EEO discrimination.
Statement of Model Program Essential
Element Deficiency:
Part G Compliance Indicator C.2.C.1 - Does the Agency post its
procedures for processing requests for Personal Assistance Services
(PAS) on its public website? [see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5)(v)]
The Agency Personal Assistance Service procedures were not
developed to post in FY17.
Objective:
To develop, implement and post publicly procedures for PAS.
Responsible Official:
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Assistant Director, Office of Civil Rights, Employment Complaints
Resolution Staff (ECRS)
National Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator, OCR
Office of Administration and Resources Management, Labor and
Employee Relations Division (LER)
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
January 30, 2019
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. OCR and LER, in consultation and coordination with OGC, will develop a
Drooosal for the EPA PAS.
March 30,2018
2. OCR and LER, in consultation and coordination with OGC, will ensure all EPA
stakeholder (i.e., EPA Unions) concerns are considered prior to finalizing the EPA
PAS
December 30,2018
3. OCR will issue the EPA PAS to all employees and applicants; and post to the
internal and external facing webpages.
January 30,2019
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
52
-------
Part H-3
Part H-3 ! Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability - Compliance Indicator C.4 - The
Agency ensures effective coordination between its EEO programs and Human Resources (HR) program.
Statement of Model Program Essential
Element Deficiency:
Part G Compliance Indicator C.4.a - Do the HR Director and the
EEO Director meet regularly to assess whether personnel program,
policies, and procedures conform to EEOC laws, instructions, and
management directives? [see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(a)(2)]
The HR and EEO Directors did not conduct regular meetings in
FY17.
Objective:
To ensure standing EEO/HR meetings occur a minimum of three
times a year.
Responsible Official:
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
May 31,2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. OCR and OHR will establish a regular meeting schedule within 30 days of this
annual report.
May 31,2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
53
-------
Part H-4
Part H-4 ! Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention - Compliance Indicator D.l - The Agency conducts a
reasonable assessment to monitor progress towards achieving equal employment opportunity throughout the year.
Statement of Model Program Essential
Element Deficiency:
Part G Compliance Indicator D. l.c - Does the Agency conduct exit
interviews or surveys that include questions on how the Agency
could improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion retention and
advancement of individuals with disabilities? [see 29 C.F.R. §
1614.203(d)(l)(iii)]
Existing Agency exit interviews/surveys do not include recruitment,
hiring, inclusion retention and advancement improvement questions
directly related to individuals with disabilities.
Objective:
To create an additional mechanism to the exit interviews and surveys
that will incorporate employment and career development
improvement questions for individuals with disabilities.
Responsible Official:
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Director, Policy, Planning and Training Division (PPTD)
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
January 30, 2019
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. OHR/PPTD will develop exit interview questions on how the agency could
improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, and advancement of individuals with
disabilities.
June 30,2018
2. OHR/PPTD will provide a comprehensive plan of implementation for all exit
interviews and surveys to all managers, supervisors, and employees.
June 30,2018
3. OHR/PPTD will coordinate with OCR on a schedule to receive data that will
contribute to Agency barrier analyses (e.g., individuals with disabilities).
June 30,2018
4. OHR/PPTD will provide, to OCR, the raw data, a comprehensive analysis, and
summary of exit interviews and survey results which will serve as a data sample
for Agency barrier analysis by June each year.
September 30,
2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
54
-------
Part H-5
Part H-5 ! Essential Element E: Efficiency - Compliance Indicator E. 1 - The Agency maintains an efficient,
fair, and impartial complaint resolution process.
Statement of Model Program Essential
Element Deficiency:
Part G Compliance Indicator E.l.f - Does the Agency timely
complete investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108?
Part G Compliance Indicator E.l.h (former Part G: Q. 119) - When
the complainant does not request a hearing, does the Agency timely
issue the final Agency decision pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(b)?
All of the Agency investigations and Final Agency Decisions
(FADs) were not timely issued in FY17.
Objective:
To ensure the EPA completes timely investigations and issues timely
and legally sufficient Final Agency Decisions.
Responsible Official
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Assistant Director, Employment Complaints Resolution Staff
(ECRS), OCR
Date Objective Initiated
March 1, 2011
Target Date for Completion of Objective
September 30, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. Staffing of the OCR Attorney-Advisor positions places priority on issuing a
minimum of 60% of the FADs within the required timeframe.
June 30,2018
MODIFIED
2. Employment Complaints Resolution Staff (ECRS) will continue to utilize the newly
created FAD Management Plan to assess the docket.
June 30,2018
MODIFIED
3. ECRS will utilize its Inter-Agency Agreements and Contractors to strategically
reduce its active docket on a continual basis.
June 30,2018
MODIFIED
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Accomplishments are indicated by their corresponding Planned Action above:
Activity 1: InFY17, OCR conducted preliminary activities to review key practices in preparation for a LEAN
Kaizen event in FY18. For example, OCR conducted a LEAN Kaizen event for investigations and identified
opportunities to frame accepted claims so that investigations and FADs focus on core issues and are completed
within timely, acceptable timeframes.
MODIFICATION to Activity 1: OCR, along with OGC, will reduce the time to draft and review
FADs by implementing a LEAN Management System project that evaluates each step of the FAD
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
55
-------
development and review process, and identifies activities that create a more efficient and timely
workflow.
Activity 2: OCR discontinued its use of the FAD management planinFY17. InFY17, OCR and OGC jointly
developed FAD templates or models to achieve consistency and efficiency in the drafting of FADs. As a result,
the Agency reduced the overall docket by approximately 40% before September 30, 2017. Note: By the date of
this report, the Agency eliminated the overall docket of untimely FADs.
MODIFICATION to Activity 2: OCR and OGC jointly developed and implemented a plan to resolve
the docket of untimely FADs, using volunteers from within EPA to draft and review FADs on an
expedited schedule.
Activity 3: In FY17, OCR stopped using external parties to draft FADs, and used EPA employees to draft
FADs."
MODIFICATION to Activity 3: ECRS will utilize EPA employees to draft FADs and strategically
reduce its active docket in FY 18.
It is anticipated that the above activities will be completed when the Agency reports the results of the
implementation of the LEAN project for the FAD development and review project in the FY18 MD-715 report.
Part H-6
Part H-6 ! Essential Element E: Efficiency - Compliance Indicator E.4. The Agency has effective and accurate
data collection systems in place to evaluate its EEO program.
Statement of Model Program Essential
Element Deficiency:
Part G Compliance Indicator E.4.a.3 andE.4.a.4 (former Part G: Q-
100) - Does the Agency have effective and accurate data collection
systems in place to accurately collect, monitor, and analyze data
including: recruitment activities; external and internal applicant flow
data concerning the applicants' race, national origin, sex, and
disability status?
Objective:
To create processes that allow the Agency to document, share and
evaluate the implementation and reporting of recruitment activities
that increase participation rates for diverse applicant pools.
Responsible Official
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration
& Resources Management (OARM)
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Deputy Civil Rights Officials (DCROs)
Date Objective Initiated
November 1, 2013
Target Date for Completion of Objective
December 31, 2018
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
56
-------
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. OCR will collaborate with the OARM to identify an alternative
method(s) or tool that will allow the Agency to examine the hiring
processes in major occupations where lower-than-anticipated
application qualification and selection rates are identified.
December 31,2018
DISCONTINUED
2. a. OCR will collaborate with the OARM and Shared Service
Centers to assess whether EPA position descriptions accurately
reflect the job duties of major occupations, including those where
lower-than-anticipated application, qualification, and selection rates
are identified.
b. OCR will also collaborate with OHR to evaluate the
effectiveness of OHR's strategic recruitment plan and guidance
document and make necessary modifications.
December 31,2018
COMPLETED (a)
3. OCR will collaborate with OHR to evaluate the data from the
Management Hiring Satisfaction Survey to determine whether there
are any procedural triggers associated with the development of
vacancy announcements and outreach efforts.
December 31,2018
DISCONTINUED
4. OCR will collaborate with the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA), OGC, OHR, to create a process to
collect, retain, and analyze applicant flow data for Series 0905
Attorney positions.
December 31,2018
DISCONTINUED
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Accomplishments are indicated by their corresponding Planned Action above:
Activity 1 DISCONTINUED. The Agency experienced limited hiring opportunities overall in FY17 presenting
a challenge for meeting Activity 1. The Agency will consider this planned activity when completing the future
barrier analysis on Hispanic employment.
Activity 2.a. COMPLETED. The Agency ensured that program offices reviewed their existing position
descriptions respective to actual staffed positions (this included those with lower than anticipated rates of
participation). The SSCs state that in order for a position to be classified under a given occupational series, the
SSC worked with the manager to ensure that the position description meets the requisite position standards
prescribed by OPM. SSC states that the Agency is consistently updating position descriptions.
Activity 2.b. The Agency implements a recruitment program that includes the use of tools such as: Federal
Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Plan Accomplishment Report (FEORP), Disabled Veterans Affirmative
Action Program (DVAAP), Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP), Minority Serving Institutions (MSI),
Pathways, Student volunteer opportunities posted on Career.gov and EPA.gov websites. Memorandum of
Understanding (MOUs), and the EPA Talent Hub, which promotes and encourages employees to apply for
temporary full-time detail assignments, part-time projects/special assignments, temporary promotions, SES
rotations and other developmental assignments. Although the Agency determines applicant, qualification and
separation flow by analyzing MD-715 workforce data tables, there are other systems to measure recruitment such
as the Quarterly Diversity Dashboard Reports.
OHR and OCR proffered the development of a resume database that will track applicant data related to Schedule
A hiring authority, veterans and disabled veterans, schools recruited, as a path to evaluating the effectiveness of
strategic recruitment plans and guidance. The development of this system is anticipated to have more than one
outcome. The system data will provide a means to measure recruitment activities; deliver an automated
searchable system for hiring managers and improve their awareness, access and response rates in the hiring
process; and increase hiring rates among diverse applicants. This effort will create a data collection system that
can assist in the evaluation of recruitment activities on major occupations, including those where lower-than-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
57
-------
anticipated application, qualification, and selection rates are identified. The first phase of this project is set for
second quarter FY18.
Activity 3 (DISCONTINUED). The Agency experienced limitations in its overall resources in FY17 which
presented challenges for meeting Activity 1 and 3. Therefore, the Agency will consider this planned activity
when completing the future barrier analysis on Hispanic employment.
Activity 4 (DISCONTINUED): In FY17, OGC was able to collect application and qualification rates for law
clerks and new attorneys in FY17. However, OGC concluded that their data was insufficient when they identified
an error in the self-reporting process resulting in inconclusive analysis. OGC, OECA, and all other offices that
hire attorneys will focus on new data obtained in the next round of hiring to assess its selection rates. Therefore,
the Agency will consider this planned activity when completing the future mandated barrier analysis on Hispanic
employment.
The Agency will remove Activity 1, 3 and 4 from this Part H-l 1 and refocus its effort within the Hispanic
employment barrier analysis Part H-5. Therefore, this Part H will only continue tracking activities.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
58
-------
Part H-7
Part H-7 ! Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention
Statement of Model
Program Essential Element
Deficiency:
The Agency will conduct a thorough barrier analysis of Hispanics in the EPA
Workforce. This action item resulted from an EEOC/OPM 2017 mandate for
all federal agencies to conduct barrier analysis on Hispanics.
Objective:
Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the
Federal Workforce, the Agency will analyze data for Hispanic/Latino
employees and applicants, to identify possible triggers and barriers related to
retention and upward mobility (where there is a less than anticipated
participation rate for Hispanic/Latino employees) for GS-12 through the
Senior Executive Service (SES) level.
Responsible Official
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration & Resource
Management (OARM)
Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Director, Diversity, Recruitment, & Employee Services Division (DRESD)
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Assistant Director of the Office of Civil Rights, Affirmative Employment
Analysis and Accountability Program
Date Objective Initiated
January 18, 2017
Target Date for Completion
of Objective
September 30, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
(Must Be Specific)
1. OCR, along with OARM and Shared Service Centers will implement a
strategy to address a more focused barrier analysis related to Hispanic
employment. (Pursuant the joint OPM and EEOC Hispanic Council on Federal
Employment (HCFE) Memo.
January 31, 2018
COMPLETED
2. OCR, OARM, OHR, DRESD and the Shared Service Centers will conduct a
barrier analysis on the employment life cycle for Hispanics that may include
the following critical elements.
a. Identify triggers and potential barriers to the employment in the EPA
workforce at the GS-12 though the SES levels.
b. Focused EPA outreach events.
c. Applicant flow based on recruitment efforts showing the representation
at each stage of the recruitment/hiring process compared to the overall
Agency applicant flow.
d. Hiring/selections at the GS-12 through the SES level compared to the
corresponding CLF and Agency benchmarks.
e. Promotions and separations (voluntary and involuntary) compared to
November 30, 2017
COMPLETED
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
59
-------
overall promotions/separations.
f. Career tracks that lead to the SES within the Agency; as well,
representation at the GS-12 through SES in the career tracks as
predominantly leading to SES.
g. The EPA leadership development programs compared to overall
employee participation.
h. Federal Employment Viewpoint Survey by demographics to determine
where further investigation is required.
3. OCR, OARM, OHR, DRESD and the Shared Service Centers will determine
new strategies to strengthen pipelines and improve retention and upward
mobility for Hispanic employees (e.g., a narrative on targeted outreach,
internships, mentoring, rotational assigmnents, awards/recognitions, and
leadership accountability measures).
September 2018
4. OCR, OARM, OHR, and DRESD, will develop a summary of best practices
that resulted in the success or improvement in Hispanic employment,
retention programs, and promotion opportunities.
September 2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Accomplishments are indicated by their corresponding Planned Action above:
Activity No. 1: OCR developed a strategy to present to Agency partners a proposed integrated framework for
executing the EEOC planned activity #2 specifying a barrier analysis for Hispanics. This plan leverages the
unique functions of the following offices: OARM, OHR, DRESD, Training Branch and Shared Service Centers.
These are the program offices that maintain access of the required data, processes, procedures, and/or programs
that assist in the coordinated implementation of analysis. In addition, the OCR engaged contract support from a
third party to assist in development of this process.
The plan incorporated the use of EEOC's Hispanic Barrier Analysis Guide to explore each area of the
employment life cycle (e.g., recruitment/outreach, hiring, training and career development, promotions/awards,
separations). The plan also utilized other sources such as: a) input from EPA's 23 Regions and AAships; b) the
FEORP; and, c) the Employee Viewpoint Survey.
The plan's objective was to create a path forward in developing effective strategies that strengthen pipelines,
improve retention and upward mobility for Hispanics; as well, identify best practices resulting in success or
improvement in Hispanic employment, retention and promotions.
Activity No. 2. OCR continued a barrier-analysis process in FY 17 to identify potential triggers for Hispanics in
all phases of the employment life cycle. A Part I EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barriers was created for this
report identifying the Statement of Condition that was a trigger for a potential barrier.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
60
-------
Part I - EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier for Race, Sex, and
National Origin
The Agency's statistical analysis of workforce data highlights significant differences in values. In the report, when
comparisons are made, only the triggers with statistically significant decreases or increases are noted. In the
Appendices, the triggers are highlighted.
Part 1-1: Applicant and Hires for Major Occupations
Statement of Condition That
Was a Trigger for A Potential
Barrier:
Provide a brief narrative
describing the condition at issue.
How was the condition
recognized as a potential barrier?
Analysis of the Agency's applicant data flow (applicants, qualified, and
selected) in certain major occupations and permanent versus temporary
compared to the Civilian Labor Force (CLF) revealed instances of lower than
expected rates of participation.
Barrier Analysis:
Provide a description of the steps
taken and data analyzed to
determine cause of the condition.
Applicant and Hires for Major Occupations (Table A-7)
The EPA reviewed the statistical data associated with new hires in Table A-7
for employees in six of seven major occupations compared to their CLF in
FY17 along with identifying significant trends. Although the comprehensive
list of FY17 RNO and sex groups with triggers is provided in the table below,
selected trends are highlighted as primary illustrations.
The six major occupations reviewed are:
1. 0028 Enviromnental Protection Specialist,
2. 0301 Miscellaneous Administrative and Program Specialist,
3. 0343 Management/Program Analyst,
4. 0401 General Biological Science (Research),
5. 0819 Enviromnental Engineer (Research),
6. 1301 Physical/Environmental Scientist (Research).
Although 0905 General Attorneys constitutes the seventh EPA major
occupation, RNO and sex data is not tracked using the same procedures due to
the unique selection process for excepted service positions. The EPA has
developed a new process to collect this data in accordance with EEOC MD-715
guidance. In FY's 16 and 17, data was collected; however, the data was too
limited for a comprehensive analysis for this report.4
The following provides an analysis of the hiring process by race/ethnicity and
sex and includes the following subsets: those who voluntarily self-identified;
those who self-identified and qualified; and those who self-identified,
qualified, and were selected. Based on gender, the EPA identified the following
triggers (highlighted in yellow in Table A-7) by comparing the CLF and
application rates of those who voluntarily self-identified.
• For six of the seven major occupations at the EPA, the percent of
males that voluntarily self-identified, qualified, and/or was selected is
significantly less than their relevant benchmark. There was a lower
4 OCR and OHR will collaborate with the appropriate offices to create a process to collect, retain and analyze
applicant flow data for Series 0905 Attorney positions.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
61
-------
than expected application, qualification, and selection rate for females
that voluntarily self-identified and qualified for one major occupation
-0301.
• The percentages of qualified Hispanic or Latino males are
significantly less than the percentages of those who voluntarily self-
identified for two major occupations: 0028 and 0401. The percentage
of selected Hispanic or Latino males is significantly less than the
percentage of those who qualified for one major occupation - 0819.
The percentage of qualified Hispanic or Latino females is significantly
less than the percentage voluntarily self-identifying for one major
occupation - 0301.
• The percentage of White male applicants that voluntarily self-
identified is significantly less than the occupational CLF for all seven
of the major occupations. The same is true for White females in four
of the seven major occupations: 0301, 0343, 0401, and 1301.
• The percentage of qualified Black or African American males is
significantly less than the percentage that voluntarily self-identified
for one major occupation - 0819. The percentage of qualified Black
or African American females is significantly less than the percentage
of those voluntarily self-identified for major occupation 0301, and the
percentage of Black or African American females selected is
significantly less than the percentage qualified for major occupations
0401 and 0819.
• For Asian males, the percentage of applicants selected is significantly
less than the percentage qualified for two major occupations - 0819
and 1301. For Asian females, the percentage of applicants voluntarily
self-identifying is significantly less than the occupational CLF for two
major occupations: 0301 and 1301.
• For American Indian or Alaska Native males, the percentage of
qualified applicants is significantly less than the percentage of
applicants who voluntarily self-identified for two major occupations:
0401 and 0905.
• The percentage of qualified males of two or more races is significantly
less than the percentage that voluntarily self-identified for one major
occupation - 0028. The same is also true for females of two or more
races for major occupation 0401.
Table A-7: Applicants and Hires Significantly Below Benchmarks by Major
Occupation
FY17 Applicants and Hires
Race, National Origin and Sex
0028 - Environmental Protection Specialist
Voluntarily Identified
Applicants
White Males
Qualified of those Identified
Hispanic Males, Two or More Races
Females
Selected of those Qualified
n/a
0301 - Misc. Administration and Program Specialist
Voluntarily Identified
Applicants
White Males, White Females, Asian
Females
Qualified of those Identified
Hispanic Females, Black Females
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
62
-------
Selected of those Qualified
n/a
0343 - Management/Program Analyst
Voluntarily Identified
Applicants
White Males, White Females
Qualified of those Identified
n/a
Selected of those Qualified
n/a
0401 - General Biological Science
Voluntarily Identified
Applicants
White Males, White Females
Qualified of those Identified
White Males, Hispanic Males,
American Indian/Alaska Native
Males, Two or More Races Males
Selected of those Qualified
Black Females
0819 - Environmental Engineer
Voluntarily Identified
Applicants
White Males
Qualified of those Identified
Black Males
Selected of those Qualified
Hispanic Males, Black Females, Asian
Males
1301 - Physical Scientist/Environmental Scientist
Voluntarily Identified
Applicants
White Males
Qualified of those Identified
American Indian/Alaska Native Males
Selected of those Qualified
N/A
The EPA lias not identified any specific barriers to equal employment
opportunity at this time but continues its investigative process, including
barrier analysis specific to Hispanics in FY17. The EPA has several activities,
which are detailed within the planned activities below, to identify a potential
cause of the triggers. After the planned activities are completed, the EPA will
evaluate the impact on the triggers noted above.
The EPA will use these triggers to examine whether barriers to equal
employment opportunity exist. The EPA will further examine whether there are
Agency policies, practices or procedures that may cause certain RNO and
gender groups to be selected at rates less than anticipated for major occupation
positions. The EPA lias activities, which are detailed within the planned
activities below, to identify a potential cause of the triggers. After the planned
activities are completed, the EPA will evaluate the impact on the triggers noted
above.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
63
-------
Statement of Identified Barrier:
Provide a succinct statement of
EPA policy, procedure or practice
that has been determined to be
the barrier of the undesired
condition.
The EPA lias not identified a barrier in FY17 but continues an ongoing process
of analysis to identify root causes for the stated triggers.
Objective:
State the alternative or revised
Agency policy, procedure or
practice to be implemented to
correct the undesired condition.
Although a direct barrier lias not been identified, the EPA implemented
activities over the last two years for the purposes of enhancing applicant flow
for all groups that reflect less-tlian-anticipated application, qualification, and
selection rates. These activities include the following:
Provided Agency-wide SEPM training related to diversity, inclusion
and equal employment opportunities; redeveloped the EPA SEPM
Guide; created a SEPM Orientation Training for all newly appointed
SEPMs; and updated all Advisory Councils By-Laws to reflect OCR
and DRESD commitments;
DRESD continually enhances its tools that will track centrally
coordinated recruitment activities - recruitment calendar; and.
Incorporated the relevant CLF data into the Diversity Dashboard to
increase the utilization of the Diversity Dashboard in developing and
monitoring the effectiveness of targeted outreach strategies.
The EPA's application qualification and selection rates suggest that the EPA
should examine the selection process for major occupational series to
determine whether any Agency policy, practice or procedure is causing lower
than anticipated selection rates for certain RNO and gender groups.
Additionally, the EPA will monitor retention of the existing workforce as the
Agency continues with reshaping efforts and will eliminate, when possible, any
identified barriers to equal opportunity.
Responsible Officials:
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration & Resources
Management
Director, Office of Human Resources
Director, Office of Civil Rights
Deputy Civil Rights Officials
Date Objective Initiated:
February 15, 2011
Target Date for Completion of
Objective:
September 30, 2018
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
64
-------
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
(Must Be Specific)
1. OCR will collaborate with OARM to identify an alternative method(s) or tool(s)
that will allow the Agency to examine the hiring processes in major occupations
where lower than anticipated application, qualification, and selection rates are
identified.
September 30, 2018
2. OCR will collaborate with the OARM and SSCs to assess whether EPA position
descriptions accurately reflect the job duties of major occupations where lower-
than-anticipated application, qualification, and selection rates are identified.
September 30, 2018
3. DRESD will evaluate the effectiveness of the Agency's national strategic
recruitment plan and guidance document to make necessary modifications or
changes that will target less than expected application, qualification, and selection
rates
September 30, 2018
4. OHR will coordinate and collaborate with OCR to evaluate the data from the
identified alternative method(s) or tool(s) that will allow the Agency to examine its
hiring process to determine whether there are any procedural barriers associated
with the development of vacancy announcements and outreach efforts.
September 30, 2018
5. OCR will collaborate and coordinate with Regions and Programs/Offices that
employ series 0905 Attorneys to develop and implement a process to collect,
retain, and analyze applicant flow data for those positions.
September 30, 2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Planned activities are relative to the investigative process. The accomplishments below are numbered to correspond
with the planned activity.
Activity No 1. OCR's efforts to examine the hiring processes in major occupations will continue. OCR examines
EPA hiring processes annually. In FY17, the following tasks were included:
• Analyzed data to identify and determine which Regions had hired the most major occupation positions;
• Worked with the Regions and hiring officials to obtain hiring information;
• Retrieved new hire data to identify the series, grade and office of the new hires;
• Conducted an in-depth root cause analysis to determine Hispanic Males/Females application, qualification, and
selection rate deficiencies;
• Collaborated with OARM and other offices to identify most recent hires;
• Collaborated with DRESD to provide a resume database to capture resumes of applicants with disabilities;
• Provided Agency-wide SEPM training related to diversity, inclusion and equal employment opportunities;
redeveloped the EPA SEPM Handbook; created a SEPM Orientation Training for all newly appointed SEPMs;
and updated all Advisory Councils By-Laws to reflect OCR and DRESD commitments;
• DRESD continually enhances its tools that will track centrally coordinated recruitment activities - recruitment
calendar; and,
• Incorporated the relevant CLF data into the Diversity Dashboard to increase the utilization of the Diversity
Dashboard in developing and monitoring the effectiveness of targeted outreach strategies.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
65
-------
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
OCR's efforts to examine the hiring process continue; therefore, the planned activity was amended and extended.
Activity No 2. (Clarity to the Task Defined) The EPA's SSCs continue to update their archives of position
descriptions, including major occupations. OCR will collaborate with OARM to assess whether position descriptions
accurately reflect the job duties of major occupations where lower than anticipated application qualification, and
selection rates are identified.
Activity No 3. OCR and OHR along with the SSC continued to draft and develop a management hiring survey that
can be presented to senior management across the Agency. Several questions have been drafted. However, due to
several office realignments, this activity has been placed on hold, and an alternative method or tool for examining
the hiring process is scheduled to be completed in FY18.
Activity No 4. OCR collaborated with OGC to assess methods of collecting application, qualification, and selection
rates by RNO for Attorney 0905 series. OGC to date has piloted two job announcements through USAJobs, giving
OCR the ability to successfully collect the application and qualification rates. OCR and OGC will continue to assess
the reliability of this data collection method to meet the FY18 goal.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
66
-------
Part 1-2: Internal Competitive Promotions
Statement of Condition That
Data comparisons between the application, qualification and selection rates for
Was a Trigger for A Potential
internal competitive promotions in Agency's seven major occupations revealed
Barrier:
instances of lower than expected application qualification, and/or selection
Provide a brief narrative
rates.
describing the condition at issue.
How was the condition
recognized as a potential barrier?
Barrier Analysis:
Provide a description of the steps
taken and data analyzed to
determine cause of the condition.
The EPA reviewed the statistical data associated with internal competitive
promotions (Table A-9) for employees in six of seven major occupations and
the application qualification and selection rates for the seven major
occupations - distribution by race/ethnicity and sex (Table A-6), which is a
proxy for the relevant application pool rate and is used for purposes of this
report only. In addition, the EPA conducted a four-year review that includes
FY 14 - FY17. Although the exhaustive list of triggers is provided in each
personnel transaction section, certain triggers were highlighted for illustrative
purposes.
The seven major occupations are:
1. 0028 Enviromnental Protection Specialist,
2. 0301 Miscellaneous Administrative and Program Specialist,
3. 0343 Management/Program Analyst,
4. 0401 General Biological Science (Research),
5. 0819 Enviromnental Engineer (Research),
6. 0905 General Attorney, and
7.1301 Physical/Environmental Scientist (Research)
Although 0905 General Attorneys constitute one of the EPA's major
occupations, RNO and gender data is not tracked due to the unique selection
process for excepted service positions. The EPA is developing a process to
collect this data in accordance with EEOC MD-715 guidance. In FY17, the
OCR along with OGC collected preliminary data; however, the data was too
limited for comprehensive analysis.
Application
For internal competitive promotions, the EPA identified application rate
triggers by comparing the application, qualification, and selection rates of
groups in major occupations by race, national origin, and sex (Table A-6) and
application rates of the respective populations (Table A-9). The EPA
recognizes that not every person in a major occupation may apply for an
internal competitive promotion, but the EPA elected to use this as a proxy for
the application rate for purposes of this report only.
• In FY 17, overall application rate triggers decreased compared to
FY16 for Hispanic Males and Females, Black Males and Females,
Asian Females, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males and American
Indian/Alaska Native Males.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
67
-------
• However, the application rates for White Males, White Females, and
American Indian/ Alaska Native Females remained lower than
anticipated. Specifically, for the third year. White Males had
application rate triggers in three major occupational series: 0028
Enviromnental Protection Specialist; 0301 Misc. Administration &
Program Specialist; 0401 General Biological Science (Research);
0819 Enviromnental Engineer; and 1301 Physical/Environmental
Scientist.
During FY17, the following chart details the specific RNO and gender groups
that applied for internal competitive promotions at rates lower than their
representation in the relevant occupations:
Table A-9: Application Rates for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major
Occupations Significantly Below Benchmarks
Race, National Origin and Sex
Occupational Series
Hispanic Males
0819
Hispanic Females
0819
White Males
0028, 0301,0343,0401, 1301
White Females
0028, 0301,0401,0810, 1301
Black Males
0819
Black Females
0028, 0301,0343,0819
Asian Males
0301,0819
Asian Females
0401
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Males
0301,0819
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Females
0819
American Indian/Alaska Native
Males
0343,0401,0819, 1301
American Indian/Alaska Native
Females
0401, 1301
Two or More Races Males
0819
Two or More Races Females
0401,1301
The EPA will examine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity exist
using the triggers. The EPA will analyze whether there are Agency policies,
practices or procedures that may cause certain RNO and gender groups to
apply for promotions in major occupations at rates that are less than
anticipated. The EPA has planned activities, which are detailed below, to
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
68
-------
identify potential causes of the triggers. After the planned activities are
completed, the EPA will evaluate the impact on the triggers noted above.
Qualification
For internal competitive promotions, the EPA identified qualification rate
triggers by comparing the application and qualification rates (Table A-9) of the
respective populations. In FY 17, the qualification rate triggers increased as
compared to FY16.
However, during FY17, there were no triggers for the following groups: White
Males and Females; Black Males and Females; Asian Females, and NH/PI
Males.
The following chart details the specific RNO and gender groups that were
deemed qualified for major occupation positions at rates lower than their
application rates:
Table A-9: Qualification Rates for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major
Occupations Significantly Below Benchmarks
Race, National Origin and Sex
Occupational Series
Hispanic Males
0028, 0819, 1301
Hispanic Females
0028, 0301,0343,0401, 1301
Asian Males
0301,0343
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Females
0301,0343
American Indian/Alaska Native
Males
0028, 0401,
American Indian/Alaska Native
Females
0301,0343,
Two or More Race Males
0028, 0343, 1301
Two or More Race Females
0028
The EPA will examine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity exist
using the triggers. The EPA will further determine whether there are Agency
policies or practices that may cause certain race/national origin and sex groups
to be deemed qualified at rates that are less than their application rate for major
occupation internal promotions. The EPA has planned activities, which are
detailed below, to identify potential causes of the triggers. After the planned
activities are completed, the EPA will evaluate the impact on the triggers noted
above.
Selection
For internal competitive promotions, the EPA identified selection rate triggers
by comparing the qualification and selection rates (Table A-9) of the
respective populations.
In FY 17, the selection rates of White Males were higher than their qualification
rates in all major occupations except 0301 Miscellaneous Administration and
Program Specialist, 0401 Biologists and 1301 Physical/Environmental
Scientist. However, in FY16. While Males had selection rate higher than their
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
69
-------
qualification rates in three major occupations: 0028 Environmental Protection
Specialist, 0343 Management/Program Specialist, and 0819 Enviromnental
Engineer.
For the fourth year in a row, triggers associated with the selection rates lower
than their qualification rates have existed for the following:
• Hispanic Males in major occupation 0819 Enviromnental
Engineer;
• White Males in major occupation 0301 Miscellaneous
Administration and Program Specialist;
• Black Males in major occupation 0301 Miscellaneous
Administration and Program Specialist;
• Asian Males in major occupation 0343 Management/Program
Analyst;
• Asian Females in major occupation 0401 General Biological
Science; and
• American Indian Males in major occupations 0028
Enviromnental Protection Specialist and 0401 General Biological
Science occupational series.
0Source: Table A-6 and Table A-9)
The following chart details the specific RNO and gender groups that are
selected for major occupation positions during FY17 at rates lower than their
qualification rates:
Table A-9: Selection Rates for Internal Competitive Promotions for Major
Occupations Significantly Below Benchmarks
Race, National Origin and Sex
Occupational Series
Hispanic Males
0301,0343,0819
Hispanic Females
0028, 0301,0819, 1301
White Males
0343,1301
White Females
0301
Black Males
0301,0343,0401,0819, 1301,
Black Females
0028, 0301, 0343, 0401, 0819, 1301
Asian Males
0028, 0301,0401,0819, 1301
Asian Females
0343,0401,0819, 1301
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Females
0301
American Indian/Alaska Native
Males
0028, 0301,0401,0819
American Indian/Alaska Native
Females
0301,0401,0819
Two or More Races Males
0028, 0301,0343,0401,0819
Two or More Races Females
0028, 0401
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
70
-------
The EPA will examine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity exist
using the triggers. The EPA will determine whether there are Agency policies
or practices that may cause certain race/national origin and sex groups to be
selected at rates that are less than their qualification rate for major occupation
internal promotions. The EPA has planned activities, which are detailed below,
to identify potential causes of the triggers. After the planned activities are
completed, the EPA will evaluate the impact on the triggers noted above.
Statement of Identified Barrier:
Provide a succinct statement of
EPA policy, procedure or practice
that has been determined to be
the barrier of the undesired
condition.
The EPA lias not identified a barrier in FY17 but continues an ongoing process
of analysis to identify root causes for the stated triggers.
Objective:
State the alternative or revised
Agency policy, procedure or
practice to be implemented to
correct the undesired condition.
The EPA continues to evaluate whether any specific Agency policy, practice,
or procedure is causing any of the identified lower than expected application,
qualification and selection rates. In FY17, The EPA implemented several
initiatives to foster a work enviromnent that nurtures and advances the talents,
drive, and interests of all employees. These initiatives are also being used to
determine what may have caused the less than anticipated application
qualification and selection rates.
Nonetheless, the EPA's application qualification, and selection rates suggest
that the Agency should closely examine: 1) its solicitation and career
development policies, practices and procedures for the 0819 Enviromnental
Engineer occupational series to determine whether any Agency policy, practice
or procedure is causing certain race/national origin and gender groups less than
anticipated application rates; 2) its qualification policies and practices for the
0028 Enviromnental Protection Specialist, 0819 Enviromnental Engineer, and
1301 Physical Scientist occupational series to determine whether any Agency
policy, practice or procedure is causing certain race/national origin and gender
groups less than anticipated qualification rates; and 3) its selection policies and
practices for all major occupational series to determine whether any Agency
policy, practice or procedure is causing certain race/national origin and gender
groups less than anticipated selection rates for positions.
The EPA will continue its analysis of the application, qualification and
selection policies and practices associated with the above-identified lower-
than-expected qualification and selection rates for several occupational series.
Responsible Officials:
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration & Resources
Management
Director, Office of Civil Rights
Director, Office of Human Resources
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
71
-------
Target Date for Completion of
Objective:
September 30, 2018
Date Objective Initiated:
February 15, 2011
Deputy Civil Rights Officials
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
(Must Be Specific)
1. OCR will collaborate with OARM to identify an alternative method(s) or tool(s)
which allow the Agency to examine the hiring processes (internal promotions) in
major occupations where lower-than-anticipated application qualification and
selection rates are identified (Activity 1).
September 30, 2018
2. OCR will collaborate with the OARM to create a tool or process to collect
relevant applicant pool data (Activity 2).
Completed
September 2016
3. OARM will regularly provide OCR with OPM data from quarterly management
hiring satisfaction surveys to review against any potential barrier associated in the
hiring process (Activity 3).
September 30, 2018
4. OCR will collaborate with OARM to evaluate the effectiveness of its strategic
recruitment plan and guidance document and make necessary modifications or
changes.
Amended to: DRESD will evaluate the effectiveness of the Agency's national
strategic recruitment plan and guidance document to make necessary modifications or
changes that will target less than expected application qualification and selection
application qualification, and selection rates (Activity 4).
September 30, 2018
5. OCR will collaborate and coordinate with Regions and Programs/Offices that
employ series 0905 Attorneys to develop and implement a process to collect,
retain, and analyze applicant flow data for series 0905 Attorney positions
(Activity 5).
September 30, 2018
6. OCR will collaborate with OARM to create a tool to assess effectiveness of career
development activities.
September 30, 2018
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Planned activities are relative to the investigative process. The accomplishments below are numbered to correspond
with the planned activity.
Activity No 1. OCRs efforts to examine the hiring processes in major occupations continued in FY17. Further tasks
were achieved as follows:
• Analyzed data to identify Regions with the highest hiring (internal promotion) rates related to the EPA's major
occupations;
• Collaborated with Regions and most hiring officials to obtain hiring information;
• Retrieved data to identify the series, grade and office of the new hires (internal promotions);
• Reviewed and streamlined survey questions that were developed for the manager's survey; and
• Collaborated with OARM and other offices to identify most recent hires.
Further collaboration is expected with OARM. OCR's efforts to examine the hiring process continues, therefore, the
planned activity was amended and extended.
Activity No 3 OHR/DRESD and SSC will extend the activity period as ongoing. As an alternative to developing an
internal hiring survey, the Agency will consider the use of OPM's Federal-wide hiring survey broken down by
Agency to conduct quarterly analysis on the hiring process.
Activity No 4. Because of several office realignments and changes in leadership, this activity continues as new
leadership of the OHR and DRESD programs assess the Agency's needs, triggers and required direction. OCR and
OHR will identify triggers that will lead to a potential barrier analysis.
Activity No 5. The Agency assessed methods of collecting application, qualification, and selection rates by RNO for
Attorney 0905 series. To date, two job announcements have been piloted through US AJobs, resulting in the ability
to successfully collect the application and qualification rates. The Agency will continue to assess the reliability of
this data collection method to meet the FY 18 goal.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
73
-------
Part 1-3: Senior Grades
Statement of Condition That
Data comparisons between the respective feeder pools (one grade below the
Was a Trigger for A Potential
grade being analyzed) and application qualification and selection rates
Barrier:
revealed instances of lower-than-expected application qualification and/or
Provide a brief narrative
selection rates.
describing the condition at issue.
How was the condition
recognized as a potential barrier?
The EPA reviewed the statistical data associated with internal selections for
senior level positions (Table A-ll) and the application qualification and
selection rates for general schedule grades by race/national origin and sex
(Table A4-1), which is a proxy for the relevant application pool and is used for
purposes of this report only. Examples of triggers are provided below in each
personnel transaction section.
Application
For the senior grades, the EPA identified application rate triggers by comparing
the application qualification and selection rate of the respective populations at
the next lower grade (e.g. the feeder pool for GS-13 Hispanic Females is their
overall representation at the GS-12 level) (Table A4-1) and application rates
(Table A-ll) of the respective populations.
The following chart details the specific RNO and gender groups that applied
for senior grade positions at rates lower than their representation in the relevant
feeder pool.
Table A-ll: Application Rates for Senior Grade Positions Significantly Below
Benchmarks
Race, National Origin and Sex
Grade Levels
White Males
GS -13
White Females
GS-14, GS-15
Black Males
GS-13, GS-14
Black Females
GS-14
Asian Males
GS-13, GS-14
Asian Females
GS-13, GS-14
Hispanic Males
GS-13, GS-14
Hispanic Females
GS-13, GS-14
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Males
GS-13, GS-14
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Females
GS-13, GS-14
American Indian/Alaska Native
Males
GS-13, GS-14
Barrier Analysis:
Provide a description of the steps
taken and data analyzed to
determine cause of the condition.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
74
-------
American Indian/Alaska Native
Females
GS-13, GS-14
Two or More Races Males
GS-13, GS-14
Two or More Races Female
GS-13, GS-14
The EPA will examine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity exist
using these triggers. The EPA will assess whether there are Agency policies,
practices or procedures that may cause certain RNO and gender groups to
apply for senior grade positions at rates that are less than anticipated. The EPA
has planned activities, which are detailed below, to identify potential causes of
these triggers. After the planned activities are completed, the EPA will evaluate
the impact on the triggers noted above.
Qualification
For the senior grades, the EPA identified qualification rate triggers by
comparing application and qualification rates (Table A-ll) of the respective
populations.
The following chart details the specific RNO and gender groups that were
found qualified at levels below their respective application rates:
Table A-ll: Qualification Rates for Senior Grade Positions Significantly
Below Benchmarks
Race, National Origin and Sex
Grade
Flispanic Females
GS-14
White Males
GS-14 and GS-15
Black Males
GS-13
Black Females
GS-13
Asian Males
GS-15
American Indian/Alaska Native
Males
GS-13 and GS-14
American Indian/Alaska Native
Females
GS-13
Two or More Races Males
GS-14
The EPA will examine whether barriers to equal employment opportunities
exist using these triggers. The EPA will further assess whether there are
Agency policies, practices, or procedures that may cause certain RNO and
gender groups to be qualified for Senior Grade positions at rates that are less
than anticipated. The EPA has planned activities, which are detailed below, to
identify a potential cause of these triggers. After the planned activities are
completed, the EPA will evaluate the impact on the triggers noted above.
Selection
For the senior grades, the EPA identified selection rate triggers by comparing
application and qualification rates (Table A-ll) of the respective populations.
Asian Males at the GS-13 level were the only RNO and gender group who
were selected at a rate that was statistically below their respective qualification
rate. However, it should be noted that all RNO and gender groups were
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
75
-------
selected at levels below their qualification rates even though the differences
were not statistically significant: Hispanic Male; Hispanic Female; White
Male; White Female; Black Male; Black Female; Asian Female; Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males; Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females;
American Indian/Alaska Native Male; American Indian/Alaska Native Female;
Two or More Races Male; and Two or More Races Female.
The EPA will examine whether barriers to equal employment opportunities
exist using these triggers. The EPA will assess whether there are Agency
policies, practices or procedures that may cause certain RNO and gender
groups to be selected for senior grade positions at rates that are less than
anticipated. The EPA has planned several activities, which are detailed below,
to identify a potential cause of these triggers. After the planned activities are
completed, the EPA will evaluate the impact on the triggers noted above.
Statement of Identified Barrier:
Provide a succinct statement of
EPA policy, procedure or practice
that has been determined to be
the barrier of the undesired
condition.
The EPA lias not identified a barrier in FY17 but continues an ongoing process
of analysis to identify root causes for the stated triggers.
Objective:
State the alternative or revised
Agency policy, procedure or
practice to be implemented to
correct the undesired condition.
The EPA annually evaluates impact of a specific Agency policy, practice, or
procedure which may cause any of the identified lower than expected
application qualification, and selection rates in the multi-year trends described.
In FY17, the EPA implemented several initiatives to foster a work enviromnent
that nurtures and advances the talents, drive, and interests of employees. These
initiatives are also being used to determine what may have caused the less than
anticipated application, qualification and selection rates.
The EPA's application qualification and selection rates suggest that it should
examine: 1) its solicitation and career development policies, practices and
procedures for the GS-13 level to determine whether any Agency policy,
practice or procedure is causing less than anticipated application rates for
certain RNO and gender groups; 2) its qualification policies and practices for
the GS-13 level to determine whether any Agency policy, practice or procedure
is causing less than anticipated qualification rates for certain RNO and gender
groups; and 3) its selection policies and practices for the GS-12, GS-13, GS-14,
and GS-15 levels to determine whether any Agency policy, practice, or
procedure is causing less than anticipated selection rates for certain RNO and
gender groups.
To identify potential barriers, the EPA will analyze the application
qualification and selection policies and practices associated with the identified
less than anticipated application qualification and selection rates for GS-12
through GS-15 levels.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
76
-------
Target Date for Completion of
Objective:
September 30, 2018
Date Objective Initiated:
February 15, 2011
Responsible Officials:
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources
Management
Director, Office of Human Resources
Director, Office of Civil Rights
Deputy Civil Rights Officials
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
(Must Be Specific)
1. OCR will collaborate with OARM to create a tool or process to collect relevant
applicant pool data.
September 30, 2018
2. OHR will coordinate and collaborate with OCR to evaluate the data from the
examination of the hiring process to determine whether there are any procedural
barriers associated with the development of vacancy announcements and outreach
efforts.
September 30, 2018
3. OCR will collaborate with OARM to create a tool or process to assess
effectiveness of career development activities.
September 30, 2018
4. OCR will collaborate with OARM to create a tool or process to evaluate the
distribution of awards.
September 30, 2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Planned activities are relative to the investigative process. The accomplishments below are numbered to correspond
with the planned activity.
Activity No. 1. OCR's efforts to examine hiring processes will continue with the assistance of OHR and SSC. The
planned activity was amended and extended.
Activity No 2. OHR/DRESD, SSC, along with OCR, will consider alternatives to developing an internal hiring
process survey. The Agency will consider the use of OPM's Federal-wide hiring survey broken down by Agency, to
conduct quarterly analysis on the hiring process.
Activity No 3. OARM continued its effort to launch the new learning management system in FY17 which will
increase tracking of activities related to EPA employee career development. In FY17 due to many reshaping and
organizational changes this planned activity was extended to FY18. OCR and DRESD will continue to provide
guidance to OARM on this initiative.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Activity No 4. This planned activity was captured within the umbrella of identifying strategies that will mitigate
unconscious bias. OHR, along with OCR, developed several areas to implement strategies that will mitigate
unconscious bias, which included EPA processes in deciding awards recipients. The proposal included evaluation of
the OARM National Honor Awards process as the first pilot. In FY17, the workgroup was informed that due to the
timing of the award process, the workgroup would not have a key component of the process to analyze - standard
applicant criteria and selection. Nominees had already been selected and tracking of the nominees, qualifications
and selections at the program office level had not been collected. Therefore, the workgroup will consider other
alternatives.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
78
-------
Part 1-4: Senior Executive Service (SES)
Statement of Condition That
Was a Trigger for A Potential
Barrier:
Provide a brief narrative
describing the condition at issue.
How was the condition
recognized as a potential barrier?
The Agency has not acquired detailed information on internal applicants to SES
vacancies to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the SES workforce.
The Agency collected the FY 17 workforce application, qualification, and
selection rates for the SES, which are graphically represented below.
Senior Executive Service at EPA FY 2017
46.42
34.34
^ 30
(U 25
ft 20
3.02 2.26
1-510.75 1
^ .
Race/National Origin (RNO) and Sex
Barrier Analysis:
Provide a description of the steps
taken and data analyzed to
determine cause of the
condition.
The Agency must collect and analyze detailed information on internal
applicants to SES vacancies before it can determine whether any policy,
practice or procedure lias caused the application qualification and selection
rates illustrated above for the SES workforce data.
The EPA lias planned several activities to promote our examination of internal
SES data, which are detailed below.
Statement of Identified Barrier:
Provide a succinct statement of
EPA policy, procedure or practice
that has been determined to be
the barrier of the undesired
condition.
The EPA lias not identified a barrier in FY17 but continues an ongoing process
of analysis to identify root causes for the stated triggers.
Objective:
State the alternative or revised
The EPA will continue to collect and analyze more detailed information on
internal applicants to SES vacancies inFY18. Without that information the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Agency policy, procedure or
practice to be implemented to
correct the undesired condition.
EPA cannot identify a specific hiring or promotion process policy, practice, or
procedure that may be impacting the representation of any group in the SES.
To identify triggers and potential barriers, the EPA will continue its efforts to
enhance its automated data capture capabilities for internal SES hires.
Responsible Officials:
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources
Management
Director, Office of Civil Rights
Director, Office of Human Resources
Deputy Civil Rights Officials
Date Objective Initiated:
October 1, 2013
Target Date for Completion of
Objective:
December 30, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
(Must Be Specific)
1. OCR will collaborate with 0ARM to develop a process for collecting and
analyzing more detailed information on internal applicants to SES vacancies in
accordance with the requirements of MD-715.
December 31, 2018
REMOVED
2. OCR will collaborate with OHR to collect and analyze applicant flow data for
internal applicants for SES vacancies.
December 31, 2018
REMOVED
3. OHR will launch a learning management system to track Agency employees'
participation in career development activities, including trainings, details, and e-
learning, to determine whether participation in such programs impacts the
probability that individuals will apply for and qualify for senior grade positions.
November 30, 2018
COMPLETED
4. OHR will ensure full implementation of the new learning management system.
December 31, 2018
5. OHR will create a tool or process to assess effectiveness of career development
activities in the learning management system.
December 31, 2018
REMOVED
6. OHR/Executive Resources Division (ERD), will provide ongoing training to
Agency employees interested in applying to the SES. This will include panel
discussions with current Agency SES managers to develop those in the feeder
pool.
September 2017
REMOVED
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
80
-------
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Planned activities are relative to the investigative process. The accomplishments below are numbered to correspond
with the planned activity.
Activity No 1. Development of a process for collecting and analyzing more detailed information on internal
applicants to SES vacancies was deferred considering the Agency's continued organizational reshaping efforts and
review of resources. (REMOVED)
Activity No 2. Efforts to collect and analyze applicant flow data for internal applicants for SES vacancies were
deferred considering the Agency's continued organizational reshaping efforts and review of resources.
(REMOVED)
Activity No 3. Internal EPA Coaches delivered individual career and leadership coaching for approximately 100
employees and managers across the Agency, averaging 8 to 10 hours of one-on-one coaching per employee.
The Training Branch delivered "SES 101" and "Using the CCAR Model for Career Development" for over 100
employees in the Emerging Leaders Network, Hispanic Employment Managers and Presidential Management
Fellows groups.
In conjunction with the Presidential Management Fellows, the OHR delivered a Leadership Advantage Training
pilot where 50 employees participated. The pilot included a series of 10 lunch 'n learn workshops on SES (ECQ)
competencies facilitated by the participants themselves.
The Training Branch also delivered multiple Individual Development Planning workshops for employees interested
in advancing their careers.
For the last two years, the Agency has participated in an inter-agency training program for senior managers aimed at
opportunities for the SES. Internal applicants for the FY 18 Career Development Program administered via the
Department of Interior were selected inFY17. Of the 25 candidates, 16 are EPA employees at the GS 14-15 ranks.
Eleven of the EPA participants are female, and five are male.
Activity No 4. Implementation of the new learning management system known as FED Talent is in its final phase
of deployment in calendar year 2018.
Activity No. 5. Although FED Talent lias yet to be officially launched, the EPA established a process to assess
effectiveness of career development activities within existing tools such as Talent Hub. Talent Hub, a one-stop shop
for opportunities, was developed for assessing the effectiveness of career opportunities for employees to the Senior
Executive Service. Employee participation includes GS-7 - GS-15 and SES. Implementation for this module is
expected in FY18. The Agency will develop a similar system for the FED Talent. (REMOVED)
Activity No 6. Ongoing training workshops such as Individual Development Planning facilitated by the EPA
Training Branch were provided to Agency employees interested in applying to the SES. The Training Branch
delivered multiple sessions for employees interested in advancing their careers to the Senior Grades. OHR and OCR
management partnered to deliver a session on the EPA's Diversity and Inclusion strategies and challenges to a group
of 25 participants in the EPA's 2015 SES Candidate Development Program. Leveraging Diversity is one of the
Agency's priority competencies for executives. As the Agency continues to implement its organizational reshaping
to include its workforce, ERD will reassess resources and plans to assist in the development of qualified internal
applicants to senior grades, including SES. (REMOVED)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
81
-------
Part 1-5: Lower Than Expected Rates of Participation for Hispanics
Statement of Condition That
In FY17, and consistent with the last two (2) years, Hispanics participated at
Was a Trigger for A Potential
lower than expected rates in various workforce employment areas when
Barrier:
compared to their appropriate comparators to include the Civilian Labor Force
Provide a brief narrative
and Agency's permanent workforce.
describing the condition at issue.
How was the condition
recognized as a potential barrier?
Barrier Analysis: The EPA lias not identified any barriers and is still conducting root cause
analysis. The Agency workforce EEO Tables were reviewed against the
Provide a description of the steps relevant comparators indicating the following triggers that require further
taken and data analyzed to investigation
determine cause of the condition.
Expected representation rates for Hispanic Males and Females in the EPA's
total workforce (which includes permanent/temporary) were lower for the past
four fiscal years compared to their expected rates in the CLF. These results are
also consistent in the separate analysis of the EPA's permanent workforce and
temporary workforce. Table A-l is included below and provides data on the
representation rates for this population for FY 14 through FY17.
Table A-l: Total Agency Workforce, Permanent and Temporary, for FY 14-
FY17
Total
Workforce
(Permanent
and
Temporary)
Fiscal Year
(FY)
EPA Total
Workforce
Hispanic
Male
Hispanic
Female
FY14
#
15905
457
543
%
100%
2.87%
3.41%
FY15
#
15566
452
543
%
100%
2.90%
3.49%
FY16
#
15742
467
557
%
100%
2.97%
3.54%
FY17
#
15747
481
584
%
100%
3.05%
3.71%
CLF 2010
(Benchmark)
%
100%
5.17%
4.79%
Total
Workforce
(Permanent)
Fiscal Year
(FY)
EPA
Permanent
Workforce
Hispanic
Male
Hispanic
Female
FY14
#
14976
441
532
%
100%
2.94%
3.55%
FY15
#
14620
441
531
%
100%
3.02%
3.63%
FY16
#
14732
456
546
%
100%
3.10%
3.71%
FY17
#
14869
467
576
%
100%
3.14%
3.87%
CLF 2010
(Benchmark)
%
100%
5.17%
4.79%
The percent of Hispanic Males is significantly lower in 15 EPA program
offices and regions compared to the CLF. The percent of Hispanic Females is
significantly lower in 8 program offices and regions compared to the CLF.
See: Table A-2 Total Permanent Workforce by Component
Hispanic Males have significantly lower representation in occupational
categories at the Other - Officials and Managers and Administrative Support
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
82
-------
Workers categories when compared to the Agency's total permanent
workforce. Hispanic Females have significantly lower representation in the
Executive and Senior levels (GS15 and above) when compared to the
Agency's total permanent workforce. See: Table A-3 Occupational
Categories.
There are significantly fewer Hispanic Males in the GS-8 grade level compared
to their representation in the EPA permanent workforce. There are significantly
fewer Hispanic Females in the GS-14 and GS-15 grade level compared to their
representation in the EPA permanent workforce. There are other grade levels,
including the SES level, that indicate participation at a percentage lower than
its representation in the permanent workforce, but there is no statistical
significance. See: Table A4-1 Participation Rates by GS-Grade Level.
Table A4-1: Participation Rates for GS Grade Level by
Race and Sex (FY 15- 17)
Race National Origin
Grade
FY15
FY16
FY17
Hispanics Males
GS 12
2.92
2.93
2.57*
GS 13
3.64*
GS 14
2.71
2.74
3.08*
GS 15
2.94
2.91
2.77*
SES
2.94
2.97
3.02*
FY Benchmark
(EPA Perm. Workforce)
3.02
3.09
3.14
Hispanic Females
GS 12
5.52*
GS 13
3.89*
GS 14
2.31
2.44
2.64
GS 15
2.30
2.24
2.33
SES
1.10
1.86
2.26*
FY Benchmark
(EPA Perm. Workforce)
3.63
3.70
3.87
*There are no triggers at these Grade levels for Hispanics
The number of EPA employees in wage grade positions (permanent or
temporary) is too small for this analysis. See: Table A5-1 Participation Rates
for Wage Grades (permanent and temporary).
Hispanic Males and Females participated in most mission critical occupations
at rates above the Occupational CLF rate. However, for the General
Administrative occupation Series 0301, participation rates for both Hispanic
Males and Hispanic Females were lower than the Occupational CLF.
Additionally, in the Management Analysis occupation. Series 0343, and the
Biologist occupation Series 0401, the participation rate for Hispanic Males
was below the Occupational CLF. See: Table A-6 Participation by Major
Occupation (MCO).
Applicant and Hires snapshot data indicate that Hispanic Males and Females
who applied and voluntarily identified did so at rates higher than their
representation in the CLF for all MCOs. However, the percentages of qualified
Hispanic Males were significantly less than those who voluntarily self-
identified for two MCOs - 0028 Enviromnental Protection Specialist and 0401
Biologist. Hispanic Males were selected at rates significantly less than their
qualifications rates in one MCO - 0819 Enviromnental Engineer. Additionally,
Hispanic Females qualified at rates significantly less than the percentage of
those who voluntarily self-identified for one MCO - 0301 Miscellaneous
Administration and Program Specialist. See: Table A- 7 Applicants and Hires
for Major Occupations.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
83
-------
When considering upward mobility to management positions, the percentage of
Hispanic Males newly hired in FY17 for permanent positions and for the
overall EPA workforce were both significantly lower than their representations
in the CLF. Hispanic Females newly hired in FY17 into temporary positions
was also lower than their representation in the CLF. New hires were not
compared to Qualified External Applicants (voluntary applicant pool) for this
analysis. See: Table A-8 New Hires by Type ofAppointment.
In FY17, Hispanic Males qualified for internal competitive promotions at rates
significantly lower than expected compared to the respective percentage of
internal applicants in one major occupation - 0343 Management/ Program
Analyst. Hispanic Females applied for internal competitive promotions at rates
significantly lower than those in the respective relevant applicant pool in one
MCO - 0819 Enviromnental Engineer. See: Table A-9 Selections for Internal
Competitive Promotions for Major Occupations.
Internal applications for promotion to senior-level GS-13 and GS-14 positions,
were received at rates significantly lower than the relevant applicant pool for
both Hispanic Males and Females. Compared to those who applied for GS-14
positions, there are significantly fewer qualified Hispanic Females. However,
there were no significant differences for either Hispanic Males or Females for
those selected compared to those who are qualified for GS-13, GS 14, and GS-
15 promotions. See: Table A-ll Internal Selections for Senior Level
Positions.
Although employee training is encouraged and available through a variety of
programs offered to all employees, tracking of applicants in each
developmental channel - internships, fellowships, mentoring, coaching,
training, details and other career development programs - remains
decentralized and largely anecdotal. There is limited data available for career
development. The Agency will continue its effort in formulating a process to
track applicants and selectees for all career development programs.
Hispanic Males, on average, received fewer hours than the rest of the EPA
workforce that received time-off awards in excess of 9 hours. See: Table A-13
Employee Recognition and Awards.
There were no significant findings in the types of separations for Hispanic
Males or Females. The primary separation type for Hispanic Males and
Females was voluntary retirement, while resignation was the second most
frequent cause.
When reviewing data from the EPA Viewpoint Survey, Hispanics participate at
lower rates in the Agency's overall total and permanent workforce when
compared to their representation in the CLF.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
84
-------
Statement of Identified Barrier:
The EPA lias not identified a barrier in FY17 but continues an ongoing process
Provide a succinct statement of
of analysis to identify root causes for the stated triggers.
EPA policy, procedure or practice
that has been determined to be
the barrier of the undesired
condition.
Objective:
The EPA continues to evaluate whether any specific Agency policy, practice.
State the alternative or revised
or procedure is causing any of the identified lower than expected participation
rates for Hispanics.
Agency policy, procedure or
practice to be implemented to
correct the undesired condition.
Responsible Officials:
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration & Resources
Management
Director, Office of Human Resources
Director, Office of Civil Rights
Deputy Civil Rights Officials
Date Objective Initiated:
February 15, 2011
Target Date for Completion of
Objective:
September 30, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
(Must Be Specific)
1. OCR will collaborate with OARM to identify an alternative method(s) or tool(s)
that will allow the Agency to examine the hiring processes in major occupations
where lower than anticipated application qualification and selection rates are
identified.
September 30, 2018
2. OCR will collaborate with the OARM and SSCs to assess whether EPA position
descriptions accurately reflect the job duties of major occupations where lower-
than-anticipated application qualification, and selection rates are identified.
September 30, 2018
3. OCR will collaborate with OHR to evaluate the effectiveness of its strategic
recruitment plan and guidance document and make necessary modifications or
changes.
September 30, 2018
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
85
-------
4. OHR will coordinate and collaborate with OCR to evaluate the data from the
identified alternative method(s) or tool(s) that will allow the Agency to examine its
hiring process to determine whether there are any procedural barriers associated
with the development of vacancy announcements and outreach efforts.
September 30, 2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Planned activities are relative to the investigative process. The accomplishments below are numbered to correspond
with the planned activity.
Activity No 1. OCR's efforts to examine the hiring processes in major occupations will continue. OCR examines the
EPA hiring processes annually. In FY17, the following steps were included:
• Analyzed data to identify and determine which Regions had hired the most major occupation positions;
• Worked with the Regions and hiring officials to obtain hiring information.
OCR's efforts to examine the hiring process continue; therefore, the planned activity was amended and extended.
Activity No 2. (Clarity to the Task Defined) The EPA's SSCs continue to update their archives of position
descriptions including major occupations. OCR will collaborate with OARM to assess whether position descriptions
accurately reflect the job duties of major occupations where lower than anticipated application, qualification, and
selection rates are identified.
Activity No 3. OCR and OHR along with the SSC continue to draft and develop a management hiring survey that
can be presented to senior management across the Agency. Several questions have been drafted. However, due to
several office realignments, this activity has been placed on hold and an alternative method or tool for examining the
hiring process is scheduled to be completed in FY18.
Activity No 4. OCR collaborated with OGC to assess methods of collecting application, qualification, and selection
rates by RNO for Attorney 0905 series. OGC to date has piloted two job announcements through USA Jobs, giving
OCR the ability to successfully collect the application and qualification rates. OCR and OGC will continue to assess
the reliability of this data collection method to meet the FY18 goal.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
86
-------
Part J-Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement,
and Retention of Persons with Disabilities
To capture agencies' affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with targeted
disabilities (PWTD), EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and MD-715 require agencies to describe how
their plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with
disabilities. All agencies, regardless of size, must complete this Part of the MD-715 report.
Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals
EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific numerical goals for increasing
the participation of persons with reportable and targeted disabilities in the federal government.
1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD by grade level cluster
in the permanent workforce? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Yes ~ No 0
b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
In FY17, PWD in GS 1-10 Cluster of the permanent workforce participate at 15.49%, a higher rate than the
expected 12%> benchmark, indicating no trigger.
PWD in GS-11 to SES Cluster of the permanent workforce participate at 7.04%i. a lower rate than the expected 12
% benchmark, indicating a trigger.
2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD by grade level cluster
in the permanent workforce? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) Yes ~ No 0
b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
In FY17, PWTD in GS 1-10 Cluster of the permanent workforce participate at 4.58%) which is at a higher rate
than the expected 2% benclunark, indicating no trigger.
PWTD in GS-11 to SES Cluster of the permanent workforce participate at 1.79% which is at a lower rate than the
expected 2% benclunark, indicating a trigger.
3. Describe how the Agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers and/or recruiters.
The Agency utilizes the EEOC's 12% and 2% benclunarks for PWD and PTWD, respectively, as targets. To
communicate these goals along with additional information on PWD/PWTD, the Agency encouraged Regions
and Program Offices to include hiring and the use of Schedule A hiring authorities in their program level MD-715
planned activities. In addition the Agency held a minimum of five (5) briefings/trainings of federal agency
disability hiring tools (e.g.. Schedule A, Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP), The ABCs of Reasonable
Accommodation, and Computer/Electronic Accommodation Program-CAP) for approximately 279 managers and
supervisors and Equal Employment Opportunity Officers.
Section II: Model Disability Program
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(l), agencies must ensure sufficient staff, training and resources to recruit and
hire persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, administer the reasonable accommodation
program and special emphasis program, and oversee any other disability hiring and advancement program the
Agency lias in place.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
87
-------
A. Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program
1. Has the Agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability program during the
reporting period? If "no", describe the Agency's plan to improve the staffing for the upcoming year.
Yes 0 No ~
nTa
2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the Agency's disability employment program by the office, staff
employment status, and responsible official.
Disability Program Task
# 0
Emi
fFTE Staff by
jloyment Status
Responsible Official
(Name, Title, Office, Email)
Full
Time
Part
Time
Collateral
Dutv
Processing applications from PWD and
PWTD
2
0
0
Kristen Arel and Anthony Napoli,
Disability Recruitment Program
Managers, Office of Human Resources
arcl.kristenVv.cDa. sov
nat>oli.anthonv(@,et>a. sov
Answering questions from the public
about hiring authorities that take
disability into account
3
0
0
Kristen Arel and Anthony Napoli,
Disability Recruitment Program
Managers, Office of Human
Resources; Christopher Emanuel,
Disability Program Manager, Office of
Civil Rights
arcl.kristenVv.cDa. sov
nat>oli.anthonv(@,et>a. sov
cmanucl.christODhcrf/CDa.soY
Processing reasonable accommodation
requests from applicants and
employees
2
0
22
Amanda Sweda Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinator, and
Kristin Tropp, Assistant Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinator, Office
of Civil Rights
sweda. amandaf/coa. sov
troDD.kristiriir/CDa. sov
Section 508 Compliance
1
0
0
Darlene Boerlage, 508 Coordinator,
Office of Enviromnental Information
boc rla sc .da rle ne Vv coa. sov
Special Emphasis Program for PWD
and PWTD
3
0
0
Christopher Emanuel, Disability
Program Manager, Office of Civil
Rights
cmanucl.christODhcrf/CDa.soY
Kristen Arel and Anthony Napoli,
Disability Recruitment Program
Managers, Office of Human Resources
arcl.kristcnVv.CDa. sov
naDoli.anthonv Vv.CDa. sov
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
88
-------
3. Has the Agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out their responsibilities during
the reporting period? If "yes", describe the training that disability program staff have received. If "no", describe
the training planned for the upcoming year.
Yes 0 No ~
The Agency has provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out their roles and
responsibilities in FY17. Trainings included, but is not limited to:
1. No FEAR Act training.
2. EEOC Section 501 Affirmative Action Plan for the Employment of Individuals with
Disabilities/Targeted Disabilities; instructional guidance; and the new Part J requirements.
3. Excel Training Conference 2017 - MD-715/Disability and Reasonable Accommodation Track
4. EPA systems (e.g., Datamart, OBIEE, One Drive).
5. Refresher trainings (e.g., 29 CFR 1614. 203 (e), 29 CFR 1614.203 (d)(7) of the Rehabilitation Act)
B. Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program
Has the Agency provided sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement the disability program
during the reporting period? If "no", describe the Agency's plan to ensure all aspects of the disability program have
sufficient funding and other resources.
Yes 0 No ~
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
89
-------
Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(l)(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to increase the recruitment and
hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to identify outcomes of the Agency's
recruitment program plan for PWD and PWTD. The Agency's statistical analysis of workforce data highlights
significant differences in values. In the report, when comparisons are made, only the triggers with statistically
significant decreases or increases are noted. In the Appendices, the triggers are highlighted.
A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities
1. Describe the programs and resources the Agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities, including
individuals with targeted disabilities.
In FYf7, the Agency utilized a variety of programs and resources to identify qualified job applicants with
disabilities including those with targeted disabilities which include, but are not limited to:
• Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lias a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with Bender Consulting
firm, which maintains a list of Schedule A applicants
• Veteran Employment Programs (e.g.. Operations War Fighter, Wounded Warrior, Safe Harbor)
• Workforce Recruitment Program
• Special Emphasis Program Managers and Advisory Council
• Volunteer Student Programs
• Special Placement Program Coordinators (SPPC)/Disability Recruitment and Program Managers
• Pathways-Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program
• Pathways-Interns/Recent Graduates
In addition, the Agency has established a number of memoranda of understanding (MOUs). For example, OHR
signed MOUs with the Rochester Institute of Technology /National Technical Institute for the Deaf (RIT/NTID)
and Gallaudet University for the Deaf to help ensure that people with disabilities are aware of all employment
opportunities in the agency.
2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(3), describe the Agency's use of hiring authorities that take disability into
account (e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in the permanent workforce.
The Agency uses all available and appropriate hiring authorities to recruit and hire. Examples where PWD and
PWTD are considered:
• Excepted Service, Schedule A: 5 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) section 213.3102(u)
• Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP)
• Veterans Recruitment Appointments (VRA)
3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account (e.g., Schedule
A), explain how the Agency (1) determines if the individual is eligible for appointment under such authority and
(2) forwards the individual's application to the relevant hiring officials with an explanation of how and when the
individual may be appointed.
The Agency determines eligibility for individuals who apply using special hiring authorities such as Schedule A
using the following process:
• The Agency's Shared Service Centers (SSCs) review all incoming applicants who submit Schedule A
documentation designating their disability status pursuant to special hiring authority Schedule A (5
C.F.R.213.3102 (u)).
• The SSCs screen all applicants for minimum qualifications/selective factors to determine eligibility for
noncompetitive. Schedule A appointments. A qualified person must have an intellectual disability, a
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
90
-------
severe physical disability, or a psychiatric disability and must obtain a certification letter from an
appropriate healthcare practitioner or disability benefit provider (e.g., a State Vocational Rehabilitation
Office, the Department of Veterans Affairs) to be eligible for appointment under these special
authorities.
• Disabled veterans with disability ratings of 30% or more may be considered under multiple special
hiring programs.
Once eligibility is determined, the HR specialist notifies the hiring manager in accordance with applicable
regulations for further consideration. Agency SSC and HR specialists, along with the SPPC, work closely
with each hiring official using various communication methods to ensure that all pre- and post-appointment
procedures are carried out and that applicants meet all legal and regulatory requirements for EPA position(s).
The process also includes the following:
• Candidates may be selected and appointed with or without the typical formal interview process;
however, the Agency recommends best practice of conducting an interview.
• A hiring manager may fill the position based on the applicant's ability to perform the duties of the
position as described in the position description. They can be hired on a: 1) temporary position with a
Not to Exceed (NTE) date; 2) non-temporary position with a NTE date; or 3) non-temporary excepted
service position. After two years of successful performance on the job, they may be non-competitively
converted to a permanent appointment.
• The hiring manager notifies the SSC of their selection, and the SSC extends an official offer based on
the vacancies selection factors, determining start date based upon dialogue with the manager and
selectee.
• Once an offer lias been extended and prior to the entry-on-duty, a manager will discuss and verify with
the selected individual on the need for any accommodation.
4. Has the Agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities that take disability into
account (e.g., Schedule A)? If "yes", describe the type(s) of training and frequency. If "no", describe the
Agency's plan to provide this training.
Yes 0 No ~ N/A ~
In FY17, the Agency provided ongoing disability training to its hiring managers using various educational
methods. These methods include coaching/mentoring, small program office discussions, instructional, on-the-job
and online training (e.g., Skillport "Accessibility and Section 508 Awareness," "Reasonable Accommodation for
the Federal Workplace," and "EEO and Preventing Discrimination in the Workplace"). Facilitated trainings
capture the basic principles of disability awareness, laws and regulations, special hiring authorities (Schedule A),
sources for job applicants. Computer Electronic/Accommodation Program (CAP), internal reasonable
accommodation program and procedures, and sensitivity/cultural awareness (i.e.. Disability Etiquette).
The Agency has established plans to develop additional tools for its disability program staff and managers and
supervisors to identify potential PWD/PWTD and veteran qualified applicants and students. Training on how to
operate and maintain an internal resume database for Schedule A applicants will follow.
B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations
Describe the Agency's efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist PWD, including PWTD, in
securing and maintaining employment.
In FY 17, the Agency and the (RIT/NTID) signed a MOU. Through this MOU, the EPA and RIT/NTID intend to
collaborate in various ways, such as, the advancement of enviromnental education to improve awareness of
national employment opportunities and other opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the
Agency's Office of Enviromnental Information (OEI) established anEPA-wide MOU with Gallaudet University.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
91
-------
This MOU will increase the cooperation between Gallaudet and the Agency in areas of mutual interest, including
promoting equal opportunity in higher education contributing to the university's capacity to provide high-quality
education, and encouraging the participation of the university in EPA programs. Gallaudet students will also be
given notice of publicly available career opportunities at the Agency, through paid and unpaid internships. The
Agency has also maintained the use of other programs, such as the WRP sponsored by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Labor.
C. Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring)
1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD
among the new hires in the permanent workforce? If "yes", please describe the triggers below.
a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
Table B-8: NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT - Distribution by Disability
Source: EPA Datamart database
The new hire rate for EPA PWD in the permanent workforce is 11.00%, slightly below the 12% benchmark
indicating a trigger.
The new hire rate for EPA PWTD in the permanent workforce is 1.01% indicating a trigger when compared to
the 2% benclunark.
2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the new
hires for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If "yes", please describe the triggers below.
a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
The Agency official EEO workforce data tables prior to FY18 do not display the exact format for New Hires by
MCO. In FY18, the Agency plans to re-develop its MD-715 tables to meet the new EEOC MD-715 guidance.
3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the
qualified internal applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If "yes", please describe the
triggers below.
a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
Table B-9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS for Major/Mission Critical
Occupations by Disability
Source: EPA Datamart database
In using the relevant applicant pool in Table 6 as the benclunark when analyzing PWD and PWTD against the six
mission critical occupations, the following statistically significant triggers were identified:
MCO
PWD
Triggers
PWTD
Triggers
Table 6
Relevant
Applicant
Pool
Table 9
Qualified
Internal
Applicant
Yes/No
Table 6
Relevant
Applicant
Pool
Table 9
Qualified
Internal
Applicant
Yes/No
(0028) Enviromnental Protection
7.45%
2.70%
No
1.83%
0.77%
Yes
(0301) Misc. Administration and Program
Specialist
10.02%
4.88%
Yes
2.04%
2.44%
No
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
92
-------
(0343) Management/Program Analyst
9.24%
3.55%
No
3.27%
0.59%
No
(0401) Biologist
5.99%
2.16%
No
0.91%
0.43%
No
(0819) Enviromnental Engineer
6.40%
2.52%
Yes
1.71%
0.00%
No
(0905) Attorney*
-
-
N/A
-
-
N/A
(1301) Physical Scientist/Environmental
Scientist
5.49%
0.00%
No
1.30%
0.00%
No
*Although the Agency has developed an internal tracking system for applicant flow specific to the (0905) Attorney, a
gap prevented linking the qualification and selection data to the applicant data for FY17. The Agency anticipates a
correction for FY 18.
4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among
employees promoted to any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If "yes", please describe the triggers
below.
a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
Table B-9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS for Major Occupations by
Disability
Source: EPA Datamart and Monster systems
The qualified applicant pool in Table 9 and participation by occupations in Table 6 were used as the benchmark
when analyzing PWD and PWTD against seven major occupations, the following statistically significant triggers
were identified:
PWD
Triggers
PWTD
Triggers
MCO
Table 6
Table 9
Table 6
Table 9
Table 9
Participation
Qualified
Internal
Applicant
Table 9
Selections
Yes/No
Participation
Qualified
Internal
Applicant
Table 9
Selections
Qualified
Internal
Applicant
(0028) Enviromnental
7.45%
2.93%
0.00%
Yes
1.83%
1.60%
0.00%
Yes
Protection
(0301) Misc.
10.02%
13.93%
6.25%
Yes
2.04%
9.43%
6.25%
No
Administration and
Program Specialist
(0343)
9.24%
3.77%
0.00%
Yes
3.27%
1.37%
0.00%
Yes
Management/Program
Analyst
(0401) General
5.99%
2.52%
1.64%
Yes
0.91%
0.28%
0.00%
Yes
Biological
(0819) Enviromnental
4.94%
6.09%
2.70%
Yes
0.58%
0.43%
0.00%
Yes
Engineer
(0905) Attorney*
-
-
-
N/A
-
-
-
N/A
(1301) Physical
5.49%
0.00%
0.00%
No
1.30%
0.00%
0.00%
No
Scientist/
Enviromnental
Scientist
** Although the Agency has developed an internal tracking system for applicant flow specific to the (0905) Attorney, a
gap prevented linking the qualification and selection data to the applicant data for FY17. The Agency anticipates a
correction for FY 18.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
93
-------
Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R § 1614.203(d)(l)(iii). agencies are required to provide sufficient advancement opportunities for
employees with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and mentoring programs, career
development opportunities, awards programs, promotions, and similar programs that address advancement. In this
section, agencies should identify, and provide data on programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for
employees with disabilities.
A. Advancement Program Plan
Describe the Agency's plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for advancement.
The Agency ensures awareness of advancement and internal/external opportunities where all employees can increase
knowledge and skill using the Talent Hub website (a centralized experiential learning resource to a range of career
development opportunities available across the agency) and job sharing. Employees at all levels are made aware
using various methods of marketing (e.g., email, office announcement, intranet, newsletters). Additionally, the
Agency offers opportunities that include, but are not limited to, fee/non-fee based in-person/online training.
Employees, at all levels, are encouraged to participate in skill building training that will expand their opportunities
to advance. In addition courses related to federal employment search through USAJOBS, resume writing, and
improving interviewing skills are available.
The Agency increases awareness of areas where employees may advance through:
Customer Service Visits: The OHR, in conjunction with the OCR, have continued to partner and explore new
strategies to maintain a diverse and inclusive workplace free from discrimination and retaliation. As a continued
effort to provide customer service through technical assistance, the two offices plan to schedule EEO/diversity and
inclusion customer service visits and a roadshow in FY18. The roadshow will be an opportunity to educate
managers about ways to advance and retain employees with disabilities and to provide information about the
Schedule A hiring authority as well as stressing the importance of conversion.
Opportunities to Implement Strategies to Mitigate Unconscious Bias: In FY17, the EPA finalized its 2018-2022
Strategy for Mitigating Unconscious Bias (MUB) in the human resources selection process. To create the MUB
Strategy, the Agency collected benchmark data on existing mitigation strategies being implemented within the EPA
and on mitigation strategies being conducted by other Federal agencies. The Agency also reviewed current literature
on best practices regarding mitigating unconscious bias in the human resources selection process. The MUB
Strategy aligns with the EPA's 2017-2021 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan; Executive Order 13583 -
Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal
Workforce and the Report on Reducing the Impact of Bias in the STEM Workforces released in November 2016
jointly by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the White House Office of Science & Technology
Policy.
For the purposes of the MUB Strategy, the selection process includes any human resources process or decision made
regarding recruitment, hiring, promotion, awards, development, advancement, and retention. The MUB Strategy is
also designed to help EPA employees learn to recognize and mitigate the potential for unconscious bias that may
exist in the workplace.
The MUB Strategy is designed to raise awareness among the EPA leaders, managers, and supervisors as well as
other EPA personnel about the presence and impact of unconscious bias and offer a toolkit of proven strategies to
mitigate it. To get from awareness to action, the MUB Strategy offers a three-phased approach of assessing,
mitigating, and implementing actions to help reduce unconscious bias at the individual and organizational levels.
The overarching goals of the EPA's strategy to reduce unconscious bias are:
• Reduce unconscious bias in the EPA's HR selections process.
• Build unconscious bias awareness and mitigation skills among EPA employees.
• Identify and begin measuring the effectiveness of strategies to mitigate unconscious bias in the HR
selection process throughout the EPA.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
94
-------
The scope of the strategy is specifically focused on HR selection, whether it be in the early stages of the employee's
career lifecycle such as selection in recruitment and hiring, or later stages like selection for promotions that increase
retention.
As part of the Agency's strategy, pilots designed to ensure transparency in existing Agency process regarding career
advancement and development will be undertaken inFY18. Further, the Agency created a Blanket Purchase
Agreement for diversity and inclusion activities surrounding training, data analytics, and consultative services to
support Agency offices and regions.
Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan: The U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency's 2017-2021 Diversity and
Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP) guides the Agency's efforts in sustaining the EPA as a leader in creating and
maintaining a high-performing workforce that embraces diversity and inclusion and empowers all employees to
achieve their full potential. The multi-year plan outlines goals, priorities and specific action items and measures
developed by senior leadership and the EPA Human Resources community and concurred upon by the EPA's
Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee (DIAC), a subcommittee of the Human Resources Council.
Goal 1 of the Plan is to diversify the federal workforce through active engagement of leadership. Action items under
this goal include the following:
• The EPA's senior leaders will conduct regular informational sessions open to all employees to share
information on training and career development opportunities and resources.
• The EPA's OARM will ensure that all hiring managers receive training on the use of appropriate hiring
authorities and flexibilities.
• The EPA will review participation in leadership development programs and develop strategies to eliminate
any barriers to participation.
Goal 2 of the Plan is to include and engage everyone in the workplace. The action item under this goal is as follows:
• The EPA's leaders and managers will use the EPA Talent Hub to promote and encourage all employees to
apply for temporary full-time detail assigmnents, part-time projects/special assigmnents, temporary
promotions, SES rotations and other developmental assigmnents.
Goal 3 of the Plan is to optimize inclusive diversity efforts using data-driven approaches. Action items under the
goal include the following:
• The EPA will utilize the MD-715 reports, applicant flow data, and focus groups to identify actions that can
be taken to address any potential barriers to career development and advancement identified by the Agency.
• The EPA's senior leaders will use the results of the annual Employee Viewpoint Surveys and other
workforce feedback to be responsive to employees' concerns regarding opportunities for employee training,
development and advancement.
Stepping Up to Supervision: The Stepping Up to Supervision workshop is open to all employees who may be
interested in learning about the roles and responsibilities of formal leaderships. This is made available to PWD,
including PWTD. Each participant receives formal feedback through a multi-rater 360 assessment and is encouraged
to build a development plan to help map their learning plans toward their career goals and objectives.
The EPA Successful Leader's Program: The EPA Successful Leader's Program is the Agency's mandatory
program for newly promoted or hired supervisors and managers. The program contains information regarding the
various hiring authorities, such as Schedule A, to reach a wide range of candidates. This is made available to PWD,
including PWTD.
Miscellaneous: The EPA also offers a wide range of learning opportunities to employees across the Agency to
address a wide variety of competencies to close skill gaps and open opportunities for employees with disabilities,
targeted disabilities and others to participate.
The Agency is in the process of implementing the Learning Management System (LMS) FedTalent and hopes to
have it in place by July 2018. The system will allow organizations to pull reports to show the type of learning
opportunities employees are engaging in and their status (when noted).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
95
-------
B. Career Development Opportunities
1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the Agency provides to its employees.
Employee training is encouraged and available through a variety of programs offered to all employees. Training
promotes professional and personal development. Please see above write-up regarding EPA programs/activities that
the Agency encourages and promotes for career development for all employees, including PWD/PWTD.
Employees with disabilities are actively encouraged to apply to these developmental opportunities. Opportunities are
advertised locally and through the EPA University and the Agency's network of training officers and coordinators.
Tracking of applicants in each developmental channel - internships, fellowships, mentoring, coaching, training,
details and other career development programs - remains decentralized and largely anecdotal as of the writing of
this report. The Agency does track employees selected for training and details through its established HR systems of
record and lias other mechanisms in place for limited tracking of employees selected for mentoring, fellowships and
coaching.
In response to the MD-715 new guidance, the Agency will begin the process of developing Agency-wide tables
beginning with the FY18 MD-715 report. The tables will include data concerning the career development
opportunities that require competition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate.
In July 2018, the Agency will launch its first Agency-wide LMS, currently known as FedTalent. FedTalent will
interface with the Agency's HR system of record (FPPS), thereby allowing the Agency to more easily track
selectees in its training and coaching programs. However, there are no features of the LMS that will allow for
tracking of applicants. Given this inherent constraint in the LMS, the Agency is considering other tools at its
disposal for capturing applicant data.
Internship Programs: The Agency's internship programs are decentralized. While the Agency's new LMS could
be used to provide a list of current employees who were enrolled in an internship program it is not clear whether the
LMS would be able to capture information about employees who apply for internship opportunities. OHR and the
SSCs will coordinate to collect internship program data for applicants and selectees in the future.
Fellowship Programs: *OHR captures applicant and selection data for LEGIS Fellows, Capitol Hill fellows and
Presidential Management Fellows (PMFs) programs only. The issues listed above for internship programs also apply
to fellowship programs. DRESD and Policy, Planning and Training Division (PPTD) collect information about
LEGIS Fellows, Capitol Hill Fellows and PMFs. SSCs may also have some fellowship program data for applicants
and selectees, depending on the program.
Mentoring Programs: *The Agency's mentoring programs are managed locally. The largest mentoring program,
the Learners and Leaders Collaborative Mentoring Program (LLCMP), captures mentor/mentee matches. Local
human resources or program management offices may have some mentoring data for applicants and selectees,
depending on the program.
Coaching Programs: *OHR's Training Branch offers coaching services to all participants in the Agency's Stepping
Up to Supervision courses, in addition to ad hoc coaching services as requested. Coachees are self-selected - there is
no formal application or selection process for becoming a coachee. The LMS will be able to track coaching
recipients if the Agency decides it wants to do so.
Training Programs: The Agency's LMS will be able to capture employees selected to participate in training. There
is no feature in the LMS that captures applicant information.
Detail Programs: OHR and the SSCs will coordinate to collect data for applicants and selectees in the future.
Other Career Development Programs: N/A
* Indicates limited availability in tracking participation rates for PWD/PWTD.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
96
-------
2. In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that require competition and/or
supervisory recommendation/approval to participate.
Career Development
Opportunities
Total Participants
PWD
PWTD
Applicants
(#)
Selectees
(#)
Applicants
(%)
Selectees
(%)
Applicants
(%)
Selectees
(%)
Internship Programs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fellowship Programs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mentoring Programs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coaching Programs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Training Programs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Detail Programs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other Career Development
Programs
-
-
~
~
~
~
Agency response: The Agency will have the capability to collect certain data beginning in FY 18 through FedTalent.
1. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs?
(The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the applicant pool for
selectees.) If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. Applicants (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
b. Selections (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
The Agency data is unavailable for FY17 to determine triggers for all EEO groups. The current manual LMS for
all employees, including PWD/PWTD, does not populate into the former Table A/B-12 CAREER
DEVELOPMENT Distributed by Disability. The Agency will enhance its capability to collect certain data
beginning in FY18 though the new FedTalent and anticipates further development to ensure data captured
includes PWD/PWTD.
There is limited tracking information for PWD/PWTD.
2. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs
identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for applicants and the applicant pool for
selectees.) If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
b. Selections (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
The Agency data is unavailable for FY 17 to determine triggers for all EEO groups. The current manual learning
management system for all employees, including PWD/PWTD, does not populate into the former Table A/B-12
CAREER DEVELOPMENT Distributed by Disability. The Agency will enhance its capability to collect
certain data beginning inFY18 though the new FedTalent and anticipates further development to ensure data
captured includes PWD/PWTD.
There is limited tracking information for PWD/PWTD.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
97
-------
C. Awards
1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or PWTD for
any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If "yes", please describe the trigger(s) in the text
box.
a. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
TABLE B-13 - Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Disability (permanent workforce)
TABLE B-l - Total Workforce - Distribution by Disability
Source: EPA Datamart database
The Agency used the inclusion rate for each EEO group as a benchmark when analyzing combined employee
awards (time off and cash awards). The following triggers were identified:
FY17
Time
Off and
Cash
Awards
Persons without
Disability (Pw/oD)
Inclusion Rate for
EEO Group
EPA Total
Permanent
Workforce
Inclusion
Rate/Benchmark
Trigger
Formula
[Subtract the Total # of
PWD recipients from the
Total # of EPA Recipients]
Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Total # of PWD
or PWTD into their total # in
the EPA permanent
workforce]
Benchmark-Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Pw/oD receiving
awards into their respective #
in Perm Workforce]
[Triggers exist if
Inclusion rate for
PWD or PWTD is
less than Inclusion
rate for Pw/oD]
PWD
12623-930" 11693
930/1136 = 81.87%
11693/13733 -85.14%
Yes
PWTD
234/297 = 78.79%
Yes
However, when these categories were analyzed separately. Time Off Awards (<9 hours) indicated triggers for
PWTD while Time Off Awards (>9 hours) indicate triggers for both PWD/PWTD when compared to their
inclusion rates. (See table below.)
FY17
Time
Off
Awards
Persons without
Disability (Pw/oD)
Inclusion Rate for
EEO Group
EPA Total
Permanent
Workforce
Inclusion
Rate/Benchmark
Trigger
Formula
[Subtract the Total # of
PWD recipients from the
Total # of EPA Recipients]
Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Total # of PWD
or PWTD recipients by their
total # in the EPA permanent
workforce]
Benchmark-Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Pw/oD # receiving
awards into their respective #
in Perm Workforce]
[Triggers exist if
Inclusion rate for
PWD or PWTD is
less than Inclusion
rate for Pw/oD]
PWD
<9hrs
2191-164" 2027
164/1136 = 14.44%
2027/13733 "14.76%
No
PWTD
<9hrs
41/297 = 13.80%
Yes
PWD
>9hrs
2192-172-2020
172/1136=15.14%
2020/13733 - 14.71%
Yes
PWTD
>9hrs
46/297=15.49%
Yes
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
98
-------
Additionally, analysis for Cash Awards (<$500) resulted in no triggers for PWD/PWTD, while Cash Awards
(>$500) indicated triggers for both PWD/PWTD when compared to their inclusion rates. (See table below.)
FY17
Cash
Awards
Persons without
Disability (Pw/oD)
Inclusion Rate for
EEO Group
EPA Total
Permanent
Workforce
Inclusion
Rate/Benchmark
Trigger
Formula
[Subtract the Total # of
PWD recipients from the
Total # of EPA Recipients]
Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Total # of PWD
or PWTD recipients by their
total # in the EPA permanent
workforce]
Benchmark-Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Pw/oD # receiving
awards into their respective #
in Perm Workforce]
[Triggers exist if
Inclusion rate for
PWD or PWTD is
less than Inclusion
rate for Pw/oD]
PWD
Cash<500
1647-144" 1503
144/1136 = 12.68%
1503/13733 "10.94%
No
PWTD
Cash<500
30/297 = 10.10%
No
PWD
Cash>500
6593-450-6143
450/1136=39.61%
6143/13733 -44.73%
Yes
PWTD
Cash>500
117/297=39.39%
Yes
2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD and/or PWTD for
quality step increases or performance-based pay increases? If "yes", please describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. Pay Increases (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
TABLE B-13 - Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Disability (permanent workforce)
TABLE B-l - Total Workforce - Distribution by Disability
Source: EPA Datamart database
The Agency used the inclusion rate for each EEO group as a benchmark comparison when analyzing quality step
increases. The following triggers were identified:
FY17
Quality
Step
Increase
Persons without
Disability (Pw/oD)
Inclusion Rate for
EEO Group
EPA Total
Permanent
Workforce
Inclusion
Rate/Benchmark
Trigger
Formula
[Subtract the Total # of
PWD recipients from the
Total # of EPA Recipients]
Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Total # of PWD
or PWTD recipients by their
total # in the EPA permanent
workforce]
Benchmark-Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Pw/oD # receiving
awards into their respective #
in Perm Workforce]
[Triggers exist if
Inclusion rate for
PWD or PWTD is
less than Inclusion
rate for Pw/oD]
PWD
173-11" 162
11/1136 = 0.97%
162/13733 " 1.18%
Yes
PWTD
2/297= 0.67%
Yes
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
99
-------
3. If the Agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are PWD and/or PWTD recognized
disproportionately less than employees without disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is the inclusion rate.) If
"yes", describe the employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box.
a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Yes 0 No ~ N/A ~
b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~ N/A ~
TABLE B-13 - Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Disability (permanent workforce)
TABLE B-l - Total Workforce - Distribution by Disability
Source: EPA Datamart database
The Agency used the inclusion rate for each EEO group as a benchmark when analyzing SES Performance
Awards. The following triggers were identified:
FY17
SES
Performance
Awards
Persons without
Disability (Pw/oD)
Inclusion Rate for
EEO Group
EPA Total
Permanent
Workforce
Inclusion
Rate/Benchmark
Trigger
Formula
[Subtract the Total # of
PWD recipients from the
Total # of EPA Recipients]
Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Total # of PWD
or PWTD recipients by their
total # in the EPA permanent
workforce]
Benchmark-Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Pw/oD # receiving
awards into their respective #
in Perm Workforce]
[Triggers exist if
Inclusion rate for
PWD or PWTD is
less than Inclusion
rate for Pw/oD]
PWD
192-10" 182
10/1136 = 0.88%
182/13733 " 1.32%
Yes
PWTD
0/297= 0.00%
Yes
D. Promotions
1. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for
promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified
internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the
approximate senior grade levels. If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
100
-------
a. SES
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
b. Grade GS-15
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
c. Grade GS-14
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes ~ No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
d. Grade GS-13
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
Table B-ll: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL (GS 13/14, GS 15, and SES) POSITIONS
by PWD
The Agency used Table B-l 1 to analyze the applicant flow of internal applicants and/or selections for promotions
by grade and PWD to the senior level (analysis included grades 13-15, SES excluded). In FY18, the Agency
plans to improve tracking capability for SES across all EEO categories, pursuant to EEOCs MD-715 EEO
workforce tables requirements.
PWD applicants qualify at rates lower than they apply for all GS grade levels, except for GS-14. Of those
qualified, PWD are internally selected at rates lower than they are qualified for grade level GS-13. Analysis to
identify triggers using Table B-l 1 are displayed below:
Senior
Grade
Level
PWD
A PPL POOL
OUAL.
INTERNAL
APPL
Triggers
Yes/No
LNTERNAL
SELECTLON
Triggers
Yes/No
GS-13
4.82%
3.74%
Yes
1.32%
Yes
GS-14
3.77%
3.62%
No
1.59%
No
GS-15
4.22%
2.92%
Yes
0.00%
No
SES
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for
promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified
internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the
approximate senior grade levels. If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
101
-------
a. SES
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
b. Grade GS-15
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
c. Grade GS-14
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
d. Grade GS-13
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
Table B-ll: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL (GS 13/14, GS 15, and SES) POSITIONS
by PWTD
The Agency used Table B-l 1 to analyze the applicant flow of internal applicants and/or selections for promotions
by grade and PWD to the senior level (analysis included grades 13-15, SES excluded). In FY18, the Agency
plans to improve tracking capability for SES across all EEO categories pursuant to EEOCs MD-715 EEO
workforce tables requirements.
PWTD applicants qualify at rates lower than their relevant applicant pool for grade level GS-13. Of those
qualified, there are no triggers indicated for selection rates of PWTD for GS-13 through GS-15 grade levels.
Analysis to identify triggers using Table B-l 1 are displayed below:
Senior
Grade
Level
PWTD
A PPL POOL
OUAL.
INTERNAL
APPL
Triggers
Yes/No
LNTERNAL
SELECTLON
Triggers
Yes/No
GS-13
1.61%
0.88%
Yes
0.00%
No
GS-14
1.10%
0.98%
No
0.79%
No
GS-15
2.98%
2.63%
No
0.00%
No
SES
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among
the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If
"yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
102
-------
a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
In FY17, the Agency could not identify any trigger using the existing EEO-MD-715 Table B-l 1. This table does
not include a snapshot to meet EEOC's new requirements to conduct this analysis. The Agency lias partnered
with the Department of Interior/Interior Business Center (DOI/IBC) and Monster to explore the redevelopment of
its existing EEO Tables to accommodate the necessary workforce data /snapshots pursuant to FY17 EEOC MD-
715 guidance on workforce tables. The Agency anticipates obtaining these snapshots in FY18 to continue its
analysis.
4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among
the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If
"yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
b.
New Hires to SES (PWTD)
Yes
~
No
~
c.
New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD)
Yes
~
No
~
d.
New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD)
Yes
~
No
~
e.
New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD)
Yes
~
No
~
In FY17, the Agency could not identify any triggers using the existing EEO-MD-715 Table B-l 1. This table does
not include a snapshot to meet EEOC's new requirements to conduct this analysis. The Agency lias partnered
with the DOI/IBC and Monster to explore the redevelopment of its existing EEO Tables to accommodate the
necessary workforce data snapshots pursuant to FY17 EEOC MD-715 guidance on workforce tables. The
Agency anticipates obtaining this snapshots in FY18 to continue its analysis.
5. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for
promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified
internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. Executives
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
b. Managers
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
c. Supervisors
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes ~ No ~
In FY17, the Agency could not identify any triggers using the existing EEO-MD-715 Table B-9. This table does
not include a snapshot to meet EEOC's new requirements to conduct this analysis. The Agency lias partnered
with the DOI/IBC and Monster to explore the redevelopment of its existing EEO Tables to accommodate the
necessary workforce data snapshots pursuant to FY17 EEOC MD-715 guidance on workforce tables. The
Agency anticipates obtaining this snapshots inFY18 to continue its analysis.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
103
-------
Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for
promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified
internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. Executives
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
b. Managers
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
c. Supervisors
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes ~ No ~
In FY17, the Agency could not identify any triggers using the existing EEO-MD-715 Table B-9. This table does
not include a snapshot to meet EEOC's new requirements to conduct this analysis. The Agency lias partnered
with the DOI/IBC and Monster to explore the redevelopment of its existing EEO Tables to accommodate the
necessary workforce data snapshots pursuant to FY17 EEOC MD-715 guidance on workforce tables. The
Agency anticipates obtaining this snapshots in FY18 to continue its analysis.
7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among
the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a.
New Hires for Executives (PWD)
Yes
~
No
~
b.
New Hires for Managers (PWD)
Yes
~
No
~
c.
New Hires for Supervisors (PWD)
Yes
~
No
~
In FY17, the Agency could not identify any triggers using the existing EEO-MD-715 Table B-8. This table does
not include a snapshot to meet EEOC's new requirements to conduct this analysis. The Agency has partnered
with the DOI/IBC and Monster to explore the redevelopment of its existing EEO Tables to accommodate the
necessary workforce data snapshots pursuant to FY17 EEOC MD-715 guidance on workforce tables. The
Agency anticipates obtaining this snapshots in FY 18 to continue its analysis.
8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among
the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.
a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD)
Yes
~
No
~
b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD)
Yes
~
No
~
c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD)
Yes
~
No
~
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
104
-------
In FY17, the Agency could not identify any triggers using the existing EEO-MD-715 Table B-8. This table does
not include a snapshot to meet EEOC's new requirements to conduct this analysis. The Agency has partnered
with the DOI/IBC and Monster to explore the redevelopment of its existing EEO Tables to accommodate the
necessary workforce data snapshots pursuant to FY17 EEOC MD-715 guidance on workforce tables. The
Agency anticipates obtaining this snapshots in FY18 to continue its analysis.
Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities
To be a model employer for persons with disabilities, agencies must have policies and programs in place to retain
employees with disabilities. In this section, agencies should: (1) analyze workforce separation data to identify
barriers retaining employees with disabilities; (2) describe efforts to ensure accessibility of technology and facilities;
and (3) provide information on the reasonable accommodation program and workplace personal assistance services.
A. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations
1. In this reporting period, did the Agency convert all eligible Schedule A employees with a disability into the
competitive service after two years of satisfactory service (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)(6)(i))? If "no", please explain
why the Agency did not convert all eligible Schedule A employees.
Yes 0 No ~ N/A ~
There were 11 Schedule A employee conversions in FY17. The Agency established a tickler system to notify its
managers and supervisors of Schedule A employees eligible for conversion.
2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among voluntary and involuntary
separations exceed that of persons without disabilities? If "yes", describe the trigger below.
a. Voluntary Separations (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes 0 No ~
Table B-14 - Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by PWD - Permanent Workforce
Source: EPA Datamart database
The Agency used Table B-14 to analyze the Separations by Type (voluntary/involuntary) by distribution of
PWD/PWTD. PWD/PWTD separated at higher rates compared to their inclusion rate/benchmark for all types.
Analysis to identify triggers using Table B-14 are displayed below:
FY17
Separations
Persons without
Disability (Pw/oD)
Inclusion Rate for
EEO Group
EPA Total
Permanent
Workforce
Inclusion
Rate/Benchmark
Trigger
Formula
[Subtract the Total # of
PWD from the Total # of
EPA]
Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Total # of PWD
or PWTD by their total # in
the EPA permanent
workforce]
Benchmark-Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Pw/oD # receiving
awards into their respective #
in Perm Workforce]
[Triggers exist if
Inclusion rate for
PWD or PWTD is
higher than
Inclusion rate for
Pw/oD]
PWD
Voluntary
622-62 = 560
62/1136 = 5.46%
560/13733 = 4.08%
Yes
PWD
Involuntary
17-3 = 14
3/1136 = 0.26%
14/13733 = 0.10%
Yes
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
105
-------
3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary and involuntary
separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If "yes", describe the trigger below.
a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 No ~
Table B-14 - Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by PWD - Permanent Workforce
Source: EPA Datamart database
The Agency used Table B-14 to analyze the Separations by Type (voluntary/involuntary) by distribution of
PWD/PWTD. PWD/PWTD separated at higher rates compared to their inclusion rate/benchmark for all types.
Analysis to identify triggers using Table B-14 are displayed below:
FY 2017
Separations
Persons without
Disability (Pw/oD)
Inclusion Rate for
EEO Group
EPA Total
Permanent
Workforce
Inclusion
Rate/Benchmark
Trigger
Formula
[Subtract the Total # of
PWD from the Total # of
EPA]
Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Total # of PWD
or PWTD by their total # in
the EPA permanent
workforce]
Benchmark-Inclusion Rate
[Divide the Pw/oD # receiving
awards into their respective #
in Perm Workforce]
[Triggers exist if
Inclusion rate for
PWD or PWTD is
higher than
Inclusion rate for
Pw/oD]
PWTD
Voluntary
622-19 = 603
19/297 = 6.40%
603/13733 = 4.39%
Yes
PWTD
Involuntary
17-1 = 16
1/297 = 0.34%
16/13733 = 0.12%
Yes
4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, please explain why they left the Agency
using exit interview results and other data sources.
The primary data source analyzed was the EPA EEO workforce data tables. Although the Agency conducts exit
surveys using Survey Monkey (a link provided within the online EPA Exit Checklist), the existing survey did not
identify the employee's disability status or include questions on how the Agency could improve the recruitment,
hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of individuals with disabilities. The Agency plans to re-examine its
exit survey as part of the human capital enterprise risk effort. The EPA's plan is to streamline the agency survey
followed by the formation of a sub-workgroup to review and update, as needed. OHR, as the lead, will partner
with EPA OCR-AEAA and OHR-DRESD to be a part of the sub-workgroup to identify recommendations for its
redevelopment, tracking and monitoring, and voluntary identifiers, such as PWD and PWTD status. The Agency
anticipates developing these plans beginning in FY18.
B. Accessibility of Technology and Facilities
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and employees of their
rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b)), concerning the accessibility of
Agency technology, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151-4157), concerning the
accessibility of Agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to inform individuals where to file complaints if
other agencies are responsible for a violation.
1. Please provide the internet address on the Agency's public website for its notice explaining employees' and
applicants' rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a description of how to file a complaint.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
106
-------
EPA has a link to its accessibility statement available in the footer on EPA public webpages that notifies
employees, applicants, and visitors about Section 508. The link takes viewers to the statement at this page:
https://www.epa.gov/accessibilitv/epa-accessibilitv-statement.
2. Please provide the internet address on the Agency's public website for its notice explaining employees' and
applicants' rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of how to file a complaint.
In FY17, the Agency did not have information regarding the Architectural Barriers Act on the public website.
The Agency plans to add this information to the existing Accessibility page (https://www.epa.gov/accessibility).
3. Describe any programs, policies, or practices that the Agency has undertaken, or plans on undertaking over the
next fiscal year, designed to improve accessibility of Agency facilities and/or technology.
The EPA Section 508 program delivered eight (8) webinar-based trainings in FY17 to include topics such as:
introduction to Section 508, Accessible Word documents, accessible websites, accessible PDFs, and accessible
PowerPoint. The Agency also introduced a new training course on how to conduct accessible meetings. All the
Section 508 training courses are recorded and available on demand internally at:
http://intranet.epa.gov/accessibilitv.
The Section 508 Program and Section 508 Executive Council developed a three-phase assessment plan of the
Agency's enterprise-wide information and communication technology (ICT) to ensure it is 508 compliant and
interoperable with Assistive Technology (AT) used at the Agency (e.g. People Plus, Skillport, Talent Hub portal).
C. Reasonable Accommodation Program
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and make available to all
job applicants and employees, reasonable accommodation procedures.
1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodations during the
reporting period. (Please do not include previously approved requests with repetitive accommodations, such as
interpreting services.)
The National Reasonable Accommodation Program tracked if a request was processed within applicable
timeframes but did not track average timeframes for all 356 reasonable accommodation requests in FY17.
However, the Agency added this metric to its tracking tools for FY 18 and is currently tracking the average
timeframe for all requests.
2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the Agency's reasonable
accommodation program. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests, timely
providing approved accommodations, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and monitoring
accommodation requests for trends.
InFY17, the Agency demonstrated efficiency of its reasonable accommodations programs by processing 343 of
the 356 requests (or 96.3%) within the timeframes identified in both the AFGE National Reasonable
Accommodation Procedures (NRAP) and the EPA Reasonable Accommodation Procedures. The Agency has
attained the 90% or greater processing rate for the seventh consecutive year in compliance with the requirements
outlined in MD -715.
The RA Program was also successful in delivering training to 185 participants, including managers/supervisors
and employees as well as new/current Local Reasonable Accommodation Coordinators.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
107
-------
D. Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the Workplace
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action are required to provide
personal assistance services (PAS) to employees who need them because of a targeted disability, unless doing so
would impose an undue hardship on the Agency.
Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS requirement. Some
examples of an effective program include timely processing requests for PAS, timely providing approved services,
conducting training for managers and supervisors, and monitoring PAS requests for trends.
Employees with targeted disabilities may request PAS at any time through the Agency's two existing reasonable
accommodation procedures, and those requests are processed in accordance to the timeframes outlined in the
procedures.
In FY18, the Agency will post an addendum to the reasonable accommodation procedures on the Agency website
to explain further how to request PAS. Additionally, the National Reasonable Accommodation Program will
incorporate information about PAS in the reasonable accommodation training to managers/supervisors and
employees.
Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data
A. EEO Complaint data involving Harassment
1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging harassment, as
compared to the government-wide average?
Yes ~ No 0 N/A ~
2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status result in a finding of
discrimination or a settlement agreement?
Yes ~ No 0 N/A ~
3. If the Agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability status during
the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the Agency.
The Agency had no findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability status within the last fiscal
year.
B. EEO Complaint Data involving Reasonable Accommodation
1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging failure to
provide a reasonable accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average?
Yes ~ No 0 N/A ~
2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation result in a
finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?
Yes ~ No 0 N/A ~
3. If the Agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonable
accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the Agency.
The Agency had no findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation
within the last fiscal year.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
108
-------
Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers
Proactive Prevention - Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests
that a policy, procedure, or practice may be impeding the employment opportunities of a protected EEO group.
1. Has the Agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect employment
opportunities for PWD and/or PWTD?
Yes ~ No 0
2. Has the Agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD and/or PWTD?
Yes ~ No ~ N/A 0
3. Identify each trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s), objective(s),
responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, accomplishments.
Trigger 1
Inability to identify triggers using the existing EPA MD-715 workforce tables (Datamart and
Monster).
Barrier(s)
Insufficient EEO workforce tables that do not meet the new EEOC guidance on triggers and
barrier analysis for persons with disabilities and targeted disabilities.
Objective(s)
Ensure that EPA EEO workforce tables reflect EEOCs new formatting requirements to help
identify triggers and conduct barrier analysis for PWD/PWTD (i.e., new hires by grades and
occupations, career development for PWD/PWTD by grades and occupations).
Responsible
Official(s)
Director, ITD/OHR
Director, OCR
Assistant Director, AEAA/OCR
Shared Service Centers
Department of Interior/Interagency Business Center (Monster/Datamart)
EEOC/OPM
Performance Standards Address the Plan?
(Yes or No)
No
Barrier Analysis Process Completed?
(Yes or No)
No
Barriers) Identified?
(Yes or No)
No
Sources of Data
Sources Reviewed?
(Yes or No)
Identify Information Collected
Workforce Data Tables
Yes
EPAs existing EEO workforce tables were
reviewed resulting in limited analysis to meet Part J
requirements.
Complaint Data (Trends)
Yes
EPA's EEO Form 462 was reviewed.
Grievance Data (Trends)
N/A
Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO,
Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment
Processes)
Yes
EPA's EEO Form 462 was reviewed.
Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., FEVS)
N/A
Exit Interview Data
Yes
EPA's existing Exit Surveys were reviewed
resulting in limited analysis to meet Part J
requirements.
Focus Groups
N/A
Interviews
N/A
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
109
-------
Reports (e.g.. Congress, EEOC, MSPB,
GAO, OPM)
N/A
Other (Please Describe)
N/A
Target Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Planned Activities
Sufficient Staffing
& Funding
(Yes or No)
Modified Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Completion Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
1/30/2018
OCR, with PPTD/OHR will discuss the
Agency's plans to track the applicant flow
of career development program; and
incorporate those data into the new EEOC
MD-715 tables A/B 7 and 8.
Yes
1/22/2018
02/28/2018
OCR, with systems partners - ITD/OHR
and the Department of Interior/Internal
Business Center (DOI/IBC) will begin
coordination of planned activities to
address EEOC new guidance on
workforce data.
Yes
02/16/2018
04/26/2018
OCR, with systems partners - ITD/OHR
and the Department of Interior/Internal
Business Center (DOI/IBC) will discuss
reasonable options.
Yes
04/26/2018
05/30/2018
OCR, with PPTD/OHR will identify
specific system changes (e.g.. Talent Hub;
Fed Talent; local level tracking systems)
to meet the required output for the career
development program
Yes
05/30/2018
OHR/ITD and DOI/IBC will identify
specific system changes to meet the
required output (Tables A/B 1-9).
Yes
05/30/2018
OHR/ITD and MONSTER will identify
specific system changes to meet the
required output (Tables A/B 1-9).
Yes
09/30/2018
The agency will seek assistance from
DOI/IBC to complete all system
requirements necessary to meet OPM and
EEOC's new guidance for workforce
tables.
N/A
10/30/2018
OHR and OCR will test new systems for
data output.
Yes
10/30/2018
OCR will confirm appropriate output and
begin use forFY19.
Yes
Fiscal Year
Accomplishments
Trigger 2
PWD/PWTD separation rates are higher than their participation rates in the EPA total workforce.
Barrier(s)
The Agency's current exit survey does not capture EEO demographic status.
The current exit survey is standard across the Agency.
Objective(s)
Create an effective exit survey tool that collects voluntary EEO demographic status to contribute
to the Agency's barrier analysis of all EEO demographic groups.
Responsible
Official(s)
Director, OHR
Director, PPTD/OHR
Director, DRESD/OHR
Director, OCR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
110
-------
Assistant Director, AEAA/OCR
Performance Standards Address the Plan?
(Yes or No)
No
Barrier Analysis Process Completed?
(Yes or No)
No
Barriers) Identified?
(Yes or No)
No
Sources of Data
Sources Reviewed?
(Yes or No)
Identify Information Collected
Workforce Data Tables
Yes
EPAs existing EEO workforce tables were
reviewed resulting in limited analysis to meet Part J
requirements.
Complaint Data (Trends)
Yes
EPA's EEO Form 462 was reviewed.
Grievance Data (Trends)
No
Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO,
Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment
Processes)
Yes
None reported
Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., FEVS)
N/A
Exit Interview Data
Yes
EPA's existing Exit Surveys were reviewed
resulting in limited analysis to meet Part J
requirements.
Focus Groups
No
Interviews
No
Reports (e.g.. Congress, EEOC, MSPB,
GAO, OPM)
N/A
Other (Please Describe)
N/A
Target Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Planned Activities
Sufficient Staffing
& Funding
(Yes or No)
Modified Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Completion Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
6/30/2018
OHR/PPTD will develop questions related
to all areas of employment and career
development, and incorporate them into exit
interviews and surveys for all EEO groups,
including individuals with disabilities.
Yes
6/30/2018
OHR/PPTD will provide a comprehensive
plan of implementation for all exit
interviews and surveys to all managers,
supervisors, and employees.
Yes
6/30/2018
OHR/PPTD will coordinate with OCR on a
schedule to receive quarterly data that will
contribute to Agency barrier analyses (e.g.,
individuals with disabilities).
Yes
9/30/2018
OHR/PPTD will provide, to OCR, the raw
data, a comprehensive analysis, and
summary of exit interviews and survey
results which will serve as a data sample for
Agency barrier analysis by June each year.
Yes
Fiscal Year
Accomplishments
1. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the Agency from timely completing any of the planned
activities.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
N/A
2. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those activities toward
eliminating the barrier(s).
In FY17, OHR, as the lead on data systems, responded to OCR's request to revisit the formatting of MD-715
EEO workforce data Tables A/B to meet EEOC's new FY17 guidance for Part J and other related MD-715 parts.
This led to OCR coordinating a meeting between ITD/OHR and DOI/IBC to understand the internal system
requirements (i.e., coding) necessary to obtain the appropriate output of some new MD-715 EEO workforce data
tables. Simultaneously ITD/OHR consulted with Monster to modify its existing Statement of Work so the
Agency can meet the requirements to collect applicant flow for all EEO groups, including PWD/PWTD.
In addition, PPTD/OHR responded to the new EEOC guidance which requires the Agency to capture applicant
flow in its career development program. The Agency recognizes that its current systems (LMS and those
managed locally) are limited in their ability to capture this type of data. PPTD/OHR will look for other channels
for obtaining this data. The options presented in the interim are as follows:
1. Request local human resources and program management offices to track the applicant, qualification,
referred, and selectee data for all career development programs.
2. Request TalentHub system expansion to capture applicant flow on all details, internships, fellowships
and other developmental programs.
3. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how the Agency
intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year.
The new FY18 planned activities outlined above are intended to address data tracking details for career
development, and other areas of the employment life cycle, including applicant flow.
EPA FY17 Highlights for PWD/PWTD
The National Disability Employment Program Manager (DEPM), along with the Office of Enviromnental
Information (OEI) and OHR, co-sponsored the National Disability Employment Awareness Month Program
(NDEAM). This training was conducted by the DEPM, Autism SPEAKS, Al-Mohamed, and the Department of
Labor (DOL), Office of Disability Employment Program (ODEP). Various other briefings were presented at staff
meetings and technical assistance visits throughout the year.
Additionally, Agency-wide training was provided to EPA SEPMs on: MD-715 applicant flow data for PWTD
hires; "SEPMs: How You Can Conduct a 20-Minute Briefing/Brown-Bag Training on Disability Hiring Tools to
Hiring Managers." which included sources such as the WRP and the special hiring authorities.
Memorandum of Understanding Between the EPA and the Rochester Institute of Technology/National
Technical Institute
In FY17, the OHR supported Region 2 in establishing a MOU with the Rochester Institute of
Techno logy /National Technical Institute for the Deaf (RIT/NTID). The MOU with RIT/NTID was finalized and
signed in September 2017. This partnership lead to developing a workgroup that would manage implementation
of the MOU. Its purpose is to increase cooperation between the colleges and the EPA in areas of mutual interest,
including promoting equal opportunity in higher education, contributing to the college's capacity to provide high-
quality education, and encouraging the participation of the RIT/NTID colleges in the EPA programs. This MOU
also allows for RIT/NTID and the EPA to work closely together to increase awareness of career opportunities in
the Agency through paid and unpaid internships.
Memorandum of Understanding Between the EPA and Gallaudet University
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
112
-------
OHR supported the OEI in establishing an MOU with Gallaudet University. The MOU will increase cooperation
between Gallaudet and the EPA in areas of mutual interest, including promoting equal opportunity in higher
education, contributing to the college's capacity to provide high-quality education, and encouraging the
participation of the college in EPA programs. This MOU also allows for Gallaudet and the EPA to work closely
together to increase awareness of career opportunities in the Agency through paid and unpaid internships.
Memorandum of Understanding Between the EPA and the University of Massachusetts Boston
During the first quarter of FY17, EPA Region 1 signed a MOU with the University of Massachusetts Boston to
expand upon the existing relationship that increases awareness of potential employment and experiential
opportunities to students interested in enviromnental careers. This MOU also facilitates the EPA's ability to
recruit from a talented and diverse pool of students for future vacancies as they become available.
Strengthened Contract Procedures Associated with the Sign Language Interpreter Program
The EPA is committed to providing quality sign language interpreting services to its D/HH employees, job
applicants, and the general public attending EPA events. These services enable EPA employees to perform the
essential duties of their job and job applicants to have full access to EPA employment opportunities. EPA also
provides sign language interpretation services to enable the general public to engage in EPA-facilitated
informational and educational events. The Sign Language Interpretation Services Contract for EPA headquarters
is managed by the OHR. During FY17, OHR formed a working group to collaborate with the EPA OCR's
National Reasonable Accommodation Program and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) to develop procedures
to enable users of the EPA headquarters sign language interpretation services contract to identify personal
preferences when requesting services. The procedures:
• Ensure a consistent process for indicating personal preferences and receiving sign language
interpretation services; and
• Improve the ability for users of the contract to:
o Identify support requirements;
o Identify key behaviors, skills and knowledge that an interpreter must have to effectively support
communication;
o Identify Preferred Providers that they wish to work with;
o Provide feedback on their experience using the contract and the interpreters they work with; and
o Identify interpreters that they do not want to work with.
Before implementing the procedures, OHR conducted a pilot from September through December 2017 to gather
additional input from D/HH employees at EPA headquarters and to:
• Understand the impact of the draft procedures on the user community;
• Provide an opportunity for users of the contract to identify needed improvements;
• Identify any additional resources that are needed to support understanding and/or execution of the
procedures; and
• Determine a recommended roll-out strategy.
Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP)
During FY17, the EPA was granted and utilized its Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and offered
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP). As a result of VERAVSIP, the Agency lost 560 permanent
employees during FY17. Despite the loss of permanent employees and the decrease in recruiting activities across
the Agency, the total number of newly hired disabled veterans in FY17 in the EPA, including those who are 30%
or more disabled, represented approximately 16% (99) of all new hires (876).
At the end of FY17, the total number of disabled veterans who were 30% or more disabled in the EPA workforce
represented 2.5% (357) of the Agency's permanent workforce. At the end of FY17, the total number of all
disabled veterans in the EPA, including those who were 30% or more disabled, represented 3.7% (529) of the
Agency's permanent workforce.
With the creation and establishment in the OHR of a Veterans Employment Program in response to the Executive
Order. Increasing the Opportunities for Veterans to be Employed by the Federal Government. the EPA supports
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
113
-------
increasing the number of disabled veterans as a percentage of the new hires in its workforce. Recruitment
methods employed during FY17 included:
• Creating a fillable template flyer that advertises positions seeking 30% or more disabled veterans on
Facebook (Feds Hire Vets page) and through Twitter;
• Working jointly with internal and external stakeholders; including selective placement program staff
concerned with affirmative action for the disabled, the Veteran's Employee Service of the DOL, state
and local employment agencies, private veteran's assistance centers, outreach units from defense
organizations, and other federal agencies, to identify qualified applicants for vacant Agency positions;
• Working with the Veterans' Affairs Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program to explore on-
the-job training programs for disabled veterans and spouses;
• Leveraging skills banks and applicant pools;
• Hosting Federal career information panels and seminars;
• Using re-employment priority lists; and
• Using EPA databases and mailing lists that include veteran organizations.
Career development training is made available to all employees, including disabled veterans. These training
opportunities are available in person or online. Some have a fee associated with them, and some are made
available at no charge. Employees are encouraged to use the training to increase their knowledge of their current
positions and support them in career advancement. Additionally, courses related to finding federal employment,
resume writing and improving interviewing skills are available.
The Veterans Employment Program Officer within the OHR:
• Provided guidance and instructions to program and regional offices (local levels);
• Devoted adequate resources to the program;
• Informed local Agency officials of their program responsibilities;
• Coordinated with the OHR Director in reviewing and approving the annual accomplishments report for
timely submission to OPM, Human Resources Officers and Program Management Officers throughout
the Agency, where appropriate;
• Developed local recruiting program and plans based on guidelines and expectations set by the Agency's
Veteran's Employment Program Officer;
• Interpreted legislation, regulations, and policy pertinent to affirmative action and selective placement to
explain and support the use of competitive procedures and special appointing authorities to employ
qualified disabled veterans;
• Utilized both internal and external recruiting sources to increase hiring of disabled veterans;
• Ensured that vacancy announcements contained the required statements concerning veterans' preference,
the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, and reasonable accommodations as appropriate;
• Evaluated local progress in meeting goals and submitted appropriate reports to the Veteran Employment
Program Officer;
• Created awareness among all managers and supervisors of their affirmative action responsibilities under
the provisions of this program, and special appointing authorities available for use under this program;
and
• Appointed or designated, on a full-time or collateral basis, a Veterans Coordinator who:
1. Advocated hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified disabled veterans.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
114
-------
2. Responded to requests for information on the DVAAP Plan and related activities from the
Veterans Employment Program Officer and to requests from external customers.
Resurvey of the Workforce Campaign
The EPA is committed to be a model employer of individuals with disabilities. Accordingly, during August -
September 2017, OHR led an initiative to re-survey the EPA workforce and encouraged all employees to self-
identify or update their information using the OPM's revised Standard Form 25 6-Self Identification of Disability
through Employee Express, https://www.employeeexpress.gov/. OHR posted virtual flyers, banners, issued
reminders to supervisors and published articles in the EPA newsletter regarding this initiative.
EPA 2017 - 2021 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP)
The DISP was published to strengthen the management of the Agency's outreach diversity and inclusion efforts,
including development of a strategy to safeguard against unconscious bias in the hiring and selection process.
• Issued the EPA's 2017-2021 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan which serves to support and
facilitate education outreach and training on diversity and inclusion, was drafted and implemented.
o The DISP features numerous initiatives, including employing culture change strategies, such as the
New Inclusion Quotient (New IQ) initiative and diversity and inclusion dialogues that will be
implemented in support of the plan.
o The implementation of such initiatives is being tracked via an annual roadmap and implementation
plan.
o OHR worked with the DIAC to draft and implement the FY 17 Roadmap and Implementation Plan
in June 2017. The results were reported out during the September 28, 2017 DIAC meeting.
• OHR, in conjunction with the OCR, completed a Strategic Plan for Mitigating Bias in EPA by
September 30, 2017. The strategy includes:
o Employing culture change strategies, such as the New IQ initiative and diversity and inclusion
dialogues; and
o Providing training and education on cultural competency, implicit bias awareness, and inclusion
learning for all employees.
Free Seminar: "Interacting and Working with Individuals who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing"
On May 17, 2017, OHR sponsored a free presentation open to EPA headquarters employees titled: "Interacting
and Working with Individuals who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing." This presentation provided attendees with a
foundation for appropriate interactions with deaf people in the local community and workplace.
Affirmative Employment Accountability and Analysis
In FY17, the National Disability Program Manager worked with the EEO Officers and Program Management
Officers to provide guidance and information on their MD-715 action plans andMD-715 Part J submissions
related to PWD/PWTD data in their regions and program offices. This effort was undertaken to explore possible
attitudinal or institutional barriers that may contribute to the increased separations rates of PWTD.
Manager and Supervisor Awareness
Efforts to increase manager and supervisor awareness of individuals with disabilities included the following:
• Promoted Schedule A hiring by providing trainings to bring awareness to EPA hiring managers and
supervisors about hiring, converting and promoting more qualified employees with disabilities.
• Conducted Schedule A training curriculum to help EPA hiring managers and supervisors learn about the
hiring process and how employees hired on Schedule A may be converted to permanent status. Other
training provided throughout the year covered topics such as unconscious bias and attitudinal barriers,
stereotypical assumptions/thinking, and perceptions based on a person's appearance that may lead a
reviewer to question the ability of applicants with disabilities to perform the duties of the job.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
115
-------
• The National Disability Program Manager provided EPA-wide training to the SEPMs on the MD-715
applicant flow data on hires and separations of PWTD at the EPA.
Reasonable Accommodation Program
In FY17, the EPA finalized the design and functionality of the Reasonable Accommodation Management System
(RAMS), which will enable OCR to analyze disability related RA data, identify trends, and provide metrics in
real time. A template for travel-related RA requests was also developed to meet GSA requirements. The EPA
reinitiated the monthly reporting of RA numbers to AFGE consistent with the negotiated RA procedures. During
FY17, the Agency processed a total of 356 requests for a reasonable accommodation. The following is a
summary and analysis of these requests:
• A total of 307 of the 356 requests (or 86.2%) were processed and concluded in FY17:
o 253 of the 356 (or 71.1%) were approved;
o 4 of the 356 (or 1.1%) were denied;
o 32 of the 356 (or 9.0%) were withdrawn by the employee;
o 3 of the 356 (or 0.8%) were denied under RA but with some relief offered outside of the RA
process; and
o 15 of the 356 (or 4.2%) closed.
• A total of 49 of the 356 (or 13.8%) remain in pending status:
o 232 of the 356 (or 65.2%) were AFGE requests;
o 122 of the 356 (or 34.3%) were non-AFGE requests (other unions, management, non-bargaining
status);
o 5 of the 356 (or 1.4%) were requests from new employees; and
o 2 of the 356 (or 0.6%) were applicants.
• In addition to tracking the number of new requests received, the RA Program also began tracking
inquiries on existing RAs and other RA-related questions and actions (e.g., disability retirement,
affidavits, updating a new manager on an employee's RA in place, etc.) The National RA Program
received 527 inquiries inFY17.
• The RA Program delivered training to 185 participants, including OEI and OLEM management, OARM
employees and management, PMOs/HROs as well as our new/current Local Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinators.
• The Agency processed 343 of the 356 requests (or 96.3%) within the timeframes identified in both the
AFGE National Reasonable Accommodation Procedures (NRAP) and the EPA Reasonable
Accommodation Procedures. The Agency has attained the 90% or greater processing rate for the seventh
consecutive year in compliance with the requirements outlined in MD-715.
The AFGE NRAP requires the Agency to make a decision regarding an employee's request within 25 days of the
request, absent extenuating circumstance. The EPA RA Procedures require the Agency to make a decision
regarding an employee's request within 10 days of the request, also absent extenuating circumstance. If any
extenuating circumstance exists, both sets of procedures, as well as guidance from EEOC, allow for a reasonable
extension to the established timelines. Extenuating circumstances may include, but not limited to:
• Management Decision Maker (DM) requests and extension of the timeline;
• Employee requests an extension of the timeline;
• Employee and/or DM are unable to meet to discuss the request due to scheduling problems for one or
both;
• Employee is out on extended leave;
• Waiting for a response from the Department of Defense/Computer Electronic Accommodation Program
for approval/denial; and
• Waiting for medical information to be submitted by a health care professional.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
116
-------
The RA Program effectively manages and monitors the EPA partnership agreement with the Department of
Defense/Computer Electronic Accommodation Program to ensure that appropriate referrals are made.
Section 508
EPA's Section 508 Executive Council is comprised of senior leaders from across the Agency. The Executive
Council is responsible for guiding the Agency's Section 508 program as it strives to improve EPA's adherence to
Section 508 and implement the refreshed Section 508 information and communication technology (ICT)
standards. InFY17, the Executive Council met quarterly to provide leadership to the Section 508 program. The
Section 508 Program held two community forums to raise awareness and provide stakeholders information on
Section 508 issues, concerns and resolutions.
In FY17, the Section 508 program delivered 8 webinar-based trainings on five topics including; Introduction to
Section 508, Accessible Word documents, accessible websites. Accessible PDFs, and Accessible PowerPoint. A
new training course was also developed on how to conduct accessible meetings. All the Section 508 training
courses were recorded and are available on demand at: http://intranet.epa.gov/accessibility.
In FY17, the Section 508 program held two meetings with the Agency Section 508 Liaisons to provide training,
outreach and updates on the newly revised Section 508 standards and the requirements for complying with the
standards. Each program and regional office has a Section 508 Liaison to help EPA staff with Section 508
requirements and activities. Section 508 Liaisons support the Section 508 program and respond to questions and
issues for their respective offices.
The Section 508 intranet site was updated and expanded to include Quick Reference Guides and other resources
to help EPA staff meet Section 508 and accessibility requirements at: http://intranet.epa.gov/accessibility.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
117
-------
APPENDIX: EPA DATA TABLES
Table A-l
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table Al: TOTAL WORKFORCE - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Employment Tenure
TOTAL WORKFORCE
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanicor Latino
Non- Hispanicor
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All | Male | Female
Male 1 Female
Male Female
Male 1 Female
Male 1 Female
Male Female
Male 1 Female
Male Female
TOTAL
FY14
#
15905
7824
8081
457
543
5982
4805
733
2023
505
520
7
9
42
64
98
117
%
100%
49.19%
50.81%
2.87%
3.41%
37.61%
30.21%
4.61%
12.72%
3.18%
3.27%
0.04%
0.06%
0.26%
0.40%
0.62%
0.74%
FY15
#
15566
7642
7924
452
543
5820
4725
736
1973
530
544
8
11
71
83
25
45
%
100%
49.09%
50.91%
2.90%
3.49%
37.39%
30.35%
4.73%
12.68%
3.40%
3.49%
0.05%
0.07%
0.46%
0.53%
0.16%
0.29%
FY16
#
15742
7694
8048
467
557
5813
4798
770
1973
536
573
8
8
74
84
24
49
%
100%
48.88%
51.12%
2.97%
3.54%
36.93%
30.48%
4.89%
12.53%
3.40%
3.64%
0.05%
0.05%
0.47%
0.53%
0.15%
0.31%
FY17
#
15747
7693
8054
481
584
5787
4800
768
1936
543
575
9
9
74
88
26
51
%
100%
48.85%
51.15%
3.05%
3.71%
36.75%
30.48%
4.88%
12.29%
3.45%
3.65%
0.06%
0.06%
4.70%
5.60%
0.17%
3.20%
CLF 2010 {Benchmark)
%
100%
51.84%
48.16%
5.17%
4.79%
38.33%
34.03%
5.49%
6.53%
1.97%
1.93%
0.07%
0.07%
0.55%
0.53%
0.26%
0.28%
Org CLF
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Alternate Benchmark
%
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Difference
#
5
-1
6
14
27
-26
2
-2
-37
7
2
1
1
0
2
2
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-0.02%
0.02%
0.09%
0.17%
-0.18%
0.00%
-0.01%
-0.24%
0.04%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.03%
0.01%
0.01%
Net Change
%
0.03%
-0.01%
0.07%
3.00%
4.85%
-0.45%
0.04%
-0.26%
-1.88%
1.31%
0.35%
12.50%
12.50%
0.00%
4.76%
8.33%
4.08%
PERMANENT
FY14
#
14976
7224
7752
441
532
5479
4552
709
1988
460
494
6
8
37
63
92
115
%
100%
48.24%
51.76%
2.94%
3.55%
36.59%
30.40%
4.73%
13.27%
3.07%
3.30%
0.04%
0.05%
0.25%
0.42%
0.61%
0.77%
FY15
#
14620
7051
7569
441
531
5320
4461
710
1930
485
509
7
10
65
83
23
45
%
100%
48.23%
51.77%
3.02%
3.63%
36.39%
30.51%
4.86%
13.20%
3.32%
3.48%
0.05%
0.07%
0.44%
0.57%
0.16%
0.31%
FY16
#
14732
7070
7662
456
546
5289
4510
741
1932
485
529
7
8
69
83
22
49
%
100%
47.99%
52.01%
3.10%
3.71%
35.90%
30.61%
5.03%
13.11%
3.29%
3.59%
0.05%
0.05%
0.47%
0.56%
0.15%
0.33%
FY17
#
14869
7123
7746
467
576
5309
4558
745
1910
495
545
8
9
70
88
25
51
%
100%
47.91%
52.09%
3.14%
3.87%
35.71%
30.65%
5.01%
12.85%
3.33%
3.67%
0.05%
0.06%
0.47%
0.59%
0.17%
0.34%
CLF 2010 {Benchmark)
%
100%
51.84%
48.16%
5.17%
4.79%
38.33%
34.03%
5.49%
6.53%
1.97%
1.93%
0.07%
0.07%
0.55%
0.53%
0.26%
0.28%
Difference
#
137
53
84
11
30
20
48
-22
10
16
1
1
1
5
3
2
Ratio Change
%
0%
-0.09%
0.09%
0.05%
0.17%
-0.20%
0.04%
-0.02%
-0.27%
0.04%
0.07%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.03%
0.02%
0.01%
Net Change
%
0.93%
0.75%
1.10%
2.41%
5.49%
0.38%
1.06%
0.54%
-1.14%
2.06%
3.02%
14.29%
12.50%
1.45%
6.02%
13.64%
4.08%
TEMPORARY
FY14
#
929
600
329
16
11
503
253
24
35
45
26
1
1
5
1
6
2
%
100%
64.59%
35.41%
1.72%
1.18%
54.14%
27.23%
2.58%
3.77%
4.84%
2.80%
0.11%
0.11%
0.54%
0.11%
0.65%
0.22%
FY15
#
946
591
355
11
12
500
264
26
43
45
35
1
1
6
0
2
0
%
100%
62.47%
37.53%
1.16%
1.27%
52.85%
27.91%
2.75%
4.55%
4.76%
3.70%
0.11%
0.11%
0.63%
0%
0.21%
0%
FY16
#
1010
624
386
11
11
524
288
29
41
51
44
1
0
5
1
2
0
%
100%
61.78%
38.22%
1.09%
1.09%
51.88%
28.51%
2.87%
4.06%
5.05%
4.36%
0.10%
0%
0.50%
0.10%
0.20%
0%
FY17
#
878
570
308
14
8
478
242
23
26
48
30
1
0
4
0
1
0
%
100%
64.92%
35.08%
1.59%
0.91%
54.44%
27.56%
2.62%
2.%%
5.47%
3.42%
0.11%
0%
0.46%
0%
0.11%
0%
CLF 2010 {Benchmark)
%
100%
51.84%
48.16%
5.17%
4.79%
38.33%
34.03%
5.49%
6.53%
1.97%
1.93%
0.07%
0.07%
0.55%
0.53%
0.26%
0.28%
Difference
#
-132
-54
-78
3
-3
-46
-46
-6
-15
-3
-14
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
Ratio Change
%
0%
3.14%
-3.14%
0.51%
-0.18%
2.56%
-0.95%
-0.25%
-1.10%
0.42%
-0.94%
0.01%
0.00%
-0.04%
-0.10%
-0.08%
0.00%
Net Change
%
-13.07%
-8.65%
-20.21%
27.27%
-27.27%
-8.78%
-15.97%
-20.69%
-36.59%
-5.88%
-31.82%
0.00%
0%
-20.00%
-100.00%
-50.00%
0%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
Total, Permanent, and Temporary WORKFORCE Compared to CLF (p-values)
TOTAL WORKFORCE (p-values)
FY14toCLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.135
0.326
0.000
0.013
1.000
1.000
FY15 to CLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.241
0.592
0.060
0.551
0.006
0.623
FY16toCLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.230
0.230
0.094
0.554
0.003
0.796
FY17 to CLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.338
0.338
0.094
0.714
0.008
0.867
PERMANENT WORKFORCE (p-values)
FY14toCLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.102
0.281
0.000
0.033
1.000
1.000
FY15 to CLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.200
0.554
0.044
0.756
0.006
0.766
FY16toCLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.193
0.299
0.097
0.735
0.003
0.898
FY17 to CLF
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.289
0.408
0.103
0.863
0.013
0.933
TEMPORARY WORKFORCE (p-values)
FY14toCLF
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.974
0.861
0.861
0.597
0.043
0.988
0.518
FY15 to CLF
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
1.000
1.000
0.857
0.857
0.732
0.007
0.554
0.070
FY16toCLF
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.842
0.493
0.519
0.030
0.512
0.059
FY17 to CLF
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.999
0.873
0.541
0.471
0.009
0.334
0.085
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
118
-------
Table B-l
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B1 - Total Workforce - Distribution by Disability
Employment Tenure
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail forTargeted Disabilities
(04,05)
No
Disability
-1
Not
Identified
(06-98)
Disability
Targeted
Disability
(16,19)
Deafness
(21,23,25)
Blindness
(28,30,32-
38)
Missing
Limbs/
Extremities
(64-69)
Partial
Paralysis
(71-79)
Total
Paralysis
-82
Convulsive
Disorder/
Epilepsy
-90
Mental
Retardation
/Severe
Intellectual
Disability
-91
Mental
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
-92
Distortion
Limb-Spine/
Dwarfism
TOTAL WORKFORCE - Permanent and Temporary
FY14
#
15905
14491
292
1122
378
27
43
12
188
14
27
7
57
3
%
100%
91.11%
1.84%
7.05%
2.38%
0.17%
0.27%
0.08%
1.18%
0.09%
0.17%
0.04%
0.36%
0.02%
FY15
#
15566
14115
319
1132
364
28
43
11
172
14
29
6
59
2
%
100%
90.68%
2.05%
7.27%
2.34%
0.18%
0.28%
0.07%
1.10%
0.09%
0.19%
0.04%
0.38%
0.01%
FY16
#
15741
14168
401
1172
345
27
37
9
152
13
28
6
71
2
%
100%
90.01%
2.55%
7.45%
2.19%
0.17%
0.24%
0.06%
0.97%
0.08%
0.18%
0.04%
0.45%
0.01%
FY17
#
15747
14071
491
1185
303
23
35
8
121
7
27
4
76
2
%
100%
89.36%
3.12%
7.53%
1.92%
0.15%
0.22%
0.05%
0.77%
0.04%
0.17%
0.03%
0.48%
0.01%
Federal Goal
#
12.00%
2.00%
Difference
#
6
-97
90
13
-42
-4
-2
-1
-31
-6
-1
-2
5
0
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-0.65%
0.57%
0.08%
-0.27%
-0.03%
-0.01%
-0.01%
-0.20%
-0.04%
-0.01%
-0.01%
0.03%
0.00%
Net Change
%
0.04%
-0.68%
22.44%
1.11%
-12.17%
-14.81%
-5.41%
-11.11%
-20.39%
-46.15%
-3.57%
-33.33%
7.04%
0.00%
PERMANENT WORKFORCE
FY14
#
14976
13646
249
1081
372
26
43
12
185
14
26
7
56
3
%
100%
91.12%
1.66%
7.22%
2.48%
0.17%
0.29%
0.08%
1.24%
0.09%
0.17%
0.05%
0.37%
0.02%
FY15
#
14620
13262
267
1091
359
28
43
11
170
14
27
6
58
2
%
100%
90.71%
1.83%
7.46%
2.46%
0.19%
0.29%
0.08%
1.16%
0.10%
0.18%
0.04%
0.40%
0.01%
FY16
#
14722
13276
323
1123
338
26
37
9
151
13
26
6
68
2
%
100%
90.18%
2.19%
7.63%
2.30%
0.18%
0.25%
0.06%
1.03%
0.09%
0.18%
0.04%
0.46%
0.01%
FY17
#
14869
13325
408
1136
297
23
35
8
120
7
25
4
73
2
%
100%
89.62%
2.74%
7.64%
2.00%
0.15%
0.24%
0.05%
0.81%
0.05%
0.17%
0.03%
0.49%
0.01%
Federal Goal
#
12.00%
2.00%
Difference
#
147
49
85
13
-41
-3
-2
-1
-31
-6
-1
-2
5
0
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-0.56%
0.55%
0.01%
-0.30%
-0.02%
-0.02%
-0.01%
-0.22%
-0.04%
-0.01%
-0.01%
0.03%
0.00%
Net Change
%
1.00%
0.37%
26.32%
1.16%
-12.13%
-11.54%
-5.41%
-11.11%
-20.53%
-46.15%
-3.85%
-33.33%
7.35%
0.00%
TEMPORARY WORKFORCE
FY14
#
929
845
43
41
6
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
%
100%
90.96%
4.63%
4.41%
0.65%
0.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.32%
0.00%
0.11%
0.00%
0.11%
0.00%
FY15
#
946
853
52
41
5
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
%
100%
90.17%
5.50%
4.33%
0.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
0.11%
0.00%
FY16
#
1019
892
78
49
7
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
%
100%
87.54%
7.65%
4.81%
0.69%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.29%
0.00%
FY17
#
878
746
83
49
6
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
%
100%
84.97%
9.45%
5.58%
0.68%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.11%
0.00%
0.23%
0.00%
0.34%
0.00%
Federal Goal
#
12.00%
2.00%
Difference
#
-141
-146
5
0
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-2.57%
1.80%
0.77%
0.00%
-0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.05%
0.00%
Net Change
%
-13.84%
-16.37%
6.41%
0.00%
-14.29%
-100.00%
0%
0%
0.00%
0%
0.00%
0%
0.00%
0%
Source: Data mart
Download Date:
09/14/2017
TOTAL WORKFORCE - Permanent and Temporary Workforce Compared to Disability Goals(p-values)
FY14to Goal
0.000
1.000
FY15to Goal
0.000
0.999
FY16to Goal
0.000
0.958
FY17to Goal
0.000
0.259
PERMANENT WORKFORCE (p-values)
FY14to Goal
0.000
1.000
FY15to Goal
0.000
1.000
FY16to Goal
0.000
0.995
FY17to Goal
0.000
0.507
TEMPORARY WORKFORCE (p-values)
FY14to Goal
0.000
0.001
FY15to Goal
0.000
0.000
FY16to Goal
0.000
0.001
FY17to Goal
0.000
0.001
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
119
-------
Table A-2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A2 - Permanent Workforce By Component - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Region 02 New York, NY (SB)
#
781
392
389
61
75
272
207
23
56
34
46
0
2
2
2
0
1
%
100%
50.19%
49.81%
7.81%
9.60%
34.83%
26.50%
2.94%
7.17%
4.35%
5.89%
0.00%
0.26%
0.26%
0.26%
0.00%
0.13%
Region 01 Boston, MA (SB)
#
560
265
295
13
19
219
238
16
20
15
13
0
0
1
3
1
2
%
100%
47.32%
52.68%
2.32%
3.39%
39.11%
42.50%
2.86%
3.57%
2.68%
2.32%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
0.54%
0.18%
0.36%
Region 03 Philadelphia, PA (SB)
#
824
368
456
19
32
282
314
43
88
22
18
1
0
0
4
1
0
%
100%
44.66%
55.34%
2.31%
3.88%
34.22%
38.11%
5.22%
10.68%
2.67%
2.18%
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.49%
0.12%
0.00%
Region 04 Atlanta, GA (SB)
#
909
437
472
26
19
298
213
85
222
24
12
0
0
2
2
2
4
%
100%
48.07%
51.93%
2.86%
2.09%
32.78%
23.43%
9.35%
24.42%
2.64%
1.32%
0.00%
0.00%
0.22%
0.22%
0.22%
0.44%
Region 05 Chicago, IL (SB)
#
1067
502
565
28
38
389
307
48
174
34
35
0
0
2
6
1
5
%
100%
47.05%
52.95%
2.62%
3.56%
36.46%
28.77%
4.50%
16.31%
3.19%
3.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.19%
0.56%
0.09%
0.47%
Region 06 Dallas, TX (SB)
#
734
379
355
59
57
229
150
52
121
32
22
0
0
6
3
1
2
%
100%
51.63%
48.37%
8.04%
7.77%
31.20%
20.44%
7.08%
16.49%
4.36%
3.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.82%
0.41%
0.14%
0.27%
Region 07 Lenexa, KS (SB)
#
507
257
250
14
17
212
176
12
43
11
6
0
0
8
7
0
1
%
100%
50.69%
49.31%
2.76%
3.35%
41.81%
34.71%
2.37%
8.48%
2.17%
1.18%
0.00%
0.00%
1.58%
1.38%
0.00%
0.20%
Region 08 Denver, CO (SB)
#
516
248
268
26
28
196
201
11
19
13
16
2
0
0
2
0
2
%
100%
48.06%
51.94%
5.04%
5.43%
37.98%
38.95%
2.13%
3.68%
2.52%
3.10%
0.39%
0.00%
0.00%
0.39%
0.00%
0.39%
Region 09 San Francisco, CA (SB)
#
726
322
404
33
47
228
211
17
41
33
93
2
1
5
9
4
2
%
100%
44.35%
55.65%
4.55%
6.47%
31.40%
29.06%
2.34%
5.65%
4.55%
12.81%
0.28%
0.14%
0.69%
1.24%
0.55%
0.28%
Region 10 Seattle WA (SB)
#
540
234
306
14
19
180
230
9
13
23
32
1
2
5
7
2
3
%
100%
43.33%
56.67%
2.59%
3.52%
33.33%
42.59%
1.67%
2.41%
4.26%
5.93%
0.19%
0.37%
0.93%
1.30%
0.37%
0.56%
OFC INSPECTOR GENERAL (SB)
#
269
136
133
11
9
88
64
26
45
7
14
1
0
2
1
1
0
%
100%
50.56%
49.44%
4.09%
3.35%
32.71%
23.79%
9.67%
16.73%
2.60%
5.20%
0.37%
0.00%
0.74%
0.37%
0.37%
0.00%
OFFICE OF WATER (SB)
#
573
243
330
11
21
191
212
20
67
18
27
0
0
2
1
1
2
%
100%
42.41%
57.59%
1.92%
3.66%
33.33%
37.00%
3.49%
11.69%
3.14%
4.71%
0.00%
0.00%
0.35%
0.17%
0.17%
0.35%
OFC CHIEF FINCLOFCR (SB)
#
307
134
173
3
8
81
77
30
72
20
11
0
0
0
2
0
3
%
100%
43.65%
56.35%
0.98%
2.61%
26.38%
25.08%
9.77%
23.45%
6.51%
3.58%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.65%
0.00%
0.98%
OFC RESEARCH & DEVELOP (SB)
#
1561
849
712
22
29
716
516
37
101
60
51
0
0
13
12
1
3
%
100%
54.39%
45.61%
1.41%
1.86%
45.87%
33.06%
2.37%
6.47%
3.84%
3.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.83%
0.77%
0.06%
0.19%
OFC INTERNTNL&TRIB AF (SB)
#
75
31
44
4
8
20
20
3
13
3
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
%
100%
41.33%
58.67%
5.33%
10.67%
26.67%
26.67%
4.00%
17.33%
4.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.33%
0.00%
OFC OF GENERALCOUNSEL(SB)
#
226
99
127
3
7
78
79
8
29
10
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100%
43.81%
56.19%
1.33%
3.10%
34.51%
34.96%
3.54%
12.83%
4.42%
4.87%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.44%
0.00%
0.00%
OFC OF LAND& EMER MGMT(SB)
#
494
220
274
11
14
165
176
27
72
12
9
0
0
4
1
1
2
%
100%
44.53%
55.47%
2.23%
2.83%
33.40%
35.63%
5.47%
14.57%
2.43%
1.82%
0.00%
0.00%
0.81%
0.20%
0.20%
0.40%
OFC OF ENVIRNMTLINFO (SB)
#
337
166
171
12
10
111
66
34
81
5
10
1
1
1
1
2
2
%
100%
49.26%
50.74%
3.56%
2.97%
32.94%
19.58%
10.09%
24.04%
1.48%
2.97%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
0.59%
0.59%
OFC ENF & COMPLASSURAN (SB)
#
715
374
341
30
30
293
202
31
80
13
21
0
1
6
1
1
6
%
100%
52.31%
47.69%
4.20%
4.20%
40.98%
28.25%
4.34%
11.19%
1.82%
2.94%
0.00%
0.14%
0.84%
0.14%
0.14%
0.84%
OFC OF ADMINISTRATOR (SB)
#
333
132
201
8
9
89
89
30
91
5
9
0
0
0
2
0
1
%
100%
39.64%
60.36%
2.40%
2.70%
26.73%
26.73%
9.01%
27.33%
1.50%
2.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.60%
0.00%
0.30%
OFFICE OF CS AND PP (SB)
#
985
450
535
23
37
309
289
62
155
51
45
0
0
4
6
1
3
%
100%
45.69%
54.31%
2.34%
3.76%
31.37%
29.34%
6.29%
15.74%
5.18%
4.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.41%
0.61%
0.10%
0.30%
OFC ADMIN & RES MGMT(SB)
#
690
274
416
16
18
158
169
85
204
11
11
0
2
2
8
2
4
%
100%
39.71%
60.29%
2.32%
2.61%
22.90%
24.49%
12.32%
29.57%
1.59%
1.59%
0.00%
0.29%
0.29%
1.16%
0.29%
0.58%
OFC AIR AND RADIATION (SB)
#
1127
607
520
20
25
505
352
36
103
39
30
0
0
5
7
2
3
%
100%
53.86%
46.14%
1.77%
2.22%
44.81%
31.23%
3.19%
9.14%
3.46%
2.66%
0.00%
0.00%
0.44%
0.62%
0.18%
0.27%
Total
#
14856
7119
7737
467
576
5309
4558
745
1910
495
545
8
9
70
88
25
51
%
100%
47.92%
52.08%
3.14%
3.88%
35.74%
30.68%
5.01%
12.86%
3.33%
3.67%
0.05%
0.06%
0.47%
0.59%
0.17%
0.34%
2010 CLF
%
100%
51.86%
48.14%
5.17%
4.79%
38.33%
34.03%
5.49%
6.53%
1.97%
1.93%
0.07%
0.07%
0.55%
0.53%
0.26%
0.28%
Key: (D) Department; (B) Bureau; (SB) Sub Bureau; (ORG) Organization
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
Permanent Workforce by Component Compared to CLF (p-values)
Reg
on 02 New York, NY (SB)
0.185
0.834
0.999
1.000
0.024
0.000
0.001
0.789
1.000
1.000
0.579
0.982
0.197
0.218
0.131
0.357
Reg
on 01 Boston, MA (SB)
0.018
0.986
0.001
0.068
0.664
1.000
0.002
0.002
0.908
0.801
0.676
0.676
0.187
0.654
0.572
0.792
Reg
on 03 Philadelphia, PA (SB)
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.126
0.008
0.994
0.403
1.000
0.936
0.752
0.886
0.562
0.011
0.557
0.368
0.099
Reg
on 04 Atlanta, GA (SB)
0.012
0.990
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.937
0.107
0.529
0.529
0.124
0.140
0.579
0.885
Reg
on 05 Chicago, IL (SB)
0.001
0.999
0.000
0.031
0.110
0.000
0.085
1.000
0.997
0.999
0.474
0.474
0.068
0.662
0.235
0.918
Reg
on 06 Dallas, TX (SB)
0.466
0.563
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.972
1.000
1.000
0.982
0.598
0.598
0.886
0.455
0.431
0.662
Reg
on 07 Lenexa, KS (SB)
0.315
0.716
0.006
0.074
0.951
0.647
0.000
0.965
0.699
0.142
0.701
0.701
0.998
0.994
0.267
0.585
Reg
on 08 Denver, CO (SB)
0.046
0.962
0.498
0.786
0.455
0.991
0.000
0.003
0.854
0.975
0.994
0.697
0.058
0.485
0.261
0.823
Reg
on 09 San Francisco, CA (SB)
0.000
1.000
0.254
0.983
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.189
1.000
1.000
0.985
0.907
0.787
0.994
0.957
0.668
Reg
on 10 Seattle WA (SB)
0.000
1.000
0.002
0.096
0.009
1.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.944
0.993
0.920
0.991
0.833
0.933
OFC INSPECTOR GENERAL (SB)
0.357
0.688
0.261
0.167
0.033
0.000
0.998
1.000
0.836
1.000
0.984
0.828
0.814
0.583
0.845
0.470
OFFICE OF WATER (SB)
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.120
0.007
0.938
0.017
1.000
0.979
1.000
0.669
0.669
0.389
0.193
0.561
0.782
OFC CHI EF FINCLOFCR (SB)
0.002
0.998
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.999
1.000
1.000
0.983
0.807
0.807
0.184
0.777
0.450
0.989
OFC RESEARCH & DEVELOP (SB)
0.979
0.024
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.216
0.000
0.488
1.000
1.000
0.335
0.335
0.946
0.923
0.087
0.364
OFC INTERNTNL&TRIB AF (SB)
0.044
0.974
0.653
0.990
0.023
0.109
0.405
1.000
0.939
0.943
0.949
0.949
0.661
0.671
0.983
0.810
OFC OF GENERALCOUNSEL(SB)
0.009
0.994
0.002
0.148
0.133
0.644
0.123
1.000
0.994
0.998
0.854
0.854
0.288
0.663
0.555
0.531
OFC OF LAND & EMER MGMT(SB)
0.001
1.000
0.001
0.021
0.013
0.788
0.541
1.000
0.818
0.517
0.708
0.708
0.861
0.263
0.632
0.838
OFC OF ENVIRNMTLINFO (SB)
0.184
0.844
0.109
0.068
0.023
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.347
0.935
0.976
0.976
0.446
0.466
0.941
0.930
OFC ENF & COMPLASSURAN (SB)
0.609
0.420
0.136
0.261
0.932
0.001
0.098
1.000
0.454
0.976
0.606
0.910
0.897
0.108
0.445
0.996
OFC OF ADMINISTRATOR (SB)
0.000
1.000
0.010
0.041
0.000
0.003
0.997
1.000
0.358
0.886
0.792
0.792
0.159
0.740
0.420
0.761
OFFICE OF CS AND PP (SB)
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.070
0.000
0.001
0.879
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.502
0.502
0.370
0.730
0.275
0.701
OFC ADMIN & RES MGMT(SB)
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.293
0.320
0.617
0.987
0.269
0.987
0.732
0.954
OFC AIR AND RADIATION (SB)
0.915
0.094
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.025
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.966
0.454
0.454
0.414
0.748
0.439
0.612
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
120
-------
Table B-2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1,2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B2- Permanent Workforce By Component - Distribution by Disability
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENT
TOTAL
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
No
Disability
-1
Not
Identified
(06-98)
Disability
Targeted
Disability
(16,19)
Deafness
(21,23,25)
Blindness
(28,30,32-38)
Missing
Limbs/ Extremities
(64-69)
Partial
Paralysis
(71-79)
Total
Paralysis
-82
Convulsive
Disorder/
Epilepsy
-90
Mental
Retardation/
Severe
Intellectual
Disability
-91
Mental
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
-92
Distortion
Limb-
Spine/
Dwarfism
Federal Goal
%
12.00%
2.00%
Region 02 New York, NY (SB)
#
781
714
15
52
17
4
3
0
7
0
1
0
2
0
%
100%
91.42%
1.92%
6.66%
2.18%
0.51%
0.38%
0.00%
0.90%
0.00%
0.13%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
Region 01 Boston, MA (SB)
#
557
508
12
37
9
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
3
1
%
100%
91.20%
2.15%
6.64%
1.62%
0.18%
0.36%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.54%
0.18%
Region 03 Philadelphia, PA (SB)
#
824
742
27
55
16
1
1
1
8
0
1
0
4
0
%
100%
90.05%
3.28%
6.67%
1.94%
0.12%
0.12%
0.12%
0.97%
0.00%
0.12%
0.00%
0.49%
0.00%
Region 04 Atlanta, GA (SB)
#
907
813
14
80
14
0
2
1
4
0
2
0
5
0
%
100%
89.64%
1.54%
8.82%
1.54%
0.00%
0.22%
0.11%
0.44%
0.00%
0.22%
0.00%
0.55%
0.00%
Region 05 Chicago, IL (SB)
#
1064
960
22
82
29
0
4
1
7
1
3
1
11
1
%
100%
90.23%
2.07%
7.71%
2.73%
0.00%
0.38%
0.09%
0.66%
0.09%
0.28%
0.09%
1.03%
0.09%
Region 06 Dallas, TX (SB)
#
733
644
12
77
12
2
2
0
4
0
1
0
3
0
%
100%
87.86%
1.64%
10.50%
1.64%
0.27%
0.27%
0.00%
0.55%
0.00%
0.14%
0.00%
0.41%
0.00%
Region 07 Lenexa, KS (SB)
#
507
429
20
58
18
5
0
0
4
2
1
1
5
0
%
100%
84.62%
3.94%
11.44%
3.55%
0.99%
0.00%
0.00%
0.79%
0.39%
0.20%
0.20%
0.99%
0.00%
Region 08 Denver, CO (SB)
#
515
455
15
45
16
0
2
0
7
0
1
0
6
0
%
100%
88.35%
2.91%
8.74%
3.11%
0.00%
0.39%
0.00%
1.36%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
1.17%
0.00%
Region 09 San Francisco, CA (SB)
#
726
661
12
53
8
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
4
0
%
100%
91.05%
1.65%
7.30%
1.10%
0.00%
0.14%
0.14%
0.14%
0.00%
0.14%
0.00%
0.55%
0.00%
Region 10 Seattle WA (SB)
#
538
491
12
35
10
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
1
0
%
100%
91.26%
2.23%
6.51%
1.86%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.49%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
OFC INSPECTOR GENERAL (SB)
#
269
244
5
20
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
90.71%
1.86%
7.43%
1.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
OFFICE OF WATER (SB)
#
573
525
18
30
13
1
1
0
2
0
3
0
6
0
%
100%
91.62%
3.14%
5.24%
2.27%
0.17%
0.17%
0.00%
0.35%
0.00%
0.52%
0.00%
1.05%
0.00%
OFC CHIEF FINCLOFCR (SB)
#
306
275
10
21
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
%
100%
89.87%
3.27%
6.86%
1.31%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.98%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.33%
0.00%
OFC RESEARCH & DEVELOP (SB)
#
1557
1410
47
100
36
1
8
1
19
0
2
1
4
0
%
100%
90.56%
3.02%
6.42%
2.31%
0.06%
0.51%
0.06%
1.22%
0.00%
0.13%
0.06%
0.26%
0.00%
OFC INTERNTNL &TRIB AF (SB)
#
75
67
2
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
%
100%
89.33%
2.67%
8.00%
2.67%
1.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
OFC OF GENERAL COUNSEL (SB)
#
227
205
6
16
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
90.31%
2.64%
7.05%
0.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
OFC OF LAND & EMER MGMT (SB)
#
495
453
11
31
10
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
2
0
%
100%
91.52%
2.22%
6.26%
2.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
1.01%
0.00%
0.40%
0.00%
0.40%
0.00%
OFC OF ENVIRNMTL INFO (SB)
#
337
277
16
44
10
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
4
0
%
100%
82.20%
4.75%
13.06%
2.97%
0.30%
0.59%
0.00%
0.30%
0.00%
0.59%
0.00%
1.19%
0.00%
OFC ENF& COMPLASSURAN (SB)
#
716
668
18
30
11
1
3
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
%
100%
93.30%
2.51%
4.19%
1.54%
0.14%
0.42%
0.00%
0.70%
0.00%
0.14%
0.00%
0.14%
0.00%
OFC OF ADMINISTRATOR (SB)
#
334
292
9
33
11
1
1
1
4
1
1
0
2
0
%
100%
87.43%
2.69%
9.88%
3.29%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
1.20%
0.30%
0.30%
0.00%
0.60%
0.00%
OFFICE OF CS AND PP (SB)
#
981
863
40
78
24
3
1
1
13
1
0
0
5
0
%
100%
87.97%
4.08%
7.95%
2.45%
0.31%
0.10%
0.10%
1.33%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.51%
0.00%
OFC ADMIN & RES MGMT (SB)
#
685
564
43
78
10
1
1
0
5
0
1
0
2
0
%
100%
82.34%
6.28%
11.39%
1.46%
0.15%
0.15%
0.00%
0.73%
0.00%
0.15%
0.00%
0.29%
0.00%
OFC AIR AND RADIATION (SB)
#
1120
1023
25
72
11
0
1
0
8
0
0
1
1
0
%
100%
91.34%
2.23%
6.43%
0.98%
0.00%
0.09%
0.00%
0.71%
0.00%
0.00%
0.09%
0.09%
0.00%
Total
#
14827
13283
411
1133
295
23
35
8
120
6
25
4
72
2
%
100%
89.59%
2.77%
7.64%
1.99%
0.16%
0.24%
0.05%
0.81%
0.04%
0.17%
0.03%
0.49%
0.01%
Source: Datamart KEY:
Download Date: 09/14/2017 (D) Department (SB) Sub Bureau
(B) Bureau (ORG) Organization
Permanent Workforce by Component Compared to Disability Goals (p-values)
Region 02 New York, NY (SB)
0.000
0.696
Region 01 Boston, MA (SB)
0.000
0.323
Region 03 Philadelphia, PA (SB)
0.000
0.518
Region 04 Atlanta, GA (SB)
0.001
0.196
Region 05 Chicago, IL (SB)
0.000
0.959
Region 06 Dallas, TX (SB)
0.116
0.294
Region 07 Lenexa, KS (SB)
0.381
0.992
Region 08 Denver, CO (SB)
0.011
0.967
Region 09 San Francisco, CA (SB)
0.000
0.046
Region 10 Seattle WA (SB)
0.000
0.488
OFC INSPECTOR GENERAL (SB)
0.010
0.213
OFFICE OF WATER (SB)
0.000
0.739
OFC CHIEF FINCLOFCR (SB)
0.002
0.267
OFC RESEARCH & DEVELOP (SB)
0.000
0.835
OFC INTERNTNL &TRIB AF (SB)
0.189
0.810
OFC OF GENERAL COUNSEL (SB)
0.010
0.057
OFC OF LAN D & EMER MGMT (SB)
0.000
0.596
OFC OF ENVIRNMTL INFO (SB)
0.756
0.921
OFC ENF& COMPLASSURAN (SB)
0.000
0.231
OFC OF ADMINISTRATOR (SB)
0.133
0.961
OFFICE OF CS AND PP (SB)
0.000
0.866
OFC ADMIN & RES MGMT (SB)
0.336
0.194
OFC AIR AND RADIATION (SB)
0.000
0.006
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
121
-------
Table A-3
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A3-1 - Occupational Categories - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Occupational Categories
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanicor
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All | Male | Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male 1 Female
Male 1 Female
Male 1 Female
Male Female
Male Female
1. Officials and Managers
Executive/Senior Level (Grades 15 and
Above)
#
1362
752
610
45
34
609
435
59
104
30
31
1
0
8
4
0
2
%
100%
55.21%
44.79%
3.30%
2.50%
44.71%
31.94%
4.33%
7.64%
2.20%
2.28%
0.07%
0.00%
0.59%
0.29%
0.00%
0.15%
Mid-Level (Grades 13-14)
#
488
256
232
19
13
200
153
26
44
10
17
0
0
1
4
0
1
%
100%
52.46%
47.54%
3.89%
2.66%
40.98%
31.35%
5.33%
9.02%
2.05%
3.48%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
0.82%
0.00%
0.20%
First-Level (Grades 12 and Below)
#
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Other
#
2796
891
1905
56
122
559
782
201
879
55
84
1
2
9
18
10
18
%
100%
31.87%
68.13%
2.00%
4.36%
19.99%
27.97%
7.19%
31.44%
1.97%
3.00%
0.04%
0.07%
0.32%
0.64%
0.36%
0.64%
Officials And Managers - TOTAL
#
4647
1899
2748
120
169
1368
1371
286
1027
95
132
2
2
18
26
10
21
%
100%
40.87%
59.13%
2.58%
3.64%
29.44%
29.50%
6.15%
22.10%
2.04%
2.84%
0.04%
0.04%
0.39%
0.56%
0.22%
0.45%
2. Professionals
#
9444
4927
4517
329
353
3735
3006
413
681
386
395
5
5
46
53
13
24
%
100%
52.17%
47.83%
3.48%
3.74%
39.55%
31.83%
4.37%
7.21%
4.09%
4.18%
0.05%
0.05%
0.49%
0.56%
0.14%
0.25%
3. Technicians
#
118
68
50
1
6
54
33
7
7
4
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
%
100%
57.63%
42.37%
0.85%
5.08%
45.76%
27.97%
5.93%
5.93%
3.39%
1.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.85%
1.69%
0.85%
0.00%
4. Sales Workers
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5. Administrative Support Workers
#
419
63
356
6
40
32
107
21
182
4
14
0
1
0
7
0
5
%
100%
15.04%
84.96%
1.43%
9.55%
7.64%
25.54%
5.01%
43.44%
0.95%
3.34%
0.00%
0.24%
0.00%
1.67%
0.00%
1.19%
6. Craft Workers
#
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7. Operatives
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8. Laborers and Helpers
#
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9. Service Workers
#
192
144
48
10
4
108
37
13
3
6
2
1
1
5
0
1
1
%
100%
75.00%
25.00%
5.21%
2.08%
56.25%
19.27%
6.77%
1.56%
3.13%
1.04%
0.52%
0.52%
2.60%
0.00%
0.52%
0.52%
TOTAL WORKFORCE (benchmark)
#
14810
7088
7722
466
575
5283
4550
741
1907
495
542
8
9
70
88
25
51
%
100%
47.86%
52.14%
3.15%
3.88%
35.67%
30.72%
5.00%
12.88%
3.34%
3.66%
0.05%
0.06%
0.47%
0.59%
0.17%
0.34%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
Occupational Categories compared to EPA Workforce (p-values)
1. Officials and Managers
Executive/Senior Level (Grades 15 and
1.000
0.000
0.667
0.003
1.000
0.842
0.140
0.000
0.009
0.002
0.832
0.437
0.799
0.094
0.100
0.153
Mid-Level (Grades 13-14)
0.981
0.023
0.858
0.096
0.993
0.639
0.676
0.005
0.064
0.480
0.768
0.743
0.329
0.832
0.438
0.499
First-Level (Grades 12 and Below)
0.521
1.000
0.969
0.961
0.643
1.000
0.950
0.871
0.967
0.963
0.999
0.999
0.995
0.994
0.998
0.997
Other
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.912
0.000
0.001
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.033
0.554
0.757
0.151
0.690
0.991
0.995
Officials And Managers - TOTAL
0.000
1.000
0.013
0.204
0.000
0.037
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.001
0.541
0.464
0.234
0.428
0.831
0.911
2. Professionals
1.000
0.000
0.970
0.243
1.000
0.990
0.002
0.000
1.000
0.996
0.598
0.488
0.619
0.370
0.279
0.074
3. Technicians
0.987
0.021
0.111
0.824
0.991
0.295
0.761
0.011
0.640
0.190
0.938
0.931
0.892
0.966
0.983
0.666
4. Sales Workers
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
5. Administrative Support Workers
0.000
1.000
0.022
1.000
0.000
0.011
0.561
1.000
0.002
0.429
0.797
0.973
0.137
0.996
0.493
0.996
6. Craft Workers
1.000
0.479
0.969
0.961
1.000
0.693
0.950
0.871
0.967
0.963
0.999
0.999
0.995
0.994
0.998
0.997
7. Operatives
1.000
0.229
0.938
0.924
0.414
0.480
1.000
0.759
0.934
0.928
0.999
0.999
0.991
0.988
0.997
0.993
8. Laborers and Helpers
1.000
0.479
0.969
0.961
0.643
0.693
1.000
0.871
0.967
0.963
0.999
0.999
0.995
0.994
0.998
0.997
9. Service Workers
1.000
0.000
0.958
0.130
1.000
0.000
0.897
0.000
0.538
0.027
0.995
0.994
1.000
0.318
0.958
0.858
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
122
-------
Table B-3
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1
2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B3-1 - Occupational Categories -
Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-
38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Occupational Category
TOTAL
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Me ntal
Me ntal
Distortion
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Retardation/
Severe
Intellectual
Disability
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Limb-
Spine/
Dwarfism
1. Officials and Managers
Executive/Senior Level (Grades 15and
#
1363
1264
34
65
10
0
4
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
Above)
%
100%
92.74%
2.49%
4.77%
0.73%
0.00%
0.29%
0.00%
0.29%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
#
489
468
4
17
5
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
Mid-Level (Grades 13-14)
%
100%
95.71%
0.82%
3.48%
1.02%
0.00%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
#
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
First-Level (Grades 12 and Below)
%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
2801
2401
99
301
83
6
10
2
34
3
7
0
20
1
Other
%
100%
85.72%
3.53%
10.75%
2.96%
0.21%
0.36%
0.07%
1.21%
0.11%
0.25%
0.00%
0.71%
0.04%
#
4654
4134
137
383
98
6
15
3
39
3
9
0
22
1
Officials And Managers-TOTAL
%
100%
88.83%
2.94%
8.23%
2.11%
0.13%
0.32%
0.06%
0.84%
0.06%
0.19%
0.00%
0.47%
0.02%
#
9449
8555
249
645
159
10
15
4
71
4
10
1
43
1
2, Professionals
%
100%
90.54%
2.64%
6.83%
1.68%
0.11%
0.16%
0.04%
0.75%
0.04%
0.11%
0.01%
0.46%
0.01%
#
118
100
4
14
4
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
3, Technicians
%
100%
84.75%
3.39%
11.86%
3.39%
0.85%
0.00%
0.00%
1.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.85%
0.00%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. Sales Workers
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
419
326
14
79
33
6
5
1
6
0
5
3
7
0
5. Administrative Support Workers
%
100%
77.80%
3.34%
18.85%
7.88%
1.43%
1.19%
0.24%
1.43%
0.00%
1.19%
0.72%
1.67%
0.00%
#
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6. Craft Workers
%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7. Operatives
%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8. Laborers and Helpers
%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
193
183
4
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
9. Service Workers
%
100%
94.82%
2.07%
3.11%
0.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Federal Goal
#
12.00%
2.00%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Souce: B3-1
Download Date: 09/14/2017
Permanent Workforce by Occupational Categories Compared to Disability Goals (p-values)
1. Officials and Managers
Executive/Senior Level (Grades 15and
0.000
0.000
Mid-Level (Grades 13-14)
0.000
0.074
First-Level (Grades 12 and Below)
0.880
0.980
Other
0.021
1.000
Officials And Managers-TOTAL
0.000
0.719
2, Professionals
0.000
0.013
3, Technicians
0.553
0.911
4. Sales Workers
1.000
1.000
5. Administrative Support Workers
1.000
1.000
6. Craft Workers
0.880
0.980
7. Operatives
0.774
0.960
8. Laborers and Helpers
1.000
1.000
9. Service Workers
0.000
0.100
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
123
-------
Table A4-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
GS/GM, SESAND
RELATED GRADES
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
GS-01
#
7
4
3
0
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
57.14%
42.86%
0.00%
28.57%
14.29%
14.29%
28.57%
0.00%
14.29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-02
#
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
SO.00%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
SO.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-03
#
4
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100%
33.33%
66.67%
0.00%
16.67%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
16.67%
16.67%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-04
#
55
26
29
1
2
22
18
3
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
%
100%
47.27%
52.73%
1.82%
3.64%
40.00%
32.73%
5.45%
1.21%
0.00%
5.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.64%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-05
#
40
19
21
0
3
13
5
5
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
47.50%
52.50%
0.00%
7.50%
32.50%
12.50%
12.50%
32.50%
2.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-06
#
21
14
2
3
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
33.33%
66.67%
9.52%
14.29%
19.05%
19.05%
0.00%
33.33%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-07
#
264
76
188
9
20
50
91
14
65
2
8
0
0
1
1
0
3
%
100%
28.79%
71.21%
3.41%
7.58%
18.94%
34.47%
5.30%
24.62%
0.76%
3.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.38%
0.38%
0.00%
1.14%
GS-08
#
104
7
97
0
12
5
26
2
51
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
4
%
100%
6.73%
93.27%
0.00%
11.54%
4.81%
25.00%
1.92%
49.04%
0.00%
2.88%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.96%
0.00%
3.85%
GS-09
#
530
172
358
20
39
110
182
24
99
15
27
0
2
1
8
2
1
%
100%
32.45%
67.55%
3.11%
7.36%
20.75%
34.34%
4.53%
18.68%
2.83%
5.09%
0.00%
0.38%
0.19%
1.51%
0.38%
0.19%
GS-10
#
57
26
31
0
20
20
7
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
%
100%
45.61%
54.39%
0.00%
0.00%
35.09%
35.09%
1.02%
12.28%
1.75%
3.51%
0.00%
0.00%
1.75%
3.51%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-11
#
598
235
363
14
26
156
179
36
127
23
23
1
1
3
2
5
%
100%
39.30%
60.70%
2.34%
4.35%
26.09%
29.93%
6.02%
21.24%
3.85%
3.85%
0.17%
0.17%
0.50%
0.33%
0.33%
0.84%
GS-12
#
1867
712
1155
48
103
464
562
126
377
66
87
1
3
6
16
1
7
%
100%
38.14%
61.86%
2.57%
5.52%
24.85%
30.10%
6.75%
20.19%
3.54%
4.66%
0.05%
0.16%
0.32%
0.86%
0.05%
0.37%
GS-13
#
6023
3041
2982
219
234
2192
1743
330
721
244
235
1
1
39
29
16
19
%
100%
50.49%
49.51%
3.64%
3.89%
36.39%
28.94%
5.48%
11.97%
4.05%
3.90%
0.02%
0.02%
0.65%
0.48%
0.27%
0.32%
GS-14
#
2692
1364
1328
83
71
1084
881
110
260
75
91
3
1
8
18
1
6
%
100%
50.67%
49.33%
3.08%
2.64%
40.27%
32.73%
4.09%
9.66%
2.79%
3.38%
0.11%
0.04%
0.30%
0.67%
0.04%
0.22%
GS-15
#
2235
1217
1018
62
52
1012
737
70
157
58
58
2
1
10
7
3
6
%
100%
54.45%
45.55%
2.77%
2.33%
45.28%
32.98%
3.13%
7.02%
2.60%
2.60%
0.09%
0.04%
0.45%
0.31%
0.13%
0.27%
All other (unspecified)
#
42
29
13
0
1
26
10
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
69.05%
30.95%
0.00%
2.38%
61.90%
23.81%
0.00%
0.00%
7.14%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Senior Executive
Service
#
265
149
116
8
6
123
91
13
16
4
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
%
100%
56.23%
43.77%
3.02%
2.26%
46.42%
34.34%
4.91%
6.04%
1.51%
0.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.38%
0.38%
0.00%
0.00%
TOTAL WORKFORCE
(benchmark)
#
14810
7088
7722
466
575
5283
4550
741
1907
495
542
8
9
70
88
25
51
%
100%
47.86%
52.14%
3.15%
3.88%
35.67%
30.72%
5.00%
12.88%
3.34%
3.66%
0.05%
0.06%
0.47%
0.59%
0.17%
0.34%
Download Date: 09/14/2017
Participation Rates by GS Grade compared to EPA Workforce (p-values)
GS-01
0.807
0.453
0.799
0.998
0.223
0.314
0.996
0.381
0.979
0.770
0.996
0.996
0.967
0.959
0.988
0.976
GS-02
0.521
0.479
0.969
0.961
0.643
0.693
0.950
0.871
0.967
0.963
0.999
0.999
0.995
0.994
0.998
0.997
GS-03
0.385
0.869
0.825
0.980
0.307
0.111
0.735
0.825
0.985
0.982
0.997
0.996
0.972
0.999
0.990
0.980
GS-04
0.520
0.587
0.480
0.639
0.793
0.685
0.704
0.147
0.154
0.858
0.971
0.967
0.771
0.996
0.911
0.827
GS-05
0.546
0.580
0.278
0.931
0.406
0.007
0.986
1.000
0.612
0.225
0.979
0.976
0.827
0.788
0.935
0.871
GS-06
0.132
0.941
0.973
0.992
0.082
0.179
0.340
0.997
0.845
0.457
0.989
0.987
0.905
0.882
0.965
0.930
GS-07
0.000
1.000
0.679
0.998
0.000
0.916
0.656
1.000
0.007
0.368
0.867
0.852
0.645
0.535
0.640
0.986
GS-08
0.000
1.000
0.036
1.000
0.000
0.122
0.103
1.000
0.029
0.469
0.945
0.939
0.611
0.873
0.839
1.000
GS-09
0.000
1.000
0.831
1.000
0.000
0.967
0.353
1.000
0.306
0.964
0.751
0.996
0.286
0.995
0.938
0.455
GS-10
0.419
0.681
0.162
0.105
0.524
0.806
0.844
0.545
0.428
0.653
0.970
0.966
0.970
0.995
0.908
0.821
GS-11
0.000
1.000
0.155
0.762
0.000
0.356
0.889
1.000
0.792
0.648
0.958
0.948
0.686
0.310
0.918
0.981
GS-12
0.000
1.000
0.084
1.000
0.000
0.290
1.000
1.000
0.706
0.989
0.733
0.972
0.223
0.941
0.177
0.683
GS-13
1.000
0.000
0.985
0.522
0.882
0.001
0.956
0.018
0.999
0.849
0.164
0.120
0.977
0.145
0.969
0.406
GS-14
0.998
0.002
0.454
0.000
1.000
0.988
0.014
0.000
0.057
0.238
0.940
0.513
0.113
0.743
0.059
0.183
GS-15
1.000
0.000
0.172
0.000
1.000
0.990
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.003
0.878
0.606
0.513
0.046
0.479
0.351
SES
0.997
0.004
0.545
0.108
1.000
0.909
0.544
0.000
0.057
0.003
0.867
0.851
0.644
0.533
0.639
0.401
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
124
-------
Table B4-1
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Retardation/
Severe
Illness/
Psychiatric
Limb-
Spine/
Occupational Category
Total
Intellectual
Disabilty
Dwarfism
#
7
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GS-01
%
100%
71.43%
28.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GS-02
%
100%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GS-03
%
100%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
55
47
1
7
6
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
GS-04
%
100%
85.45%
1.82%
12.73%
10.91%
0.00%
3.64%
0.00%
1.82%
0.00%
0.00%
3.64%
1.82%
0.00%
#
40
25
2
13
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
GS-05
%
100%
62.50%
5.00%
32.50%
15.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.50%
7.50%
0.00%
#
21
10
1
10
4
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
GS-06
%
100%
47.62%
4.76%
47.62%
19.05%
9.52%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
265
216
10
39
12
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
GS-07
%
100%
81.51%
3.77%
14.72%
4.53%
1.13%
1.13%
0.00%
0.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.89%
0.00%
#
104
80
2
22
9
0
0
1
2
0
4
0
2
0
GS-08
%
100%
76.92%
1.92%
21.15%
8.65%
0.00%
0.00%
0.96%
1.92%
0.00%
3.85%
0.00%
1.92%
0.00%
#
532
424
37
71
12
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
GS-09
%
100%
79.70%
6.95%
13.35%
2.26%
0.38%
0.19%
0.00%
0.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.13%
0.00%
#
57
48
2
7
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
GS-10
%
100%
84.21%
3.51%
12.28%
1.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
599
493
35
71
14
1
2
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
GS-11
%
100%
82.30%
5.84%
11.85%
2.34%
0.17%
0.33%
0.00%
0.83%
0.00%
0.17%
0.00%
0.83%
0.00%
#
1871
1590
76
205
56
4
10
2
21
2
4
1
12
0
GS-12
%
100%
84.98%
4.06%
10.96%
2.99%
0.21%
0.53%
0.11%
1.12%
0.11%
0.21%
0.05%
0.64%
0.00%
#
6024
5453
145
426
115
7
7
2
57
3
7
0
30
2
GS-13
%
100%
90.52%
2.41%
7.07%
1.91%
0.12%
0.12%
0.03%
0.95%
0.05%
0.12%
0.00%
0.50%
0.03%
#
2695
2527
46
122
31
1
2
2
13
2
4
0
7
0
GS-14
%
100%
93.77%
1.71%
4.53%
1.15%
0.04%
0.07%
0.07%
0.48%
0.07%
0.15%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
#
2236
2072
36
128
29
1
6
1
16
0
3
0
2
0
GS-15
%
100%
92.67%
1.61%
5.72%
1.30%
0.04%
0.27%
0.04%
0.72%
0.00%
0.13%
0.00%
0.09%
0.00%
#
42
39
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
All other (unspecified)
%
100.00%
92.86%
2.38%
4.76%
4.76%
0.00%
2.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Senior
Executive
#
265
242
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Service
%
100.00%
91.32%
4.15%
4.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
125
-------
Table A4-2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30,2017)
Table A4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
GS/GM, SES AND
RELATED GRADES
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
GS-01
#
7
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.05%
0.06%
0.04%
0.00%
0.35%
0.02%
0.02%
0.21%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-02
#
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.21%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-03
#
6
2
4
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
0.04%
0.03%
0.05%
0.00%
0.17%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
0.20%
0.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.14%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-04
#
55
26
29
2
22
18
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.37%
0.37%
0.38%
0.21%
0.35%
0.42%
0.40%
0.40%
0.21%
0.00%
0.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.21%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-05
#
40
19
21
3
13
5
5
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.00%
0.52%
0.25%
0.11%
0.67%
0.68%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-06
#
21
14
2
3
4
4
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.14%
0.10%
0.18%
0.43%
0.52%
0.08%
0.09%
0.00%
0.37%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-07
#
264
76
188
9
20
50
91
14
65
2
8
0
0
1
1
0
3
%
1.78%
1.07%
2.43%
1.93%
3.48%
0.95%
2.00%
1.89%
3.41%
0.40%
1.48%
0.00%
0.00%
1.43%
1.14%
0.00%
5.88%
GS-08
#
104
7
97
0
12
5
26
51
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
4
%
0.70%
0.10%
1.26%
0.00%
2.09%
0.09%
0.57%
0.21%
2.67%
0.00%
0.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.14%
0.00%
7.84%
GS-09
#
530
172
358
20
39
110
182
24
99
15
27
0
2
1
8
2
1
%
3.58%
2.43%
4.64%
4.29%
6.78%
2.08%
4.00%
3.24%
5.19%
3.03%
4.98%
0.00%
22.22%
1.43%
9.09%
8.00%
1.96%
GS-10
#
57
26
31
0
0
20
20
4
7
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
%
0.38%
0.37%
0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
0.38%
0.44%
0.54%
0.37%
0.20%
0.37%
0.00%
0.00%
1.43%
2.21%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-11
#
598
235
363
14
26
156
179
36
127
23
23
1
1
3
2
5
%
4.04%
3.32%
4.70%
3.00%
4.52%
2.95%
3.93%
4.86%
6.66%
4.65%
4.24%
12.50%
11.11%
4.29%
2.21%
8.00%
9.80%
GS-12
#
1867
712
1155
48
103
464
562
126
377
66
87
1
3
6
16
1
7
%
12.61%
10.05%
14.96%
10.30%
17.91%
8.78%
12.35%
17.00%
19.77%
13.33%
16.05%
12.50%
33.33%
8.57%
18.18%
4.00%
13.73%
GS-13
#
6023
3041
2982
219
234
2192
1743
330
721
244
235
1
1
39
29
16
19
%
40.67%
42.90%
38.62%
47.00%
40.70%
41.49%
38.31%
44.53%
37.81%
49.29%
43.36%
12.50%
11.11%
55.71%
32.95%
64.00%
37.25%
GS-14
#
2692
1364
1328
83
71
1084
881
110
260
75
91
3
1
8
18
1
6
%
18.18%
50.67%
49.33%
3.08%
2.64%
40.27%
32.73%
4.09%
9.66%
2.79%
3.38%
0.11%
0.04%
0.30%
0.67%
0.04%
0.22%
GS-15
#
2235
1217
1018
62
52
1012
737
70
157
58
58
2
1
10
7
3
6
%
15.09%
17.17%
13.18%
13.30%
9.04%
19.16%
16.20%
9.45%
8.23%
11.72%
10.70%
25.00%
11.11%
14.29%
7.95%
12.00%
11.76%
Senior Executive
Service
#
265
149
116
8
6
123
91
13
16
4
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
%
1.79%
2.10%
1.50%
1.72%
1.04%
2.33%
2.00%
1.75%
0.84%
0.81%
0.37%
0.00%
0.00%
1.43%
1.14%
0.00%
0.00%
All other (unspecified)
#
42
29
13
0
1
26
10
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
69.05%
30.95%
0.00%
2.38%
61.90%
23.81%
0.00%
0.00%
7.14%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
TOTAL WORKFORCE
#
14810
7088
7722
466
575
5283
4550
741
1907
495
542
8
9
70
88
25
51
%
100%
47.86%
52.14%
3.15%
3.88%
35.67%
30.72%
5.00%
12.88%
3.34%
3.66%
0.05%
0.06%
0.47%
0.59%
0.17%
0.34%
Participation Rates by GS Grade compared to EPA Workforce (p-values)
GS-01
0.807
0.453
0.799
0.998
0.223
0.314
0.996
0.381
0.979
0.770
0.996
0.996
0.967
0.959
0.988
0.976
GS-02
0.719
0.655
0.880
0.854
0.171
0.230
1.000
0.992
0.873
0.861
0.998
0.998
0.981
0.976
0.993
0.986
GS-03
0.385
0.869
0.825
0.980
0.307
0.111
0.735
0.825
0.985
0.982
0.997
0.996
0.972
0.999
0.990
0.980
GS-04
0.520
0.587
0.480
0.639
0.793
0.685
0.704
0.147
0.154
0.858
0.971
0.967
0.771
0.996
0.911
0.827
GS-05
0.546
0.580
0.278
0.931
0.406
0.007
0.986
1.000
0.612
0.225
0.979
0.976
0.827
0.788
0.935
0.871
GS-06
0.132
0.941
0.973
0.992
0.082
0.179
0.340
0.997
0.845
0.457
0.989
0.987
0.905
0.882
0.965
0.930
GS-07
0.000
1.000
0.679
0.998
0.000
0.916
0.656
1.000
0.007
0.368
0.867
0.852
0.645
0.535
0.640
0.986
GS-08
0.000
1.000
0.036
1.000
0.000
0.122
0.103
1.000
0.029
0.469
0.945
0.939
0.611
0.873
0.839
1.000
GS-09
0.000
1.000
0.831
1.000
0.000
0.967
0.353
1.000
0.306
0.964
0.751
0.996
0.286
0.995
0.938
0.455
GS-10
0.419
0.681
0.162
0.105
0.524
0.806
0.844
0.545
0.428
0.653
0.970
0.966
0.970
0.995
0.908
0.821
GS-11
0.000
1.000
0.155
0.762
0.000
0.356
0.889
1.000
0.792
0.648
0.958
0.948
0.686
0.310
0.918
0.981
GS-12
0.000
1.000
0.084
1.000
0.000
0.290
1.000
1.000
0.706
0.989
0.733
0.972
0.223
0.941
0.177
0.683
GS-13
1.000
0.000
0.985
0.522
0.882
0.001
0.956
0.018
0.999
0.849
0.164
0.120
0.977
0.145
0.969
0.406
GS-14
0.998
0.002
0.454
0.000
1.000
0.988
0.014
0.000
0.057
0.238
0.940
0.513
0.113
0.743
0.059
0.183
GS-15
1.000
0.000
0.172
0.000
1.000
0.990
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.003
0.878
0.606
0.513
0.046
0.479
0.351
SES
0.997
0.004
0.545
0.108
1.000
0.909
0.544
0.000
0.057
0.003
0.867
0.851
0.644
0.533
0.639
0.401
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
126
-------
Table B4-2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Occupational Category
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
No
Disability
-1
Not
Identified
(06-98)
Disability
Targeted
Disability
(16,19)
Deafness
(21,23,25)
Blindness
(28,30,32-38)
Missing
Limbs/
Extremities
(64-69)
Partial
Paralysis
(71-79)
Total
Paralysis
-82
Convulsive
Disorder/
Epilepsy
-90
Mental
Retardation/
Severe
Intellectual
Disability
-91
Mental
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
-92
Distortion
Limb-
Spine/
Dwarfism
GS-01
#
7
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.05%
0.04%
0.49%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-02
#
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.03%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-03
#
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.04%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-04
#
55
47
1
7
6
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
%
0.37%
0.35%
0.25%
0.62%
2.02%
0.00%
5.71%
0.00%
0.83%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
1.37%
0.00%
GS-05
#
40
25
2
13
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
%
0.27%
0.19%
0.49%
1.15%
2.02%
8.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
4.11%
0.00%
GS-06
#
21
10
1
10
4
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
%
0.14%
0.08%
0.25%
0.88%
1.35%
8.70%
2.86%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-07
#
265
216
10
39
12
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
%
1.79%
1.63%
2.46%
3.44%
4.04%
13.04%
8.57%
0.00%
0.83%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.85%
0.00%
GS-08
#
104
80
2
22
9
0
0
1
2
0
4
0
2
0
%
0.70%
0.60%
0.49%
1.94%
3.03%
0.00%
0.00%
12.50%
1.67%
0.00%
16.00%
0.00%
2.74%
0.00%
GS-09
#
532
424
37
71
12
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
%
3.59%
3.19%
9.09%
6.26%
4.04%
8.70%
2.86%
0.00%
2.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.22%
0.00%
GS-10
#
57
48
2
7
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.38%
0.36%
0.49%
0.62%
0.34%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.83%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-11
#
599
493
35
71
14
1
2
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
%
4.04%
3.71%
8.60%
6.26%
4.71%
4.35%
5.71%
0.00%
4.17%
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
6.85%
0.00%
GS-12
#
1871
1590
76
205
56
4
10
2
21
2
4
1
12
0
%
12.62%
11.97%
18.67%
18.06%
18.86%
17.39%
28.57%
25.00%
17.50%
28.57%
16.00%
25.00%
16.44%
0.00%
GS-13
#
6024
5453
145
426
115
7
7
2
57
3
7
0
30
2
%
40.64%
41.06%
35.63%
37.53%
38.72%
30.43%
20.00%
25.00%
47.50%
42.86%
28.00%
0.00%
41.10%
100.00%
GS-14
#
2695
2527
46
122
31
1
2
2
13
2
4
0
7
0
%
18.18%
19.03%
11.30%
10.75%
10.44%
4.35%
5.71%
25.00%
10.83%
28.57%
16.00%
0.00%
0
9.59%
2
0.00%
0
GS-15
#
2236
2072
36
128
29
1
6
1
16
0
3
%
15.08%
15.60%
8.85%
11.28%
9.76%
4.35%
17.14%
12.50%
13.33%
0.00%
12.00%
0.00%
0
2.74%
0
0.00%
0
SES
#
265
242
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
1.79%
1.82%
2.70%
1.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Federal Goals
12.00%
2.00%
All other (unspecified)
#
42
39
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
%
0.28%
0.29%
0.25%
0.18%
0.67%
0.00%
2.86%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
TOTAL
#
14823
13281
407
1135
297
23
35
8
120
7
25
4
73
2
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Source: Data mart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
Participation Rates by GS Grade compared to Disability Goals (p-values)
GS-01
0.409
0.868
GS-02
0.600
0.922
GS-03
0.464
0.886
GS-04
0.662
1.000
GS-05
1.000
1.000
GS-06
1.000
1.000
GS-07
0.924
0.997
GS-08
0.997
1.000
GS-09
0.847
0.729
GS-10
0.624
0.684
GS-11
0.487
0.776
GS-12
0.087
0.998
GS-13
0.000
0.328
GS-14
0.000
0.000
GS-15
0.000
0.008
SES
0.000
0.005
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
127
-------
Table A5-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A5-1- Participation Rates For Wage Grades by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
WD/WG, WL/WS & Other Wage Grades
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
Grade-01
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-02
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-03
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-04
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-05
#
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Grade-06
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-07
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-08
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-09
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-10
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-11
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-12
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-13
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-14
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Grade-15
#
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Al 1 Other Wage Grades
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Source: Data mart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
128
-------
Table B5-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30,2017)
Table B5-1 - Participation Rates For Wage Grades by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
WD/WG, WL/WS & Other Wage Grades
Total
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Retardation/
Illness/
Limb-
Extremities
Epilepsy
Severe
Intellectual
Disability
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Spine/
Dwarfism
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-01
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-02
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-03
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-04
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-05
%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-06
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-07
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-08
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-09
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-10
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-11
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-12
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-13
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-14
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade-15
%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ai i Other Wage Grades
%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Source: Data mart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
129
-------
Table A-6
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Job Title/Series Agency
Rate Occupational CLF
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
Environmental Protection Specialist
#
All
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
%
2187
868
1319
67
93
660
843
82
272
40
84
0
3
14
19
5
5
Occupational CLF
#
100%
39.69%
60.31%
3.06%
4.25%
30.18%
38.55%
3.75%
12.44%
1.83%
3.84%
0.00%
0.14%
0.64%
0.87%
0.23%
0.23%
General Administrative
#
100%
71.82%
28.18%
2.22%
1.34%
64.84%
23.87%
2.02%
1.58%
1.79%
1.03%
0.11%
0.01%
0.60%
0.31%
0.23%
0.05%
%
538
168
370
15
29
110
146
30
183
9
8
1
0
2
1
1
3
Occupational CLF
#
100%
31.23%
68.77%
2.79%
5.39%
20.45%
27.14%
5.58%
34.01%
1.67%
1.49%
0.19%
0.00%
0.37%
0.19%
0.19%
0.56%
Management Analysis
#
100%
36.71%
63.29%
2.86%
5.87%
27.06%
43.84%
3.60%
8.89%
2.57%
3.64%
0.03%
0.05%
0.33%
0.62%
0.26%
0.39%
%
1372
426
946
24
50
300
440
73
399
22
40
0
0
4
10
3
7
Occupational CLF
#
100%
31.05%
68.95%
1.75%
3.64%
21.87%
32.07%
5.32%
29.08%
1.60%
2.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.29%
0.73%
0.22%
0.51%
Biologist
#
100%
58.45%
41.55%
2.46%
2.14%
49.01%
32.56%
3.03%
3.80%
3.33%
2.46%
0.02%
0.04%
0.31%
0.32%
0.27%
0.24%
%
1102
524
578
21
34
435
437
30
53
34
44
0
0
4
7
0
3
Occupational CLF
#
100%
47.55%
52.45%
1.91%
3.09%
39.47%
39.66%
2.72%
4.81%
3.09%
3.99%
0.00%
0.00%
0.36%
0.64%
0.00%
0.27%
Environmental Engineering
#
100%
52.00%
48.00%
2.44%
2.17%
44.27%
39.49%
1.39%
1.59%
3.17%
4.15%
0.05%
0.05%
0.48%
0.35%
0.19%
0.20%
%
1641
1010
631
103
78
704
393
77
72
116
79
1
0
7
6
2
3
Occupational CLF
#
100%
61.55%
38.45%
6.28%
4.75%
42.90%
23.95%
4.69%
4.39%
7.07%
4.81%
0.06%
0.00%
0.43%
0.37%
0.12%
0.18%
Attorney
#
100%
75.77%
24.23%
2.92%
0.89%
62.81%
19.13%
4.27%
1.95%
4.98%
1.90%
0.01%
0.12%
0.55%
0.17%
0.23%
0.06%
%
1031
482
549
31
38
402
390
21
58
23
49
1
0
4
8
0
6
Occupational CLF
#
100%
46.75%
53.25%
3.01%
3.69%
38.99%
37.83%
2.04%
5.63%
2.23%
4.75%
0.10%
0.00%
0.39%
0.78%
0.00%
0.58%
General Physical Science
#
100%
66.70%
33.30%
2.52%
1.85%
59.68%
26.68%
2.13%
2.60%
1.82%
1.74%
0.02%
0.01%
0.31%
0.23%
0.22%
0.18%
%
2145
1221
924
76
67
998
680
58
90
74
74
0
0
14
10
1
3
Occupational CLF
#
100%
56.92%
43.08%
3.54%
3.12%
46.53%
31.70%
2.70%
4.20%
3.45%
3.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.65%
0.47%
0.05%
0.14%
100%
60.89%
39.11%
2.36%
1.92%
48.15%
27.82%
1.41%
2.21%
8.20%
6.74%
0.03%
0.00%
0.44%
0.18%
0.30%
0.24%
Source: Data mart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
130
-------
Table B-6
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Occupational Categorv
TOTAL
No
Disability
Not
Identified
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Limbs/
Extremities
Partial
Paralysis
Total
Paralysis
Convulsive
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Me ntal
Retardation/
Seve re
Intellectual
Disability
Mental
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Distortion
Limb-
Spine/
Dwarfism
#
2187
1977
47
163
40
2
8
2
13
1
4
0
9
1
Environmental Protection Specialist
%
100%
90.40%
2.15%
7.45%
1.83%
0.09%
0.37%
0.09%
0.59%
0.05%
0.18%
0.00%
0.41%
0.05%
#
539
470
15
54
11
0
2
0
3
1
1
0
4
0
General Administrative
%
100%
87.20%
2.78%
10.02%
2.04%
0.00%
0.37%
0.00%
0.56%
0.19%
0.19%
0.00%
0.74%
0.00%
#
1375
1217
31
127
45
5
4
2
20
1
4
0
8
1
Management Analysis
%
100%
88.51%
2.25%
9.24%
3.27%
0.36%
0.29%
0.15%
1.45%
0.07%
0.29%
0.00%
0.58%
0.07%
#
1102
991
45
66
10
1
3
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
Biologist
%
100%
89.93%
4.08%
5.99%
0.91%
0.09%
0.27%
0.00%
0.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
#
1641
1517
19
105
28
2
1
0
18
2
1
0
4
0
Environmental Engineering
%
100%
92.44%
1.16%
6.40%
1.71%
0.12%
0.06%
0.00%
1.10%
0.12%
0.06%
0.00%
0.24%
0.00%
#
1032
960
21
51
6
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
Attorney
%
100%
93.02%
2.03%
4.94%
0.58%
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
0.19%
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
2149
1982
49
118
28
1
3
1
11
0
4
0
8
0
General Physical Science
%
100%
92.23%
2.28%
5.49%
1.30%
0.05%
0.14%
0.05%
0.51%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.37%
0.00%
Source: Data mart
Download Date: 10/14/2017
Participation Rates for Major Occupation Categories (p-values)
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Occupational Category
TOTAL
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Me ntal
Mental
Distortion
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Retardation/
Seve re
Intellectual
Disability
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Limb-
Spine/
Dwarfism
#
0.00
0.32
Environmental Protection Specialist
%
#
0.09
0.61
General Administrative
%
#
0.00
1.00
Management Analysis
%
#
0.00
0.00
Biologist
%
#
0.00
0.23
Environmental Engineering
%
#
0.00
0.00
Attorney
%
#
0.00
0.01
General Physical Science
%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
131
-------
Table A-7
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A7: APPLICANTS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
FY17
TOTAL
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
Wiite
Black or African
American
Asian
Native
Haw aiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
American
hdian or
Alaska Native
Tw o or More Races
All I Male I Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Job Title/Series: 0028 Environmental Protection Specialist
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
831
445
386
62
63
255
199
66
82
41
25
3
4
9
9
9
4
%
100%
53.55%
46.45%
7.46%
7.58%
30.69%
23.95%
7.94%
9.87%
4.93%
3.01%
.36%
.48%
1.08%
1.08%
1.08%
.48%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
591
315
276
37
45
192
151
46
52
30
18
1
3
4
7
5
0
%
100%
53.30%
46.70%
6.26%
7.61%
32.49%
25.55%
7.78%
8.80%
5.08%
3.05%
.17%
.51%
.68%
1.18%
.85%
.00%
Selected of
those Identified
#
57
26
31
4
2
17
21
3
2
2
4
0
1
0
1
0
0
%
100%
45.61%
54.39%
7.02%
3.51%
29.82%
36.84%
5.26%
3.51%
3.51%
7.02%
.00%
1.75%
.00%
1.75%
.00%
.00%
CLF
sc Administ
71.82%
28.18%
2.22%
1.34%
64.84%
23.87%
2.02%
1.58%
1.79%
1.03%
.11%
.01%
.60%
.31%
.23%
.05%
Job Title/Series: 0301 Mi
ration and Program Specialist
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
1524
757
767
101
80
326
220
256
387
43
40
1
3
13
18
17
19
%
100%
49.67%
50.33%
6.63%
5.25%
21.39%
14.44%
16.80%
25.39%
2.82%
2.62%
.07%
.20%
.85%
1.18%
1.12%
1.25%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
653
359
294
46
24
168
103
108
126
24
23
0
1
8
7
5
10
%
100%
54.98%
45.02%
7.04%
3.68%
25.73%
15.77%
16.54%
19.30%
3.68%
3.52%
.00%
.15%
1.23%
1.07%
.77%
1.53%
Selected of
those Identified
#
20
8
12
1
2
5
2
2
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100%
40.00%
60.00%
5.00%
10.00%
25.00%
10.00%
10.00%
20.00%
.00%
15.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
5.00%
CLF
nagement/
36.71%
63.29%
2.86%
5.87%
27.06%
43.84%
3.60%
8.89%
2.57%
3.64%
.03%
.05%
.33%
.62%
.26%
.39%
Job Title/Series: 0343 Ma
'rogram Analyst
Total Received
#
2482
Voluntarily
Identified
#
1645
810
835
96
86
393
218
243
456
58
45
0
1
10
7
10
22
%
100%
49.24%
50.76%
5.84%
5.23%
23.89%
13.25%
14.77%
27.72%
3.53%
2.74%
.00%
.06%
.61%
.43%
.61%
1.34%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
699
346
353
40
31
180
99
92
196
23
19
0
0
7
1
4
7
%
100%
49.50%
50.50%
5.72%
4.43%
25.75%
14.16%
13.16%
28.04%
3.29%
2.72%
.00%
.00%
1.00%
.14%
.57%
1.00%
Selected of
those Identified
#
47
18
29
2
3
12
12
3
11
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
%
100%
38.30%
61.70%
4.26%
6.38%
25.53%
25.53%
6.38%
23.40%
2.13%
2.13%
.00%
.00%
.00%
2.13%
.00%
2.13%
CLF
neral Bioloc
58.45%
41.55%
2.46%
2.14%
49.01%
32.56%
3.03%
3.80%
3.33%
2.46%
.02%
.04%
.31%
.32%
.27%
.24%
Job Title/Series: 0401 Ge
ical Science (RESEARCH)
Total Received
#
2532
Voluntarily
Identified
#
1860
970
890
82
101
513
450
143
199
207
130
3
1
16
7
6
2
%
100%
52.15%
47.85%
4.41%
5.43%
27.58%
24.19%
7.69%
10.70%
11.13%
6.99%
.16%
.05%
.86%
.38%
.32%
.11%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
1537
768
769
61
92
401
381
123
173
169
115
3
1
9
5
2
2
%
100%
49.97%
50.03%
3.97%
5.99%
26.09%
24.79%
8.00%
11.26%
11.00%
7.48%
.20%
.07%
.59%
.33%
.13%
.13%
Selected of
those Identified
#
83
45
38
6
3
29
24
3
4
7
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100%
54.22%
45.78%
7.23%
3.61%
34.94%
28.92%
3.61%
4.82%
8.43%
7.23%
.00%
.00%
.00%
1.20%
.00%
.00%
CLF
52.01%
47.99%
2.44%
2.17%
44.27%
39.48%
1.39%
1.59%
3.17%
4.15%
.05%
.05%
.48%
.35%
.19%
.20%
Job Title/Series: 0819 Environmental Engineer
RESEARCH)
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
1373
811
562
77
54
516
372
108
62
91
66
3
0
10
6
6
2
%
100%
59.07%
40.93%
5.61%
3.93%
37.58%
27.09%
7.87%
4.52%
6.63%
4.81%
.22%
.00%
.73%
.44%
.44%
.15%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
1093
624
469
66
42
404
318
68
48
72
54
3
0
6
5
5
2
%
100%
57.09%
42.91%
6.04%
3.84%
36.96%
29.09%
6.22%
4.39%
6.59%
4.94%
.27%
.00%
.55%
.46%
.46%
.18%
Selected of
those Identified
#
87
39
48
1
3
34
39
3
0
0
4
0
0
1
1
0
1
%
100%
44.83%
55.17%
1.15%
3.45%
39.08%
44.83%
3.45%
.00%
.00%
4.60%
.00%
.00%
1.15%
1.15%
.00%
1.15%
CLF
orney
75.80%
24.20%
2.90%
.90%
62.80%
19.10%
4.20%
1.70%
4.70%
1.90%
.00%
.10%
.30%
.10%
.50%
.20%
Job Title/Series: 0905 Att
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
397
201
196
14
20
139
94
29
58
17
18
0
0
1
1
1
5
%
100%
50.63%
49.37%
3.53%
5.04%
35.01%
23.68%
7.30%
14.61%
4.28%
4.53%
.00%
.00%
.25%
.25%
.25%
1.26%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
383
195
188
14
18
136
90
27
56
17
18
0
0
0
1
1
5
%
100%
50.91%
49.09%
3.66%
4.70%
35.51%
23.50%
7.05%
14.62%
4.44%
4.70%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.26%
.26%
1.31%
Selected of
those Identified
#
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
50.00%
50.00%
.00%
.00%
50.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
50.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
CLF
ysical Scie
66.70%
33.30%
2.52%
1.85%
59.68%
26.68%
2.13%
2.60%
1.82%
1.74%
.02%
.01%
.31%
.23%
.22%
.18%
Job Title/Series: 1301 Ph
"itist/Environmental Scientist
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
656
416
240
33
31
260
148
51
38
60
17
0
1
9
1
3
4
%
100%
63.41%
36.59%
5.03%
4.73%
39.63%
22.56%
7.77%
5.79%
9.15%
2.59%
.00%
.15%
1.37%
.15%
.46%
.61%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
415
262
153
23
18
158
97
34
24
42
10
0
1
4
1
1
2
%
100%
63.13%
36.87%
5.54%
4.34%
38.07%
23.37%
8.19%
5.78%
10.12%
2.41%
.00%
.24%
.96%
.24%
.24%
.48%
Selected of
those Identified
#
29
12
17
2
1
8
16
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
41.38%
58.62%
6.90%
3.45%
27.59%
55.17%
6.90%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
CLF
60.89%
39.11%
2.36%
1.92%
48.14%
27.82%
1.41%
2.21%
8.20%
6.74%
.03%
.00%
.44%
.18%
.30%
.24%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
132
-------
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30,2017)
Table A7: APPLICANTS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Applicants and Hires for Major Occupations (p-values)
Total
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African
Asian
Native
American
Two or More Races
All I Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male | Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Job Title/Series: 0028 Environmental Protection Specialist
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.54
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
Qualified of
those Identified
0.44
0.62
0.03
0.57
0.97
0.96
0.44
0.07
0.68
0.62
0.20
0.74
0.08
0.78
0.24
0.01
Selected of
those Identified
0.14
0.91
0.72
0.17
0.39
0.98
0.33
0.10
0.43
0.98
0.90
0.97
0.67
0.86
0.60
1.00
CLF
Vlisc Admi
Job Title/Series: 0301
nistration and Program Specialist
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.76
0.02
0.92
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Qualified of
those Identified
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.01
1.00
0.91
0.44
0.00
0.97
0.98
0.57
0.61
0.95
0.46
0.19
0.86
Selected of
those Identified
0.13
0.94
0.58
0.97
0.59
0.36
0.33
0.66
0.47
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.78
0.80
0.86
0.97
CLF
Vlanagem
Job Title/Series: 0343
nt/Prog ram Analyst
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.79
0.72
0.86
0.98
0.84
0.99
1.00
Qualified of
those Identified
0.59
0.45
0.48
0.13
0.94
0.84
0.06
0.62
0.38
0.55
1.00
0.58
0.98
0.13
0.57
0.21
Selected of
those Identified
0.07
0.96
0.49
0.85
0.56
0.99
0.11
0.29
0.53
0.63
1.00
1.00
0.61
1.00
0.76
0.93
CLF
General B
Job Title/Series: 0401
ological Science (RESEARCH)
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.56
0.46
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.76
0.99
0.67
0.93
0.28
Qualified of
those Identified
0.00
1.00
0.04
1.00
0.00
0.92
0.89
0.97
0.38
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.01
0.35
0.01
1.00
Selected of
those Identified
0.82
0.25
0.96
0.25
0.98
0.85
0.09
0.03
0.29
0.57
0.85
0.95
0.61
0.97
0.89
0.89
CLF
Environme
Job Title/Series: 0819
ntal Engineer (RESEARCH)
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
1.00
1.00
0.47
0.48
Qualified of
those Identified
0.00
1.00
0.94
0.42
0.19
1.00
0.00
0.38
0.50
0.72
1.00
1.00
0.13
0.75
0.75
1.00
Selected of
those Identified
0.01
0.99
0.02
0.57
0.71
1.00
0.19
0.02
0.00
0.57
0.78
1.00
0.92
0.95
0.66
0.99
CLF
Attorney
Job Title/Series: 0905
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
1.00
0.92
1.00
0.00
0.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.96
0.65
0.77
0.78
1.00
Qualified of
those Identified
0.81
0.37
1.00
0.15
0.92
0.43
0.27
0.63
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
Selected of
those Identified
0.74
0.76
0.93
0.91
0.87
0.58
0.86
0.73
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.97
CLF
Physical S
Job Title/Series: 1301
cientist/Environmental Scientist
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.91
0.10
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.83
0.00
0.82
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.86
0.98
Qualified of
those Identified
0.46
0.61
0.83
0.33
0.16
0.77
0.75
0.56
0.90
0.44
1.00
1.00
0.20
1.00
0.31
0.47
Selected of
those Identified
0.01
1.00
0.79
0.64
0.16
1.00
0.57
0.17
0.04
0.48
1.00
0.93
0.75
0.93
0.93
0.86
CLF
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
133
-------
Table B-7
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1,2016 to June 30,2017)
Table B7: APPLICATIONS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Disability (Permanent)
FY 17
TOTAL
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not identified [01]
Disability [06-
98]
T argeted
Disability
Developmental
Disability [02]
Injury [03]
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
H earinq [ 191
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing [201
M issing
Extremities [31]
Significant
Mobility
Impairment
Paralysis [60]
Epilepsyor
Other Seizure
Disorders [82]
Disability [90]
Significant
Psychiatric
Disorder [91]
Dwarfism [92]
Significant
Disfigurement [93]
Schedule A
Applications
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Hires
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Voluntarily Identified (Outside of Schedule A Applicants)
Applications
#
10974
5936
4598
440
217
9
28
32
12
12
17
9
11
0
105
4
5
%
100.00%
54.09%
41.90%
4.01%
1.98%
0.08%
0.26%
0.29%
0.11%
0.11%
0.15%
0.08%
0.10%
0.00%
0.96%
0.04%
0.05%
Hires
#
400
210
182
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100.00%
52.50%
45.50%
2.00%
0.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.25%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0028
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
1330
630
644
56
31
2
3
9
2
4
4
0
4
0
9
0
0
%
100.00%
47.37%
48.42%
4.21%
2.33%
0.15%
0.23%
0.68%
0.15%
0.30%
0.30%
0.00%
0.30%
0.00%
0.68%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
908
446
429
33
13
2
0.00220264
2
1
3
2
0
3
0
4
0
0
%
100.00%
49.12%
47.25%
3.63%
1.43%
0.22%
0.22%
0.22%
0.11%
0.33%
0.22%
0.00%
0.33%
0.00%
0.44%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected of
those Identified
#
91
39
51
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
42.86%
56.04%
1.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0301
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
2782
1207
1433
142
65
1
14
7
0
1
6
6
3
0
41
0
0
%
100.00%
43.39%
51.51%
5.10%
2.34%
0.04%
0.50%
0.25%
0.00%
0.04%
0.22%
0.22%
0.11%
0.00%
1.47%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
1254
542
678
34
16
0
0
4
0
0
1
2
2
0
7
0
0
%
100.00%
43.22%
54.07%
2.71%
1.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.32%
0.00%
0.00%
0.08%
0.16%
0.16%
0.00%
0.56%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected of
those Identified
#
25
14
10
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100.00%
56.00%
40.00%
4.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0401
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
3119
1821
1199
99
56
3
6
9
2
1
1
0
1
0
25
3
5
%
100.00%
58.38%
38.44%
3.17%
1.80%
0.10%
0.19%
0.29%
0.06%
0.03%
0.03%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.80%
0.10%
0.16%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
2578
1551
948
79
46
3
0.00116369
7
2
1
1
0
1
0
19
2
5
%
100.00%
60.16%
36.77%
3.06%
1.78%
0.12%
0.19%
0.27%
0.08%
0.04%
0.04%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.74%
0.08%
0.19%
Selected of
those Identified
#
116
59
55
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
50.86%
47.41%
1.72%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0819
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
1860
1148
638
74
31
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
3
0
18
1
0
%
100.00%
61.72%
34.30%
3.98%
1.67%
0.11%
0.11%
0.11%
0.16%
0.05%
0.11%
0.05%
0.16%
0.00%
0.97%
0.05%
0.00%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
1445
919
475
51
22
2
0.00138408
2
1
0
1
1
2
0
13
1
0
%
100.00%
63.60%
32.87%
3.53%
1.52%
0.14%
0.07%
0.14%
0.07%
0.00%
0.07%
0.07%
0.14%
0.00%
0.90%
0.07%
0.00%
Selected of
those Identified
#
113
73
36
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
64.60%
31.86%
3.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0905
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
966
561
376
29
10
0
0
1
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
58.07%
38.92%
3.00%
1.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%
0.41%
0.41%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
934
539
366
29
10
0
0
1
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
57.71%
39.19%
3.10%
1.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.11%
0.43%
0.43%
0.00%
0.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected of
those Identified
#
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
50.00%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 1301
Total Received
#
Voluntarily
Identified
#
917
569
308
40
24
1
3
4
1
1
4
1
0
0
12
0
0
%
100.00%
62.05%
33.59%
4.36%
2.62%
0.11%
0.33%
0.44%
0.11%
0.11%
0.44%
0.11%
0.00%
0.00%
1.31%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified of
those Identified
#
583
360
196
27
16
1
0.00171527
2
1
0
4
1
0
0
7
0
0
%
100.00%
61.75%
33.62%
4.63%
2.74%
0.17%
0.34%
0.34%
0.17%
0.00%
0.69%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
1.20%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected of
those Identified
#
35
23
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
65.71%
34.29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
134
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
{From October 1,2016 to June 30,2017)
Table B7: APPLICATIONS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Disability (Permanent)
P-values for differences
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01]
Disability
[06 -98]
T argeted
Disability
Disability [02]
[03]j
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
Hearing
[191
Blind or
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing [20]
Missing
Extremities
[31]
Significant
M obility
Impairment
[40]
Partial or
Com plete
Paralysis
[60]
Epilepsy or
Other
Seizure
Disorders
[82]
Intellectual
Disability
[90]
Significant
P sychiatric
Disorder
[91]
Dwarfism
[92]
Significant
Disfigurement
[93]
Schedule A
Applications
Hires
Voluntarily Identified (Outside of Schedule A Applicants)
Applications
0.00
0.45
Hires
0.02
0.00
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0028
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
0.83
Qualified of
those Identified
0.08
0.00
Selected of
those Identified
0.14
0.25
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0301
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
0.91
Qualified of
those Identified
0.00
0.00
Selected of
those Identified
0.85
0.96
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0401
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
0.23
Qualified of
those Identified
0.26
0.52
Selected of
those Identified
0.30
0.12
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0819
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
0.17
Qualified of
those Identified
0.05
0.24
Selected of
those Identified
0.63
0.16
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0905
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
0.01
Qualified of
those Identified
1.00
1.00
Selected of
those Identified
0.94
0.98
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 1301
Total Received
Voluntarily
Identified
0.00
0.92
Qualified of
those Identified
0.75
0.70
Selected of
those Identified
0.18
0.37
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
135
-------
Table A-8
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A8: NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
New Hires
Table A-8
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Permanent 2017
#
691
337
354
21
37
244
214
40
66
23
24
1
1
4
7
2
1
%
100%
48.77%
51.23%
3.04%
5.35%
35.31%
30.97%
5.79%
9.55%
3.33%
3.47%
0.14%
0.14%
0.58%
1.01%
0.29%
0.14%
Temporary 2017
#
185
108
77
9
2
79
57
8
11
9
5
0
0
1
0
0
1
%
100%
58.38%
41.62%
4.86%
1.08%
42.70%
30.81%
4.32%
5.95%
4.86%
2.70 %
0.00%
0.00%
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.54%
TOTAL 2017
#
876
445
431
30
39
323
271
48
77
32
29
1
1
5
7
2
2
%
100%
50.80%
49.20%
3.42%
4.45%
36.87%
30.94%
5.48%
8.79%
3.65%
3.31%
0.11%
0.11%
0.57%
0.80%
0.23%
0.23%
Nat 2010 CLF
%
100%
51.86%
48.14%
5.17%
4.79%
38.33%
34.03%
5.49%
6.53%
1.97%
1.93%
0.07%
0.07%
0.55%
0.53%
0.26%
0.28%
CLF is based on all workers on all Census Population
p-Values for Differences
New Hires
Table A-8
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
p-value
0.056
0.952
0.005 0.787
0.055 0.048
0.673
0.999
0.994
0.998
0.915
0.915
0.668
0.967
0.732
0.424
Permanent 2017
difference
-3.09%
3.09%
-2.13% 0.56%
-3.02% -3.06%
0.30%
3.02%
1.36%
1.54%
0.07%
0.07%
0.03%
0.48%
0.03%
-0.14%
p-value
0.968
0.044
0.512 0.006
0.902 0.199
0.309
0.448
0.996
0.850
0.878
0.878
0.729
0.374
0.618
0.904
Temporary 2017
difference
6.52%
-6.52%
-0.31% -3.71%
4.37% -3.22%
-1.17%
-0.58%
2.89%
0.77%
-0.07%
-0.07%
-0.01%
-0.53%
-0.26%
0.26%
p-value
0.276
0.746
0.009
0.356
0.197 0.028
0.533
0.996
1.000
0.998
0.874
0.874
0.648
0.902
0.602
0.556
TOTAL 2017
difference
-1.06%
1.06%
-1.75% -0.34%
-1.46%
-3.09%
-0.01%
2.26%
1.68%
1.38%
0.04%
0.04%
0.02%
0.27%
-0.03%
-0.05%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
136
-------
Table B-8
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B8: NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT - Distribution by Disability
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Type of Appointment
TOTAL
No
Disability
Not
Identified
Disability
Disability
De afness
Blindness
Missing
Limbs/
Extremities
Partial
Paralysis
Total
Paralysis
Convulsive
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Mental
Retardation/
Severe
Intellectual
Disability
Mental
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Distortion
Limb-Spine/
Dwarfism
#
691
541
74
76
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Permanent
%
100%
78.29%
10.71%
11.00%
1.01%
0.00%
0.29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.72%
0.00%
#
185
128
41
16
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Temporary
%
100%
69.19%
22.16%
8.65%
1.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.08%
0.00%
#
876
669
115
92
9
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
Total
%
100%
76.37%
13.13%
10.50%
1.03%
0.00%
0.23%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.80%
0.00%
Total by Disability Status
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Type of Appointment
Disability
Identified
p-value
0.162
0.935
0.034
Permanent
difference
-1.29%
-1.00%
-0.99%
p-value
1.000
0.633
0.283
Temporary
difference
10.16%
-3.35%
-0.92%
p-value
0.859
0.925
0.019
Total
difference
1.13%
-1.50%
-0.97%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
137
-------
Table A-9
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30,2017)
Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAI OR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
FY 17
TOTAL
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African
American
Asian
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
American
hdian or
Alaska Native
Two or More Races
All | Male | Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Job Series of Vacancy: 0028 Environmental Protection Specialist
Total Applications
Received
#
263
124
139
14
24
71
59
18
34
15
13
0
2
3
5
3
2
Qualified
#
174
84
90
8
15
49
38
13
20
11
11
0
2
2
4
1
0
%
100%
48.28%
51.72%
4.60%
8.62%
28.16%
21.84%
7.47%
11.49%
6.32%
6.32%
0.00%
1.15%
1.15%
2.30%
0.57%
0.00%
Selected
#
30
15
15
2
0
10
8
2
2
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
%
100%
50.00%
50.00%
6.67%
0.00%
33.33%
26.67%
6.67%
6.67%
3.33%
10.00%
0.00%
3.33%
0.00%
3.33%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
39.69%
60.31%
3.06%
4.25%
30.18%
38.55%
3.75%
12.44%
1.83%
3.84%
0.00%
0.14%
0.64%
0.87%
0.23%
0.23%
Job Series of Vacancy: 0301 Misc Administration and Program Specialist
Total Applications
Received
#
211
107
104
17
14
40
27
45
52
3
4
0
3
2
1
0
3
Qualified
#
31
9
22
2
1
3
10
3
8
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
%
100%
29.03%
70.97%
6.45%
3.23%
9.68%
32.26%
9.68%
25.81%
3.23%
3.23%
0.00%
3.23%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.23%
Selected
#
12
6
6
1
0
3
1
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100%
50.00%
50.00%
8.33%
0.00%
25.00%
8.33%
16.67%
25.00%
0.00%
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.33%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
31.23%
68.77%
2.79%
5.39%
20.45%
27.14%
5.58%
34.01%
1.67%
1.49%
0.19%
0.00%
0.37%
0.19%
0.19%
0.56%
Job Series of Vacancy: 0343 Management/Program Analyst
Total Applications
Received
#
239
124
115
23
14
67
36
26
48
5
10
0
1
0
2
3
4
Qualified
#
108
47
61
6
5
28
20
10
28
2
5
0
0
0
0
1
3
%
100%
43.52%
56.48%
5.56%
4.63%
25.93%
18.52%
9.26%
25.93%
1.85%
4.63%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.93%
2.78%
Selected
#
32
9
23
1
2
5
9
2
9
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
%
100%
28.13%
71.88%
3.13%
6.25%
15.63%
28.13%
6.25%
28.13%
3.13%
3.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.13%
0.00%
3.13%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
31.05%
68.95%
1.75%
3.64%
21.87%
32.07%
5.32%
29.08%
1.60%
2.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.29%
0.73%
0.22%
0.51%
Job Series of Vacancy: 0401 General Biological Science (RESEARCH)
Total Applications
Received
#
253
152
101
21
9
76
63
13
21
33
7
0
0
6
1
3
0
Qualified
#
169
96
73
13
8
51
44
11
15
18
5
0
0
3
1
0
0
%
100%
56.80%
43.20%
7.69%
4.73%
30.18%
26.04%
6.51%
8.88%
10.65%
2.96%
0.00%
0.00%
1.78%
0.59%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
41
25
16
5
2
15
11
2
1
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100%
60.98%
39.02%
12.20%
4.88%
36.59%
26.83%
4.88%
2.44%
7.32%
2.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.44%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
47.55%
52.45%
1.91%
3.09%
39.47%
39.66%
2.72%
4.81%
3.09%
3.99%
0.00%
0.00%
0.36%
0.64%
0.00%
0.27%
Job Series of Vacancy: 0819 Environmental Engineer
Total Applications
Received
#
189
88
101
7
2
65
84
3
1
11
12
0
0
1
1
1
1
Qualified
#
108
50
58
5
1
35
47
3
1
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100%
46.30%
53.70%
4.63%
0.93%
32.41%
43.52%
2.78%
0.93%
6.48%
7.41%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.93%
Selected
#
26
12
14
0
0
11
12
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100%
46.15%
53.85%
0.00%
0.00%
42.31%
46.15%
3.85%
0.00%
0.00%
3.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.85%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
61.55%
38.45%
6.28%
4.75%
42.90%
23.95%
4.69%
4.39%
7.07%
4.81%
0.06%
0.00%
0.43%
0.37%
0.12%
0.18%
Job Series of Vacancy: 0905 Attorney
Total Applications
Received
#
3
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Qualified
#
3
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
66.67%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
66.67%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
46.75%
53.25%
3.01%
3.69%
38.99%
37.83%
2.04%
5.63%
2.23%
4.75%
0.10%
0.00%
0.39%
0.78%
0.00%
0.58%
Job Series of Vacancy: 1301 Physical Scientist/Environmental Scientist
Total Applications
Received
#
64
35
29
2
7
20
16
7
4
4
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
Qualified
#
32
14
18
1
2
7
12
3
2
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
43.75%
56.25%
3.13%
6.25%
21.88%
37.50%
9.38%
6.25%
9.38%
6.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
9
3
6
1
0
1
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
r 100%
33.33%
66.67%
11.11%
0.00%
11.11%
66.67%
11.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
56.92%
43.08%
3.54%
3.12%
46.53%
31.70%
2.70%
4.20%
3.45%
3.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.65%
0.47%
0.05%
0.14%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
138
-------
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
{From October 1, 2016 to June 30,2017)
Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
P-values for differences
Total
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African
Asian
Native
American
Two or More Races
All 1 Male 1 Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Job Series of Vacancy: 0028 Environmental Protection Specialist
Total Applications
Receixred
0.99
0.01
0.98
1.00
0.14
0.00
0.99
0.64
1.00
0.86
1.00
0.99
0.91
0.97
1.00
0.98
Qualified
0.74
0.35
0.32
0.42
0.77
0.43
0.79
0.22
0.81
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.71
0.88
0.27
0.11
Selected
0.66
0.50
0.86
0.05
0.82
0.83
0.61
0.29
0.40
0.90
1.00
0.97
0.68
0.86
0.83
1.00
Job Series of Vacancy: 0301 Misc Administration and Program Specialist
Total Applications
Receixred
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.83
0.33
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.53
0.79
0.67
1.00
0.96
0.94
0.67
0.97
Qualified
0.01
1.00
0.53
0.36
0.12
1.00
0.06
0.66
0.94
0.90
1.00
0.94
0.73
0.85
1.00
0.94
Selected
0.99
0.05
0.86
0.61
1.00
0.03
0.95
0.64
0.61
1.00
1.00
0.61
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Job Series of Vacancy: 0343 Management/Program Analyst
Total Applications
Received
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.97
0.99
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.81
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.99
Qualified
0.01
0.99
0.04
0.33
0.30
0.94
0.30
0.99
0.59
0.74
1.00
0.55
1.00
0.30
0.57
0.96
Selected
0.03
0.99
0.42
0.85
0.09
0.97
0.38
0.72
0.91
0.53
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.79
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 0401 General Biological Science (RESEARCH)
Total Applications
Receixred
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.21
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.52
1.00
0.50
Qualified
0.08
0.95
0.39
0.98
0.58
0.77
0.96
0.76
0.08
0.74
1.00
1.00
0.32
1.00
0.04
1.00
Selected
0.79
0.33
0.94
0.70
0.89
0.64
0.47
0.08
0.32
0.65
1.00
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
Relexrant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 0819 Environmental Engineer
Total Applications
Receixred
0.00
1.00
0.09
0.01
0.01
1.00
0.02
0.00
0.31
0.87
0.89
1.00
0.80
0.84
0.98
0.95
Qualified
0.52
0.59
0.88
0.67
0.31
0.44
1.00
1.00
0.77
0.84
1.00
1.00
0.43
0.43
0.43
1.00
Selected
0.58
0.59
0.24
0.76
0.93
0.71
0.86
0.76
0.14
0.38
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Job Series of Vacancy: 0905 Attorney
Total Applications
Receixred
0.90
0.45
0.91
0.89
0.94
0.24
0.94
0.84
0.93
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.98
Qualified
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Selected
0.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.33
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Job Series of Vacancy: 1301 Physical Scientist/Environmental Scientist
Total Applications
Receixred
0.41
0.69
0.60
1.00
0.01
0.15
1.00
0.87
0.93
0.62
1.00
1.00
0.66
0.74
1.00
0.91
Qualified
0.07
0.98
0.75
0.21
0.09
1.00
0.50
0.69
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
1.00
Selected
0.37
0.87
1.00
0.51
0.34
0.99
0.82
0.51
0.36
0.51
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
139
-------
Table B-9
EPA-
Environmental Protection Agency
{From October 1,2016 to Ju ne 30, 2017)
Table B9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS for Major Occupations by Disability
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
FY 17
Total
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01]
Disability [06-
98]
Targeted
Disability
Develop-
Disability [02]
Traumatic
Brain Injury
[03]
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
Hearing [19]
Blindor
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing T201
Extremities
[31]
Significant
Mobility
Impairment
[401
Complete
Paralysis [60]
Epilepsy or
Other Seizure
Disorder [82]
Severe
Disability [90]
Significant
Psychiatric
Disorder [91]
Dwarfism [92]
Significant
Disfigure-
ment [93]
Series: 0028 Environmental Protection Specialist
Total
Applications
Received
#
407
163
228
16
10
0
1
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
%
100.00%
40.05%
56.02%
3.93%
2.46%
0.00%
0.25%
0.74%
0.00%
0.49%
0.00%
0.00%
0.49%
0.00%
0.49%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
259
114
138
7
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
44.02%
53.28%
2.70%
0.77%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.39%
0.00%
0.00%
0.39%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
45
20
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
44.44%
55.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant
Applicant Pool
%
%
7.45%
1.83%
Series: 0301 Misc Administration and Program Specialist
Total
Applications
Received
#
275
120
115
40
22
0
5
1
0
1
2
4
2
0
14
0
0
%
100.00%
43.64%
41.82%
14.55%
8.00%
0.00%
1.82%
0.36%
0.00%
0.36%
0.73%
1.45%
0.73%
0.00%
5.09%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
41
27
12
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
65.85%
29.27%
4.88%
2.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
16
8
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100.00%
50.00%
43.75%
6.25%
6.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.25%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.25%
Relevant
Applicant Pool
%
%
10.02%
2.04%
Series: 0343 Management/Program Analyst
Total
Applications
Received
#
380
147
214
19
6
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
%
100.00%
38.68%
56.32%
5.00%
1.58%
0.00%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.26%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.53%
0.00%
0.26%
Qualified
#
169
77
86
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
45.56%
50.89%
3.55%
0.59%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.59%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
46
27
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
58.70%
41.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant
Applicant Pool
%
%
9.24%
3.27%
Series: 0401 General Biological Science (RESEARCH)
Total
Applications
Received
#
364
135
218
11
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
37.09%
59.89%
3.02%
0.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.27%
0.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
232
92
135
5
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
39.66%
58.19%
2.16%
0.43%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.43%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
61
23
37
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
37.70%
60.66%
1.64%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant
Applicant Pool
%
%
5.99%
0.91%
Series: 0819 Environmental Engineer
Total
Applications
Received
#
278
145
118
15
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
52.16%
42.45%
5.40%
0.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
159
85
70
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
53.46%
44.03%
2.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
37
15
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
40.54%
56.76%
2.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant
Applicant Pool
%
%
6.40%
1.71%
Series: 0905 Attorney
Total
Applications
Received
#
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
66.67%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
66.67%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant
Applicant Pool
%
%
4.94%
0.58%
Series: 1301 Physical Scientist/Environmental Scientist
Total
Applications
Received
#
82
42
39
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
51.22%
47.56%
1.22%
1.22%
0.00%
1.22%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.22%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
39
20
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
51.28%
48.72%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
12
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
58.33%
41.67%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant
Applicant Pool
%
%
5.49%
1.30%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
140
-------
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
{From October 1,2016 to June 30,2017)
Table B9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS for Major Occupations by Disability
P-values for differences
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01
Disability [06-
98]
T argeted
Disability
Develop-
mental
Disability [02]
Brain Injury
[03]
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
Hearing [131
Blindor
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing [201
Extremities
[31
Significant
Mobility
Impairment
[401
Partial or
Complete
Paralysis [60]
Epilepsy or
Other Seizure
Disorder [82]
Severe
Intellectual
Disability [90]
Significant
Psychiatric
Disorder [91]
Dwarfism [92]
Significant
Disfigure-
ment [93]
Series: 0028 Environmental Protection Specialist
Total
Applications
Receiwd
0.00
0.87
Qualified
0.08
0.01
Selected
0.26
0.68
Relexant
Applicant Pool %
Series: 0301 Misc Administration and Program Specialist
Total
Applications
Received
0.99
1.00
Qualified
0.04
0.13
Selected
0.85
1.00
Relexant
Applicant Pool %
Series: 0343 Management/Program Analyst
Total
Applications
Receiwd
0.00
0.03
Qualified
0.18
0.17
Selected
0.14
0.73
Relexant
Applicant Pool %
Series: 0401 General Biological Science (RESEARCH)
Total
Applications
Received
0.01
0.36
Qualified
0.17
0.59
Selected
0.61
0.74
Relexant
Applicant Pool %
Series: 0819 Environmental Engineer
Total
Applications
Receiwd
0.30
0.05
Qualified
0.01
0.43
Selected
0.77
1.00
Relexant
Applicant Pool %
Series 0905 Attorney
Total
Applications
Receiwd
0.86
0.98
Qualified
1.00
1.00
Selected
1.00
1.00
Relexant
Applicant Pool %
Series: 1301 Physical Scientist/Environmental Scientist
Total
Applications
0.06
0.71
Qualified
0.52
0.52
Selected
1.00
1.00
Relexant
Applicant Pool %
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
141
-------
Table A-10
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From Octoberl, 2016 to June 30,2017)
Table A10: NON-COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS - TIME IN GRADE - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Permanent Workforce
TOTAL WORKFORCE
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Total Employees Eligible for Career
Ladder Promotions
#
1357
616
741
47
59
424
468
82
134
50
63
1
2
5
7
6
4
%
100%
45.39%
54.61%
3.46%
4.35%
31.25%
34.49%
6.04%
9.87%
3.68%
4.64%
0.07%
0.15%
0.37%
0.52%
0.44%
0.29%
Time in grade in excess of miniumum
1-12 Months
#
48
25
23
0
1
15
12
6
7
2
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
%
100%
52.08%
47.92%
0.00%
2.08%
31.25%
25.00%
12.50%
14.58%
4.17%
6.25%
0.00%
0.00%
2.08%
0.00%
2.08%
0.00%
13-24 Months
#
6
2
4
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
33.33%
66.67%
0.00%
0.00%
16.67%
50.00%
16.67%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25 +months
#
21
11
10
2
0
8
9
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
52.38%
47.62%
9.52%
0.00%
38.10%
42.86%
4.76%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
RACE/ETHNICITY
Permanent Workforce
TOTAL WORKFORCE
Non- Hispanic or Latino
Black or
Native Hawaiian or
American Indian or
Hispanic or Latino
White
African American
Asian
Other Pacific Islander
Alaska Native
Two or more races
male
female
male |
female
male
female
male |
female
male
female
male |
female
male
female
male |
female
p-value
0.074
0.074
0.184
0.258
0.123
0.048
0.044
0.095
0.272
0.204
0.967
0.930
0.149
0.779
0.172
0.870
1-12 Months
% difference
7%
-7%
-3%
-2%
0%
-9%
6%
5%
0%
2%
0%
0%
2%
-1%
2%
0%
p-value
0.275
0.275
0.810
0.766
0.288
0.231
0.265
0.352
0.799
0.752
0.996
0.991
0.978
0.969
0.974
0.983
13-24 Months
% difference
-12%
12%
-3%
-4%
-15%
16%
11%
7%
-4%
-5%
0%
0%
0%
-1%
0%
0%
p-value
0.140
0.140
0.129
0.393
0.142
0.127
0.365
0.259
0.455
0.369
0.985
0.969
0.925
0.896
0.912
0.941
25 +months
% difference
7%
-7%
6%
-4%
7%
8%
-1%
-5%
-4%
-5%
0%
0%
0%
-1%
0%
0%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
142
-------
Table B-10
EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period 201715
(From October 1,2016 to June 30,2017)
Table B10-
Non-Competitive Promotions - Time in Grade - By Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail forTargeted Disabilities
(28,30,32-
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Employment Tenure
TOTAL
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Retardation
/Severe
Intellectual
Disability
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Limb-Spine/
Dwarfism
Total Employees Eligible for Career
#
1357
1121
100
136
16
2
3
0
0
0
2
0
9
0
Ladder Promotions
%
100%
82.61%
7.37%
10.02%
1.18%
0.15%
0.22%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.15%
0.00%
0.66%
0.00%
Time in Grade Excess of Minimum
#
48
37
4
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-12 Months
%
100%
77.08%
8.33%
14.58%
2.08%
2.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
6
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
13-24 Months
%
100%
83.33%
0.00%
16.67%
16.67%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
16.67%
0.00%
#
21
19
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
25 + Months
%
100%
90.48%
4.76%
4.76%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
p-value
0.198
0.098
0.324
1-12 Months
% difference
1%
5%
1%
p-value
0.632
0.355
0.067
13-24 Months
% difference
-7%
7%
15%
p-value
0.335
0.255
0.195
25 +months
% difference
-3%
-5%
4%
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
143
-------
Table A-ll
Environmental Protection Agency
{From October 1,2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS (GS 13/14, GS 15, and SES) by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
FY 2017
TOTAL
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or
Ame
African
ican
Asian
Na
Haw a
ve
ian or
Ame
India
ican
n or
Two or More Races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
GS - 13
Total
Applications
Received
#
379
200
179
29
20
100
75
37
65
26
12
0
2
7
2
1
3
%
100%
52.77%
47.23%
7.65%
5.28%
26.39%
19.79%
9.76%
17.15%
6.86%
3.17%
0.00%
0.53%
1.85%
0.53%
0.26%
0.79%
Qualified
#
305
164
141
28
14
84
67
24
45
22
10
0
2
5
1
1
2
%
100%
53.77%
46.23%
9.18%
4.59%
27.54%
21.97%
7.87%
14.75%
7.21%
3.28%
0.00%
0.66%
1.64%
0.33%
0.33%
0.66%
Selected
#
56
24
32
2
1
18
16
4
9
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
1
%
100%
42.86%
57.14%
3.57%
1.79%
32.14%
28.57%
7.14%
16.07%
0.00%
1.79%
0.00%
1.79%
0.00%
5.36%
0.00%
1.79%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
GS-12
12.61%
10.05%
14.96%
10.30%
17.91%
8.78%
12.35%
17.00%
19.77%
13.33%
16.05%
12.50%
33.33%
8.57%
18.18%
4.00%
13.73%
GS -14
Total
Applications
Received
#
735
392
343
50
44
215
184
67
79
45
24
0
1
9
6
6
5
%
100%
53.33%
46.67%
6.80%
5.99%
29.25%
25.03%
9.12%
10.75%
6.12%
3.27%
0.00%
0.14%
1.22%
0.82%
0.82%
0.68%
Qualified
#
687
356
331
47
36
195
182
60
77
44
24
0
0
7
7
3
5
%
100%
51.82%
48.18%
6.84%
5.24%
28.38%
26.49%
8.73%
11.21%
6.40%
3.49%
0.00%
0.00%
1.02%
1.02%
0.44%
0.73%
Selected
#
90
43
47
6
2
26
32
8
8
2
3
0
0
1
0
0
2
%
100%
47.78%
52.22%
6.67%
2.22%
28.89%
35.56%
8.89%
8.89%
2.22%
3.33%
0.00%
0.00%
1.11%
0.00%
0.00%
2.22%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
GS-13
40.67%
42.90%
38.62%
47.00%
40.70%
41.49%
38.31%
44.53%
37.81%
49.29%
43.36%
12.50%
11.11%
55.71%
32.95%
64.00%
37.25%
GS - 15
Total
Applications
Received
#
277
160
117
24
9
104
63
14
28
8
13
2
1
2
1
6
2
%
100%
57.76%
42.24%
8.66%
3.25%
37.55%
22.74%
5.05%
10.11%
2.89%
4.69%
0.72%
0.36%
0.72%
0.36%
2.17%
0.72%
Qualified
#
234
126
108
19
8
82
60
11
25
6
12
1
0
2
1
5
2
%
100%
53.85%
46.15%
8.12%
3.42%
35.04%
25.64%
4.70%
10.68%
2.56%
5.13%
0.43%
0.00%
0.85%
0.43%
2.14%
0.85%
Selected
#
47
25
22
3
0
19
14
1
3
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
53.19%
46.81%
6.38%
0.00%
40.43%
29.79%
2.13%
6.38%
4.26%
10.64%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
GS-14
18.18%
50.67%
49.33%
3.08%
2.64%
40.27%
32.73%
4.09%
9.66%
2.79%
3.38%
0.11%
0.04%
0.30%
0.67%
0.04%
0.22%
Source: Monster
Download Date: 9/14/2017
P-values for differences
Total
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African
Asian
Native
American
Two or More Races
All I Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
GS-13
Total Applications
Receixred
1.00
1.00
0.05
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Qualified
0.82
0.25
1.00
0.17
0.88
0.99
0.01
0.01
0.79
0.72
1.00
1.00
0.41
0.35
1.00
0.48
Selected
0.05
0.98
0.08
0.24
0.85
0.93
0.54
0.70
0.01
0.42
1.00
0.97
0.36
1.00
0.82
0.97
GS-14
Total Applications
Received
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Qualified
0.00
1.00
0.65
0.01
0.04
1.00
0.14
0.97
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.07
0.11
1.00
0.00
1.00
Selected
0.24
0.83
0.58
0.13
0.60
0.99
0.62
0.29
0.05
0.61
1.00
1.00
0.77
0.37
0.66
0.98
GS-15
Total Applications
Receixred
0.99
0.01
1.00
0.80
0.19
0.00
0.83
0.65
0.63
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.45
1.00
0.98
Qualified
0.00
1.00
0.31
0.79
0.03
1.00
0.37
0.85
0.36
0.89
0.29
0.16
1.00
1.00
0.64
1.00
Selected
0.52
0.61
0.45
0.16
0.85
0.82
0.31
0.22
0.90
0.98
0.80
1.00
0.64
0.80
0.32
0.64
Relexant Applicant Pool %
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
144
-------
Table B-ll
Environmental Protection Agency
{From October 1,2016to June 30, 2017)
Table B11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL (GS 13/14, GS 15, and SES) POSITIONS by Disability
FY 17
TOTAL
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01
Disability [06 -
98]
T argeted
Disability
Development
al Disability
[02]
Traumatic
Brain Injury
[03]
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
Hearing [13]
Blindor
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing [20]
Extremities
[31
Significant
Mobility
Impairment
[40]
Partial or
Complete
Paralysis [60]
Epilepsy or
Other Seizure
Disorders [82]
Intellectual
Disability [90]
Significant
Psychiatric
Disorder [91
Dwarfism [92]
Significant
Disfigurement
[93]
Grade: 13
Total Applications
Receixred
#
560
248
285
27
9
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
%
100.00%
44.29%
50.89%
4.82%
1.61%
0.00%
0.18%
0.54%
0.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.89%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
455
203
235
17
4
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
44.62%
51.65%
3.74%
0.88%
0.00%
0.22%
0.44%
0.22%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.22%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
76
36
39
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
47.37%
51.32%
1.32%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relexrant
Applicant Pool %
GS-12
18.06%
18.86%
Grade: 14
Total Applications
Receixred
#
1088
476
571
41
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
3
0
0
%
100.00%
43.75%
52.48%
3.77%
1.10%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.18%
0.18%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
1022
440
545
37
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
0
%
100.00%
43.05%
53.33%
3.62%
0.98%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.20%
0.10%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
126
56
68
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100.00%
44.44%
53.97%
1.59%
0.79%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.79%
Relexrant
Applicant Pool %
GS-13
37.53%
38.72%
Grade: 15
Total Applications
Receixred
#
403
167
219
17
12
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
4
0
1
%
100.00%
41.44%
54.34%
422%
2.98%
0.00%
0.50%
0.00%
0.25%
0.50%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.00%
0.99%
0.00%
0.25%
Qualified
#
342
142
190
10
9
0
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
%
100.00%
41.52%
55.56%
2.92%
2.63%
0.00%
0.58%
0.00%
0.29%
0.58%
0.29%
0.00%
0.29%
0.00%
0.58%
0.00%
0.29%
Selected
#
69
35
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
50.72%
49.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relexrant
Applicant Pool %
GS-14
10.75%
10.44%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 9/14/2017
P-values for differences
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01
Disability [06-
98]
T argeted
Disability
Develop-
mental
Disability [02]
Traumatic
Brain Injury
[03]
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
Hearing [131
Blindor
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing [201
Extremities
[31
Significant
Mobility
Impairment
[401
Partial or
Complete
Paralysis [60]
Epilepsy or
Other Seizure
Disorder [82]
Severe
Intellectual
Disability [90]
Significant
Psychiatric
Disorder [91
Dwarfism [92]
Significant
Disfigure-
ment [93]
GS-13
Total Applications
Receixred
0.00
0.00
Qualified
0.02
0.01
Selected
0.19
0.48
Relexant Applicant
Pool %
GS-14
Total Applications
Receixred
0.00
0.00
Qualified
0.23
0.16
Selected
0.14
0.65
Relexant Applicant
Pool %
GS-15
Total Applications
Receixred
0.00
0.00
Qualified
0.01
0.27
Selected
0.10
0.13
Relexant Applicant
Pool %
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
145
-------
Table A-13
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A13 - Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Type of Award
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanicor Latino
Non- Hispanicor
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All 1 Male 1 Female
Male 1 Female
Male I Female
Male I Female
Male 1 Female
Male 1 Female
Male 1 Female
Male 1 Female
Time-Off Awards - 1-9 hours
Total Time-Off Awards Given
#
2191
1000
1191
94
127
712
672
101
286
77
85
0
2
11
13
4
5
%
100%
45.64%
54.36%
4.29%
5.80%
32.50%
30.67%
4.61%
13.05%
3.51%
3.88%
0.00%
0.09%
0.50%
0.59%
0.18%
0.23%
Total Hours
15027
6921
8106
605
820
4998
4645
687
1947
532
580
0
13
64
64
26
29
Average Hours
7
7
7
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
7
6
5
7
6
Time-Off Awards - 9+ hours
Total Time-Off Awards Given
#
2192
855
1337
48
69
656
865
81
288
60
91
3
1
5
12
2
10
%
100%
39.01%
60.99%
2.19%
3.15%
29.93%
39.46%
3.70%
13.14%
2.74%
4.15%
0.14%
0.05%
0.23%
0.55%
0.09%
0.46%
Total Hours
52064
19752
32312
930
1434
15497
21724
1737
6445
1378
2156
49
16
126
297
35
216
Average Hours
24
23
24
19
21
24
25
21
22
23
24
16
16
25
25
18
22
Cash Awards - $100 - $500
Total Cash Awards Given
#
1647
722
925
39
67
537
591
73
167
57
81
1
0
10
17
4
2
%
100%
43.84%
56.16%
2.37%
4.07%
32.60%
35.88%
4.43%
10.14%
3.46%
4.92%
0.06%
0.00%
0.61%
1.03%
0.24%
0.12%
Total Amount
$582,356
$256,886
$325,470
$14,505
$21,876
$187,432
$207,639
$26,599
$59,552
$22,605
$29,611
$235
$0
$3,225
$5,792
$1,785
$1,000
Average Amount
$354
$356
$352
$372
$327
$349
$351
$364
$357
$397
$366
$235
0
$323
$341
$446
$500
Cash Awards - $501 +
Total Cash Awards Given
#
6593
3188
3405
196
273
2415
2005
283
786
247
281
4
5
28
37
14
17
%
100%
48.35%
51.65%
2.97%
4.14%
36.63%
30.41%
4.29%
11.92%
3.75%
4.26%
0.06%
0.08%
0.42%
0.56%
0.21%
0.26%
Total Amount
$10,865,142
$5,3 54,2 6 2
$5,510,880
$314,577
$417,659
$4,139,774
$3,327,710
$445,395
$1,232,157
$378,189
$44 7,593
$5,485
$5,950
$47,867
$49,536
$21,675
$29,675
Average Amount
$1,648
$1,680
$1,618
$1,605
$1,530
$1,714
$1,660
$1,574
$1,568
$1,531
$1,593
$1,371
$1,190
$1,710
$1,339
$1,548
$1,746
Senior Executive Service Performance Awards
Total Cash Awards Given
#
192
113
79
7
2
93
64
11
11
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
58.85%
41.15%
3.65%
1.04%
48.44%
33.33%
5.73%
5.73%
1.04%
1.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Total Amount
$2,563,606
$1,532,525
$1,031,081
$82,827
$23,020
$1,293,438
$832,681
$134,735
$147,968
$21,525
$27,412
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Average Amount
$13,352
$13,562
$13,052
$11,832
$11,510
$13,908
$13,011
$12,249
$13,452
$10,763
$13,706
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quality Step Increases(QSI)
Total QSIs Awarded
#
173
65
108
3
6
50
71
8
22
3
7
0
0
1
2
0
0
%
100%
37.57%
62.43%
1.73%
3.47%
28.90%
41.04%
4.62%
12.72%
1.73%
4.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.58%
1.16%
0.00%
0.00%
Total Benefit
$559,848
$212,363
$347,485
$10,962
$17,841
$164,286
$231,055
$24,786
$72,700
$9,358
$23,483
$0
$0
$2,971
$2,406
$0
$0
Average Benefit
$3,236
$3,267
$3,217
$3,654
$2,974
$3,286
$3,254
$3,098
$3,305
$3,119
$3,355
0
0
$2,971
$1,203
0
0
Source: Data mart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
RACE/ETHNICITY
Non- Hispanicor
Type of Award
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
Latino
Black or
Native Hawa
ian or
American Indian or
Hispanicor Latino
White
African American
Asian
Other Pacific Islander
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All |
male |
female
male |
female
male |
female
male |
female
male |
female
male |
female
male |
female
male |
female
Time-Off Awards -1-9 hours
p-value
0.968
0.968
0.335
0.335
0.968
0.968
0.968
0.968
0.968
0.968
0.000
0.968
0.335
0.003
0.968
0.335
difference
0.0
0.0
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-7.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
0.0
-1.0
Time-Off Awards - 9+ hours
p-value
0.950
0.998
0.000
0.162
0.998
1.000
0.162
0.629
0.950
0.998
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.629
difference
-1.0
0.0
-5.0
-3.0
0.0
1.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
-8.0
-8.0
1.0
1.0
-6.0
-2.0
Cash Awards-$100-$500
p-value
0.729
0.677
0.887
0.316
0.636
0.664
0.819
0.741
0.984
0.838
0.000
0.000
0.265
0.519
1.000
1.000
difference
2.0
-2.0
18.0
-27.0
-5.0
-3.0
10.0
3.0
43.0
12.0
-119.0
-354.0
-31.0
-13.0
92.0
146.0
Cash Awards - $501+
p-value
0.999
0.936
0.880
0.203
1.000
0.996
0.635
0.574
0.211
0.804
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.363
1.000
difference
32.0
-30.0
-43.0
-118.0
66.0
12.0
-74.0
-80.0
-117.0
-55.0
-277.0
-458.0
62.0
-309.0
-100.0
98.0
Senior Executive Service Perfo p-value
1.000
0.999
0.992
0.987
1.000
0.999
0.996
1.000
0.961
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
difference
210.0
-300.0
-1520.0
-1842.0
556.0
-341.0
-1103.0
100.0
-2589.0
354.0
-13352.0
-13352.0
-13352.0
-13352.0
-13352.0
-13352.0
Quality Step Increases(QSI)
p-value
0.996
0.994
1.000
0.968
0.997
0.996
0.986
0.997
0.988
0.998
0.000
0.000
0.968
0.001
0.000
0.000
difference
31.0
-19.0
418.0
-262.0
50.0
18.0
-138.0
69.0
-117.0
119.0
-3236.0
-3236.0
-265.0
-2033.0
-3236.0
-3236.0
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
146
-------
Table B-13
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 1, 2016 to June 30,
2017)
Table B13 - Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Employme nt Tenure
TOTAL
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Retardation
/ Severe
Intellectual
Disability
Illness/
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Limb-
Spine/
Dwarfism
Time-Off Awards - 1-9 hours
#
2191
1967
60
164
41
4
4
0
16
0
6
1
9
1
Total Time-Off Awards Given
%
100%
89.78%
2.74%
7.49%
1.87%
0.18%
0.18%
0.00%
0.73%
0.00%
0.27%
0.05%
0.41%
0.05%
Total Hours
15027
13583
401
1043
283
20
32
0
110
0
45
4
66
6
Average Hours
7
7
7
6
7
5
8
0
7
0
8
4
7
6
Time-Off Awards - 9+ hours
#
2192
1951
69
172
46
5
6
1
16
0
5
1
12
0
Total Time-Off Awards Given
%
100%
89.01%
3.15%
7.85%
2.10%
0.23%
0.27%
0.05%
0.73%
0.00%
0.23%
0.05%
0.55%
0.00%
Total Hours
52064
46418
1702
3944
1021
117
113
16
386
0
138
20
231
0
Average Hours
24
24
25
23
22
23
19
16
24
0
28
20
19
0
Cash Awards - $ 100 - $500
#
1647
1449
54
144
30
2
5
1
13
0
2
2
5
0
Total Cash Awards Given
%
100%
87.98%
3.28%
8.74%
1.82%
0.12%
0.30%
0.06%
0.79%
0.00%
0.12%
0.12%
0.30%
0.00%
Total Amount
$582,356
$511,267
$19,478
$51,611
$10,953
$803
$1,800
$400
$4,650
$0
$650
$750
$1,900
$0
Average Amount
$354
$353
$361
$358
$365
$402
$360
$400
$358
0
$325
$375
$380
0
Cash Awards - $501 +
#
6593
6001
142
450
117
7
12
4
51
4
13
0
25
1
Total Cash Awards Given
%
100%
91.02%
2.15%
6.83%
1.77%
0.11%
0.18%
0.06%
0.77%
0.06%
0.20%
0.00%
0.38%
0.02%
Total Amount
$10,865,142
$9,985,784
$207,056
$672,302
$182,798
$7,250
$26,322
$5,525
$77,798
$5,500
$22,463
$0
$36,890
$1,050
Average Amount
$1,648
$1,664
$1,458
$1,494
$1,562
$1,036
$2,194
$1,381
$1,525
$1,375
$1,728
0
$1,476
$1,050
Senior Executive Service Performance Awards
#
192
177
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Cash Awards Given
%
100%
92.19%
2.60%
5.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Total Amount
$2,563,606
$2,369,382
$62,859
$131,365
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Average Amount
$13,352
$13,386
$12,572
$13,137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quality Step Increases(QSI)
#
173
159
3
11
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total Cash Awards Given
%
100%
91.91%
1.73%
6.36%
1.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.58%
0.58%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Total Amount
$559,848
$511,908
$9,010
$38,930
$7,468
$0
$0
$3,734
$3,734
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Average Amount
$3,236
$3,220
$3,003
$3,539
$3,734
0
0
$3,734
$3,734
0
0
0
0
0
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
Total by Disability Status
Employment Tenure
TOTAL
(04,05)
No
Disability
-1
Not
Identified
(06-98)
Disability
Targeted
Disability
Time-Off Awards -1-9 hours
0.975
0.731
0.975
Time-Off Awards - 9+ hours
0.995
0.960
0.911
Cash Awards - $100 - $500
0.904
0.890
0.921
Cash Awards - $501+
0.710
0.791
0.902
Senior Executive Service Performance Awards
1.000
1.000
N/A
Quality Step Increases(QSI)
0.997
1.000
1.000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
147
-------
Table A-14
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table A14- Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Type of Separation
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Voluntary 2017
#
621
311
311
11
13
245
180
35
92
14
20
1
0
4
4
0
2
%
100%
50.08%
50.08%
1.77%
2.09%
39.45%
28.99%
5.64%
14.81%
2.25%
3.22%
0.16%
0.00%
0.64%
0.64%
0.00%
0.32%
Involuntary 2017
#
17
11
6
0
0
7
2
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
%
100%
64.71%
35.29%
0.00%
0.00%
41.18%
11.76%
17.65%
23.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.88%
0.00%
RIF 2017
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Total separation
2017
#
638
322
317
11
13
252
182
38
96
14
20
1
0
4
4
1
2
%
100%
50.47%
49.69%
1.72%
2.04%
39.50%
28.53%
5.96%
15.05%
2.19%
3.13%
0.16%
0.00%
0.63%
0.63%
0.16%
0.31%
Permanent
Workforce 2017
#
14810
7088
7722
466
575
5283
4550
741
1907
495
542
8
9
70
88
25
51
%
100%
48%
52%
3%
4%
36%
31%
5%
13%
3%
4%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
RACE/ETHNICITY
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
Type of Separation
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
male |
female
male | female
male
female
male |
female
male
female
male | female
male
female
male |
female
p-value
0.138
0.862
0.989 0.996
0.025
0.842
0.2551
0.081
0.958
0.755
0.290 N/A
0.338
0.507
N/A
0.637
Voluntary 2017
differenc
2.22%
-2.06%
-1.38% -1.79%
3.78%
-1.73%
0.64%
1.93%
-1.09%
-0.44%
0.11% -0.06%
0.17%
0.05%
-0.17%
-0.02%
p-value
0.125
0.950
N/A In/a
0.404
0.983
0.050
0.167
N/A
N/A
N/A In/a
N/A
N/A
0.028 N/A
Involuntary 2017
differenc
16.85%
######
-3.15% -3.88%
5.51%
######
12.65%
10.65%
-3.34%
-3.66%
-0.05% -0.06%
-0.47%
-0.59%
5.71%
-0.34%
RIF 2017
Total separation
p-value
0.095
0.905
0.992 0.997
0.022
0.899
0.150
0.056
0.968
0.794
0.297 N/A
0.356
0.529
0.6681
0.652
2017
differenc
2.61%
-2.45%
-1.43% -1.84%
3.83%
-2.19%
0.96%
2.17%
-1.15%
-0.53%
0.11% -0.06%
0.16%
0.04%
-0.01%
-0.03%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
148
-------
Table B-14
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(From October 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017)
Table B14- Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Type of Separation
TOTAL
Disability
Identified
Li m bs/
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Retardation/
Illness/
Limb-Spine/
Extremities
Epilepsy
Severe
Intellectual
Disability
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Dwarfism
#
622
546
14
62
19
1
1
1
10
0
0
2
4
0
Voluntary 2017
%
100%
87.78%
2.25%
9.97%
3.05%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
1.61%
0.00%
0.00%
0.32%
0.64%
0.00%
#
17
13
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Involuntary 2017
%
100%
76.47%
5.88%
17.65%
5.88%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.88%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIF 2017
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Total Separations
#
639
559
15
65
20
1
1
1
10
1
0
2
4
0
2017
%
100%
87.48%
2.35%
10.17%
3.13%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
1.56%
0.16%
0.00%
0.31%
0.63%
0.00%
Total Workforce
#
14869
13325
408
1136
297
23
35
8
120
7
25
4
73
2
2017
%
100%
89.62%
2.74%
7.64%
2.00%
0.15%
0.24%
0.05%
0.81%
0.05%
0.17%
0.03%
0.49%
0.01%
Total by Disability Status
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Type of Separation
Total
Disability
Identified
p-value
0.813
0.018
0.044
Voluntary 2017
diffe rence
-0.49%
2.33%
1.05%
p-value
0.377
0.136
0.290
Involuntary 2017
diffe rence
3.14%
10.01%
3.88%
RIF 2017
Total Separations
p-value
0.769
0.011
0.032
2017
diffe rence
-0.39%
2.53%
1.13%
Source: Datamart
Download Date: 09/14/2017
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
149
-------
LIST OF ADDITIONAL APPENDICES
MANDATORY DOCUMENTS
1. EPA Organizational Chart (ending FY 17)
2. EEO Policy Statement (existing FY16)
3. EPA Strategic Plan (FY 2018-2022)
4. Anti-Harassment Policy Statement (existing FY16)
5. Anti-Harassment Procedures (existing FY16)
6. Reasonable Accommodations Programs, Policy and Procedures (existing AFGE and All Other Employees)
7. Personal Assistance Services Addendum Memo
8. Alternative Dispute Resolution Program and Policy (link and scanned copy of webpage for reference)
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
9. FEORP 2017 (pilot; issued April 2018)
10. Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) (FY 16 DVAAP Report; FY 17 DVAAP Plan
issued December 2, 2017)
11. Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP FY 2017-2021)
12. Employee Viewpoint Survey or Annual Employee Survey
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS
13. Delegation of Authority to Sign FY2017 EPA Annual Equal Employment Opportunity Program Status
Report
14. Section 508 Compliance Webpage
15. EPA Exit Survey 2016-2018
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
------- |