>^tDsrx
PRO^^°
Management Directive 715 Report
Fiscal Year 2018
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Protecting Human Health andthe 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 D - Components and Mandatory Documents 4
Part E - Executive Summary 9
Part F - Certification of Establishment of Continuing Equal Employment Opportunity Programs 18
Part G - FY2018 Self-Assessment Towards a Model EEO Program Checklist 19
Part H - Plan to Correct Deficiencies 52
Part I - Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier 61
Part J - Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons
with Disabilities 68
Appendix A - FY2018 Workforce Data Tables 92
-------
EEOC FORM U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
715-01 FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM
PARTS A-J EPA STATUS REPORT FY2018
Part A - Department or Agency Identifying Information
Agency
Second Level
Component
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Agency
Code
FIPS Code
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW
Washington
DC.
20460
EP00
6800
Part B-Total Employment
Total Employment
Permanent Workforce
Temporary Workforce
Total Workforce
Numberof Employees reported between
October 1, 2017 and September30,2018
13,747
814
14,561
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
AndrewWheeler
Administrator
Head of Agency Designee
Helena Wooden-Aguilar
Acting Deputy Chief of Staff
1
-------
Part C.2 - Agency Official(s) Responsible for Oversight of EEO Program(s)
EEO Program
Staff
Name
Title
Occupational
Series
Pay Plan
and Grade
Phone Number
Email Address
Principal EEO
Director/Official
Vicki Simons
Kevin J Bailey
Acting Director,
Office of Civil Rights
Acting Deputy Director,
Office of Civil Rights
0905
SES
202-564-
7272202-564-
2998
Simons.vicki(®eDa.eov
Kevi ni .ba i 1 ev(a>eoa .eov
Affirmative
Employment
Program
Manager
Michael Nieves
Acting Assistant Director,
Affirmative Employment,
Analysis, and
Accountability Staff
0260
GS-15
202-566-1478
nieves.micha elf® eDa.eov
Complaint
Processing
Program
Manager
Cynthia Darden
Assistant Director
Employee Complaint
Resolution Staff, Title VII
0260
GS-15
202-564-1587
Da rden .Cvnth i a (® eDa .gov
Diversity &
Inclusion Officer
Bisa Cunningham
Director, Diversity,
Recruitment, and
Employee Services Division
0201
GS-15
202-5646635
Cunningham.Bisaf® eDa.gov
Hispanic
Program
Manager (SEPM)
Michael Nieves
EEO Manager/National
Hispanic Employment
Program
0260
GS-15
202-566-1478
nieves.micha elf® eDa.gov
Women's
Program
Manager (SEPM)
MargaretGerardin
EEO Manager / National
Federal Women's
Employment Program,
WISE
0260
GS-13
202-564-5491
gera rdi n.ma rga ret(® eDa .gov
Disability
Program
Manager (SEPM)
Christopher Emanuel
EEO Manager/National
Disability Employment
Program
0260
GS-14
202-5647286
Ema nuel .Chri stoDherf® eDa .gov
2
-------
EEO Program
Staff
Name
Title
Occupational
Series
Pay Plan
and Grade
Phone Number
Email Address
Special
Placement
Program
Coordinator
(Individuals with
Disabilities)
Christopher Emanuel
EEO Manager/National
Disability Employment
Program, AI/AN
0260
GS-14
202-5647287
Ema nuel .Chri stoDherf® eDa .gov
Reasonable
Accommodation
Program
Manager
Amanda Sweda
National Reasonable
Accommodations
Coordinator
0260
GS-14
202-566-0678
Sweda .Ama nda (® eDa .gov
Anti-Harassment
Program
Manager
Randolph Ferrell
Program Manager, "Order
4711" Anti-Harassment
0201
GS-14
202-5641927
Ferrel 1 .Ra ndol Dh(® eDa .gov
ADR Program
Manager
Norwood Dennis
OCR ADR Coordinator
0260
GS-14
919-541-4249
Dennis.Norwood®)eDa .gov
Principal MD-
715 Preparer
Jerome King
EEO Manager, National
LGBT, Black, NACE, and
EFEDs Program
0260
GS-14
202-564-7429
Ki ng.Jeromef® eDa .gov
Other EEO Staff
KristinTropp
AssistantNational
Reasonable
Accommodations
Coordinator
0343
GS-12
202-559-0006
TroDD.Kristin(®eDa.gov
Renee Clark
EEO Specialist/Team Lead,
Title VII
0260
GS-14
202-564-7269
Clark.Renee(®eDa.gov
3
-------
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 subordinate components, please check the box.
Subordinate Component
City
State
Country (Optional)
Agency Code
FIPS
Codes
Headquarters Program Offices in Washington, DC
Officeofthe Administrator
Washington
DC
EPOOAM
6800
Officeof Administration and Resources Management
Washington
DC
EPOOHG
6800
Officeof Air and Radiation
Washington
DC
EPOOLA
6800
Officeofthe Chief Financial Officer
Washington
DC
EPOOFJ
6800
Officeof Enforcement and ComplianceAssurance
Washington
DC
EPOOBE
6800
Officeof General Counsel
Washington
DC
EPOOCN
6800
Officeofthe InspectorGeneral
Washington
DC
EPOODP
6800
Officeof International andTribal Affairs
Washington
DC
EPOOEL
6800
Officeof Environmental Information
Washington
DC
EPOOGH
6800
Officeof Chemical, Safety and Pollution Prevention
Washington
DC
EPOOMC
6800
4
-------
Subordinate Component
City
State
Country (Optional)
Agency Code
FIPS
Codes
Officeof Research and Development
Washington
DC
EPOONF
6800
Officeof Land and Emergency Management
Washington
DC
EPOOKD
6800
Officeof 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
5
-------
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
EPOOZX
6800
Program Labs
OAR/O RIA/NAREL
Montgomery
AL
EPOOLA
6800
OAR/ORIA/NVFEL:
Ann Arbor
Ml
EPOOLA
6800
OAR/O RIA/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
6
-------
Part D.2 - Mandatory and Optional Documents for this Report
In the table below, the Agency mustsubmitthesedocuments 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 Pol icy 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 ReasonableAccommodation Procedures (NRAP) and the EPA Reasonable
Accommodation Procedures.
Personal AssistanceServices
Procedures
YES
An addendum to meet new 501 Rule and EEOC guidancewas drafted in FY18. A memo outlining
the plan to finalize the addendum is included as an Appendix.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Procedures
YES
ADR and WorkplaceResolution 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 complaintprocess in FY16, which has been extended through FY17.
1
-------
In the table below, the Agency may decide whetherto 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 areincluded 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), Planfor 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 increasingawareness 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 Pol icy 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 thatthe 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 res ha ping efforts have been considered
and implemented.
Results from most recent Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey or Annual Employee
Survey
YES
8
-------
Part E - Executive Summary
All agencies must complete Pa rtE.l; however, only agencies with 199 or fewer employees inpermanentFT/PT
appointments a re required to complete Pa rt E. 2 to E.5. Agencies with 200 or more employees in permanent FT/PT
appointments have the option to complete Pa rtE.2 to E.5.
Introduction
This Equal Employment Opportunity Program (EEO) Status Report outlines the status of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency) FY2018 (FY18) Equal Employment
Opportunity Program activities, as required by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's (EEOC) Management Directive 715 (MD-715). This report highlights EPA's
accomplishments in establishing and maintaining a model EEO program based on the six
essential elements outlined by the EEOC:
• Demonstrated Commitment from Agency Leadership
• Integration of EEO into the Agency's Strategic Plan
• Management and Program Accountability
• Proactive Prevention of Unlawful Discrimination
• Efficiency
• Responsiveness and Legal Compliance
EPA reviewed its programs activities from FY18 against these six essential elements. Where
program deficiencies were identified, planned activities to address them were developed.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The mission of the EPA is, "To protect human health and the environment." Fostering and
maintaining a diverse, highly-skilled, and engaged workforce consistent with EEO and merit
system principles is essential to fulfilling EPA's mission. EPA works to ensure that Americans
have clean air, land and water and safe chemicals by administering and enforcing federal laws
passed by Congress. The Agency works to achieve its environmental and human health
objectives through collaboration with its external partners, such as states, tribal governments
and the regulated community.
The Office of Civil Rights
The EPA's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) provides leadership, direction, and guidance in carrying
out the Agency's EEO program. OCR ensures compliance with federal nondiscrimination
employment laws, regulations, and executive orders (EO). EPA's senior leadership has
established EEO as one of its top priorities by recognizing that building and supporting a diverse
and talented workforce is critical to the Agency's mission. OCR's mission statement is, "To
9
-------
create a model civil rights program that improves the employment experience at EPA." To fulfill
this mission, OCR utilizes five guiding principles:
• Timeliness of Regulatory Deliverables and Services
• Customer Service
• Collaboration/Cooperation
• Innovation
• Expertise
These principles were developed as a guidepost for OCR and reflect the commitment of the
program to achieve its various objectives.
Model EEO Program - Essenii i »ji«; iip1.1 rs_
As noted above, the Agency reviewed its program activities from FY18 against the six essential
elements of a model civil rights program as prescribed by the EEOC. The sections below provide
a few examples of EPA's accomplishments under each of those elements. Additional
information can be found in Part G.
Essential Element A - Demonstrated Commitm< Agency Leadership
EPA's senior leadership has demonstrated commitment to EEO as evidenced through the
release of the EEO Policy Statement on July 31, 2018 and the Anti-Harassment Policy Statement
on August 10, 2018. Both policies were released by then Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler
(since confirmed as Administrator). Both policies were released within 60 days of Administrator
Wheeler becoming the head of the Agency. Additionally, Agency leadership has shown
demonstrated commitment to EEO in the following ways:
• Hired a permanent Director for OCR in May 2018, bringing stability to the Office of Civil
Rights after several years of acting leadership.
• The EEO policy statement released in July 2018, reaffirmed the Administrator's
expectation that management participation in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR),
when requested, is mandatory, absent extraordinary circumstances.
• The Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Council (DIAC), consisting of EPA leadership in the
Senior Executive Service (SES) played an active role in EEO and diversity related
initiatives including the DIAC's review and approval of the FY18 workplan of the
Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (DISP), 2017-2021. OCR and the Office of Human
Resources (OHR) collaborate on many of the DISP's activities.
• The amplification - via direct messages and discussions with staff - of Agency policies on
EEO and anti-harassment by senior leadership in their respective sub-components (i.e.,
program and regional offices).
• Continued engagement by EPA senior leadership in Special Emphasis Program (SEP)
activities.
10
-------
• OHR's Agency-wide reissuance of EPA's policies and procedures related to EEO, anti-
harassment and reasonable accommodations. For example, hard copy materials are
posted and visible throughout EPA headquarters, regions and labs. Information is also
made available on EPA's intranet. OCR also regularly provides information about our
programs, policies and practices to all new employees at New Employee Orientations.
• EPA annually awards Suzanne E. Olive Award for Exemplary Leadership in National EEO
to recognize individuals and/or groups for their significant contributions to EEO and civil
rights, and diversity and inclusion.
Essential Element B - Integration of EEO into the Agency's Strategic Mission
In FY18, OCR continued to work with Agency senior leadership to integrate EEO into the
Agency's strategic mission. More specifically, several functions within OCR align with Goal 3 of
the Agency's Strategic Plan, 2018-2022: Rule of Law and Process. The most notable processes
aligning with this goal include the Title VII investigations process and the reasonable
accommodation program. Timeliness metrics for both the Title VII investigations and
reasonable accommodations were also measured as part of the Agency's EPA Lean
Management System (ELMS). As referenced in the EPA's Strategic Plan, ELMS is being
implemented to improve business processes and eliminate waste throughout the Agency.
Additionally, in FY18, OCR began developing its own Strategic Plan to direct the program's work
through FY23.
Other ways EEO was integrated into the Agency's mission are as follows:
• The EEO Director reports directly to the Office of the Administrator. The EEO Director
routinely met with EPA's senior management and was provided opportunities to discuss
EEO issues.
• Continued implementation of the DISP. The DISP has specific goals and objectives aimed
at meeting the Agency's EEO and diversity objectives and thus working towards
fostering and maintaining a diverse, highly-skilled, and engaged workforce.
• OCR and OHR senior managers met monthly to identify areas of collaboration on EEO
and diversity and inclusion efforts, including targeted outreach and recruitment.
• EPA continued to focus on building partnerships with professional organizations and
minority-serving institutions as part of its recruitment and outreach efforts and to
identify areas of mutual interest to support EPA's mission.
Essential Element C - Management and Program Accountability
In FY18 OCR continued to ensure management and program accountability. For example, OCR
ensured compliance with settlement agreements resulting from Title VII investigations of
complaints of discrimination. OCR leadership also addressed other areas to ensure greater
accountability within the Title VII program; this included using the Lean methodology to create
a more efficient approach to processing investigations. The use of ADR also increased in FY18 to
11
-------
a participation rate of 45%. The Agency worked to significantly improve the processing time for
issuing final Agency decisions (FADs) by fine-tuning internal processes. For example, OCR
reduced inefficiency by developing standardized FAD templates to speed up the issuance
process and to allow OCR staff and a cadre of volunteer FAD writers to effectively and quickly
assist in the FAD reduction project that concluded in January 2018. Other efforts included:
• The OCR Director, with the support of the Deputy Civil Rights Officials (i.e., senior
managers in each of our programs and regions), ensured effective and timely
management of EPA's EEO complaints program (including responsiveness of
management to complaints, specifically affidavits).
• Continued direct, monthly communication between the OCR director and EEO Officers
who support implementation of the programs in EPA's regional offices.
• Reengaged Agency partners and our cadre of Deputy Civil Rights Officials on areas
previously identified as deficiencies by EEOC, including applicant-flow for both the 0905
attorney advisor series and career development opportunities (see part H for more
details).
• OCR and OHR revised and released our Handbook to ensure greater accountability with
the Special Emphasis Program (SEP).
• Implemented Special Emphasis Program Manager (SEPM) training based on principles
and practices described in the SEPM Handbook.
• With OHR, ensured implementation of FY18 activities outlined in the DISP.
• Processed a record 459 reasonable accommodation requests while maintaining a
timeliness rate of 97%.
• Provided regular training to management and staff on Reasonable Accommodations.
Essential Element D - Proactive Prevention
The EEO Policy Statement released in July 2018 made clearthe Agency's commitment to a
workplace free of discrimination and to the principles of EEO. Efforts by OCR to proactively
prevent discrimination include identifying triggers within FY18 workforce data and prioritizing
triggers through barrier analysis. The barrier analysis priorities resulting from an identification
of triggers from FY18 data are:
• Upward Mobility of Hispanics to Senior Level Positions (GS-13 through SES)
• Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in the Major Occupations
• Participation Rates in the SES
Additional proactive prevention efforts included:
• A coordinated effort between OCR and OHR to develop a new process for hiring PWD
under the Schedule A hiring authority. An initial pilot program created an online post on
USAJOBS.gov to guide PWD to EPA vacancy announcements. Additionally, EPA will
12
-------
create a resume repository for Schedule A job candidates. This effort aims to increase
the hiring of PWD and provide consistency and clarity in their recruitment experience.
• Reasonable accommodation training provided to supervisors to better inform them of
the procedure associated with providing accommodations for qualified PWD.
• OHR produced individual Employment Viewpoint Survey (EVS) reports for individual race
and sexual orientation groups; the reports focused on determining the feeling of
"inclusivity" for each group by using the five identified habits of inclusion: fairness;
openness; cooperativeness; empowerment; and support.
• Bi-annually, EPA conducts the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and
Retaliation Act of2002 (No FEAR Act) training. 98% of EPA employees participated in
biennial training in FY18. Additionally, EPA required all newly hired employees to
complete the online No FEAR Act training within their first 90 days of employment at the
Agency.
Essential Element E~ Efficiency
During FY18, the Title VII program used the Lean methodology to develop streamlined and
efficient procedures for processing Title VII investigations. As a result, the program achieved a
90% timeliness completion rate for investigations. The Title VII program had an ADR
participation rate of 45%. Of the matters that went to ADR, 47% successfully resolved the
informal complaint (i.e., 21.62% of all informal complaints were resolved through ADR).
Additional efforts included:
• Completing a multi-year final agency decision (FAD) reduction project, using a cadre of
volunteer FAD writers from across the Agency. This approach proved to be the most
efficient and effective way to reduce the docket.
• 97% timeliness rate for processing reasonable accommodation requests.
• Greater coordination between OCR and OHR on areas of mutual interest to reduce
duplicative efforts.
Essential Element F - Responsiveness and Legal Compliance
EPA continues to focus on compliance with EEO laws and EEOC regulations, policies, and
directives. As part of this effort, OCR staff received training to ensure they were up-to-date on
regulatory and other changes impacting their programs. Additionally, OCR:
• Ensured compliance with Title VII settlement agreements because of complaints of
discrimination.
• Achieved a timeliness rate of 90% for the 71 complaint investigations conducted in
FY 18.
• Updated reasonable accommodations training and procedures to reflect the EEOC
regulations on personal assistance services (PAS).
• Timely submitted of the No FEAR Act Report.
13
-------
Workforce Analysis
Workforce analysis of FY18 data resulted in the prioritization of three areas for barrier analysis:
Upward mobility of Hispanics, GS-12 through SES; PWD in the Major Occupations; and
Participation Rates within the SES. A brief snapshot of our trigger analysis is below. This
analysis is supplemented by the formation of project teams comprised of OCR staff, SES
Executive Champions, and other civil rights and human resources champions. Applying EPA
Lean principles and practices, the teams will launch efforts to develop barrier analysis
associated with identified triggers.
Overall Agency Demographics for FY18
Permanent Workforce 13,747
Temporary Workforce 814
Total Workforce 14,561
Table 1: Overall Agency Demographics for FY18
Race/National Origin National
TOTAL
By Gender:
Male
By Gender:
Female
White
66.97%
36.53%
30.44%
Black or African American
17.05%
4.89%
12.16%
Asian
7.19%
3.48%
3.71%
Hispanic
7.03%
3.23%
3.80%
American Indian / Alaska Native
1.01%
.47%
.54%
Two or More Races
.58%
.2%
.38%
Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
.10%
0.05%
0.05%
Upward Mobility of Hispanics, GS-13 through SES
Due to persistent low representation of Hispanics in the federal workforce, the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and the EEOC directed federal agencies, at the suggestion of the
Hispanic Council on Federal Employment (HCFE), to conduct a more thorough barrier analysis
on Hispanic employment. EPA looked at trends from FY16 - FY18 and noted that there has been
very little change in Hispanic participation in the workforce; only a net gain of 3 Hispanic
employees during that timeframe.
FY 2016-Total Hispanics: 1,020
FY2017-Total Hispanics: 1,051
FY2018-Total Hispanics: 1,023
14
-------
In FY18, Hispanics at EPA had less than expected participation rates when compared to the
Civilian Labor Force (CLF).
Hispanic Males: 5.17% (CLF) vs 3.23% (EPA)
Hispanic Females: 4.79% (CLF) vs 3.80% (EPA)
Regarding the upward mobility of Hispanics, an analysis of workforce data revealed that
selection rates for internal promotions to the GS13, GS14, and GS15 levels are less than
expected for Hispanic males and females. The participation rates in the SES show that Hispanic
males are participating at higher rates than their representation in the feeder pool (GS-15).
However, this is not the case for Hispanic females as they are participating in the SES at rates
lower than their representation in the feeder pool (GS-15).
Hispanic Males: 2.66% (GS-15) vs 3.50% (SES)
Hispanic Females: 2.38% (GS-15) vs 2.33% (SES)
Again, this is an initial analysis based on triggers identified within the workforce. A thorough
barrier analysis will be conducted to determine whether any policy, practice or procedure is
causing the statistical result, thereby limiting opportunities for advancement for Hispanics at
the Agency.
. \ i « in the Mc • :cu potions
EPA continues to fall short in some areas with hiring PWD and PWTD, despite the availability of
special hiring authorities. The EEOC and OPM have set a target for inclusion in the federal
workforce of 12% for persons with disabilities and 2% for persons with targeted (severe)
disabilities (PWTD). Based on triggers identified from workforce data, EPA will focus its barrier
analysis on PWD and PWTD in the major occupations.
For FY18, Major occupations where the selection rates for applications and hires were less than
expected compared to qualification rates for both PWD and PWTD were:
Environmental Protection Specialist (0028)
Misc. Administration and Program Specialist (0301)
Management/Program Analyst (0343)
General Biological Science (0401)
Considering these are some of the occupations where the Agency does the most of its hiring, it
is important to determine if there are in fact barriers adversely impacting the hiring of PWD and
PWTD. This effort will also support the new hiring process for PWD and PWTD being developed
with OHR to increase the participation of PWD and PWTD in EPA's workforce.
15
-------
Details regarding the EPA's affirmative action plan for PWD and PWTD can be found below in
Part J - Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement and Retention of
Persons with Disabilities.
Porticipotion Rates in the SES
Participation rates within the Senior Executive Service (SES) show minimal change in the last
three fiscal years. However, with an increasing number of SES eligible for retirement, there is a
potential for change in the SES. EPA will conduct further analysis of SES participation rates and
applicant flow data.
Table 2: Participation Rates in the SES
1
FY 16
FY 17
FY 18 |
SES Total
271
266
257
Male
58.67%
56.77%
55.64%
Female
41.33%
43.23%
44.36%
Hispanic
5.17%
5.64%
5.84%
White
80.44%
80.83%
79.77%
Black
11.44%
10.15%
11.28%
Asian
2.22%
2.63%
2.33%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0%
0%
0%
American Indian/Alaska Native
.74%
.75%
.75%
Two or More Races
0%
0%
0%
An initial analysis of participation rates by race, national origin, and sex indicated lower than
expected participation rates when compared to the GS-15 feeder pools for the following:
Females
Hispanic/Latina Females
Black/African American Females
Asian Males and Females
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males and Females
Two or More Races Males and Females
There are several caveats to consider when conducting an analysis on the SES, including: length
of tenure; availability of opportunities; and how applicants enter SES. EPA is further refining its
methodology for conducting this barrier analysis considering these and other factors. This
analysis is critical as the possibility of high turnover amongst EPA senior leadership due to
retirement over the next several years will mean opportunities for advancement.
OCR established an Executive Champions model that will be used to directly engage and involve
DCROs in the above priorities. OCR will leverage Champions' experience, resources, expertise,
and networks to identify and eliminate barriers. The champions will be supported by OCR
16
-------
project leads and other identified workgroup members whose job functions or interests align
with a priority. Using this approach, the Agency expects to complete barrier analyses in the
target areas, and report findings in the FY19 MD-715 Report to EEOC.
17
-------
Part F - Certification of Establishment of Continuing Equal
Employment Opportunity Programs
Certification of Establishment of
Continuing Equal Employment Opportunity Programs
I, Vicki A. Simons, Director of the Office of Civil Rights, am the Principal EEO Director/Official for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The annual self-assessment of EPA programs relative to Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against the essential elements, as prescribed by the
Management Directive 715 (MD-715), has been completed. If an essential element was not fully
compliant with MD-715 standards, a subsequent evaluation was conducted. As appropriate, EPA's
plans for attaining the essential elements of a model EEO program are included with this Federal
Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.
EPA has also analyzed its workforce profiles and will conduct barrier analyses aimed at detecting
whether any management or personnel policy, procedure, or practice is operating to disadvantage
any group based on race, national origin, gender, or disability. EEO Plans to Eliminate Identified
Barriers, as appropriate, are included with this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.
I certify that proper documentation of this assessment is in place and is being maintained for U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) review upon request.
Signature of Principal EEO Director/Official
Certifies that this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program
Status Report is in compliance with EEOC MD-715
Date
MAY 3 0 2019
Signature of Agency Head or Agency Head Designee
Date
18
-------
Part G - FY2018 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
A.1 - The agency issues an
effective, up-to-date EEO policy
statement.
Measure
Met?
Comments
~
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
1
A.1.a
Does the Agency annually reissue the
signed and dated EEO policy
statement 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)]
YES
The EEO policy statement was issued on July 31, 2018.
2
A.1.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
Compliance
Indicator
A.2 - The agency has
communicated EEO policies and
procedures to all employees.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
19
-------
3
A.2.a
Does the AAship/Region disseminate
the following policies and procedures
to all employees:
4
A.2.a.1
Anti-harassment policy? [see MD 715,
11 (A)]
YES
5
A.2.a.2
Reasonable accommodation
procedures? [see 29 C.F.R §
1614.203(d)(3)]
YES
6
A.2.b
Does the AAship/Region prominently
post the following information
throughout the workplace and on its
public website:
7
A.2.b.1
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
8
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
9
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
https://www.epa.gov/ocr/reasonable-
accommodation##un ion procedures
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
08/documents/afge nrap revised 2018.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
08/documents/non-afge nrap revised 2018.pdf
10
A.2.C
Does the agency inform its employees
about the following topics?
20
-------
11
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
On an annual basisthe Agencydistributesthe EEOand Anti-
Harassment policies to all employees. These policies are always
available on the Agency's website and in Agency EEO trainings.
Information about the complaint process can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/ocr/emplovment-complaint-
resolutions#what
12
A.2.C.2
ADR process? [see MD-110, Ch.
3(II)(C)] If "yes", please provide how
often.
YES
On an annual basisthe Agency distributesthe EEOand Anti-
Harassment policies to all employees. These policies are always
available on the Agency's website and in Agency EEO trainings.
Information about the complaint process can be found at:
https://www.epa.gov/ocr/emplovment-complaint-
resolutions#what
13
A.2.C.3
Reasonable accommodation program?
[see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If
"yes", please provide how often.
YES
Training on the reasonable accommodations program is offered
several times throughout the year and is made available to all
Agency employees. Information aboutthe program can always
be found here: https://www.epa.gov/ocr/reasonable-
accommodation##un ion procedures
14
A.2.C.4
Anti-harassment program? [see EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious
Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors (1999), §
V.C.1] If "yes", please provide how
often.
YES
On an annual basisthe Agency distributesthe Anti-Harassment
policy to all employees. This policy is always available on the
Agency's website and can be found out:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
09/documents/fv-18-anti-harassment-policv-statments.pdf
Procedures for addressing allegations of workplace harassment
can be found here:
httDs://www.eDa.aov/sites/Droducti on/files/2016-
01/documents/eDa order 4711 workDlace harassment final.Ddf
15
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
On an annual basisthe Agency distributesthe Anti-Harassment
policy to all employees. This policy is always available on the
Agency's website and can be found out:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
09/documents/fv-18-anti-harassment-policv-statments.pdf
Information regarding behaviors inappropriate in the workplace
can be found here:
httDs://www. eDa.aov/sites/Droduction/files/2016-
01/documents/eDa order 4711 workDlace harassment final.Ddf
21
-------
Compliance
Indicator
A.3 - The agency assesses and
Measure
Met?
Measures
ensures EEO principles are part of
its culture.
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
16
A.3.a
Does the AAship/Region 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).
17
A.3.b
Does the AAship/Region utilize the
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or
other climate assessment tools to
monitor the perception of EEO
principles within the workforce? [see 5
CFR Part 250]
YES
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
B.1 - The reporting structure for the
EEO program provides the principal
EEO official with appropriate
Measure
Met?
Comments
~
authority and resources to
effectively carry out a successful
EEO program.
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
18
B.1.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
22
-------
19
B.1.a.1
If the EEO Director does not report to
the Agency head, does the EEO
Director report to the same
AAship/Region head designee as the
mission-related programmatic offices?
If "yes," please provide the title of
the agency head designee in the
comments.
N/A
See previous answer.
20
B.1.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
21
B.1.b
Does the EEO Director have a regular
and effective means of advising the
Agency's 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. II
YES
22
B.1.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
EEO" covering the six essential
elements of the model EEO program
and the status of the barrier analysis
process? [see MD-715 Instructions,
Sec. I)] If "yes", please provide the
date of the briefing in the comments
column.
NO
The Agency's Head and senior management officials did not
receive the "State of the Agency's EEO" briefing from the EEO
Director in FY18. This deficiency will be corrected in FY19 with
the "State of the Agency EEO" briefing taking place in April 2019.
Please see Part H-1 for further explanation.
23
B.1.d
Does the EEO Director regularly
participate in senior-level staff
meetings concerning personnel,
budget, technology, and other
workforce issues? [see MD-715, ll(B)]
YES
23
-------
Compliance
Indicator
B.2 - The EEO Director controls all
aspects of the EEO program.
Measure
Met?
Comments
~
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
24
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
25
B.2.b
Is the EEO Director responsible for
overseeing the completion of EEO
counseling [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(4)]
YES
26
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
27
B.2.d
Is the EEO Director responsible for
overseeing the timely issuance of final
agency decisions? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may
not be applicable for certain
subordinate level components.]
YES
28
B.2.e
Is the EEO Director responsible for
ensuring compliance with EEOC
orders? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(e);
1614.502]
YES
29
B.2.f
Is the EEO Director responsible for
periodically evaluating their EEO
program and providing
recommendations for improvement to
the Agency head? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(2)]
YES
24
-------
Does the EEO Director provide
30
B.2.g
effective guidance and coordination for
the components? [see 29 CFR §§
1614.102(c)(2) and (c)(3)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
B.3 - The EEO Director and other
EEO professional staff are involved
Measure
Met?
Comments
~
in, and consulted on,
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
management/personnel actions.
31
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
32
B.3.b
Do strategic plans 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 for FYs 2018 -2022 (See Appendices)
developed by the Office of Human Resources; for example,
management and program accountability. Additionally, the Office
of Civil Rights is developing its strategic plan for FY2019 - 2022.
The goals for this plan mirrors the six essential elements of a
model civil rights program.
Compliance
Indicator
B.4 - The agency has sufficient
budget and staffing to support the
success of its EEO program.
Measure
Met?
Comments
~
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
33
B.4.a
Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(1),
has the agency allocated sufficient
funding and qualified staffing to
successfully implement the EEO
program, for the following areas:
25
-------
34
B.4.a.1
to conduct a self-assessment for
possible program deficiencies? [see
MD-715, 11(D)]
YES
35
B.4.a.2
to enable thorough barrier analysis of
its workforce? [see MD-715, 11(B)]
YES
36
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) - (1);
MD-110, Ch. 1 (IV)(D) & 5(IV); MD-715,
11(E)]
YES
37
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, ll(B)
and lll(C)] If not, please identify the
type(s) of training with insufficient
funding in the comments column.
YES
38
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
39
B.4.a.6
to publish and distribute EEO materials
(e.g. harassment policies, EEO
posters, reasonable accommodations
procedures)? [see MD-715, ll(B)]
YES
26
-------
40
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,
ll(E)]. If not, please identify the
systems with insufficient funding in
the comments section.
YES
41
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
USC § 7201; 38 USC § 4214; 5 CFR §
720.204; 5 CFR § 213.3102© and (u);
5 CFR §315.709]
YES
42
B.4.a.9
to effectively manage its anti-
harassment program? [see MD-715
Instructions, Sec. I); EEOC
Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious
Employer Liability for Unlawful
Harassment by Supervisors (1999), §
V.C.1]
YES
43
B.4.a.10
to effectively manage its reasonable
accommodation program? [see 29
CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)(ii)]
YES
44
B.4.a.11
to ensure timely and complete
compliance with EEOC orders? [see
MD-715, 11(E)]
YES
45
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)]
YES
46
B.4.C
Are the duties and responsibilities of
EEO officials clearly defined? [see
MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A), 2(lll), & 6(lll)]
YES
27
-------
47
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(I I) (A) of MD-110?
YES
48
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
B.5 - The agency recruits, hires,
develops, and retains supervisors
and managers who have effective
managerial, communications, and
interpersonal skills.
Measure
Met?
Comments
~
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
49
B.5.a
Pursuant to 29 CFR §
have managers
under the
areas under the agency program:
50
B.5.a.1
EEO Complaint Process? [see MD-
715(II)(B)]
YES
51
B.5.a.2
Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. §
1614.102(d)(3)]
YES
52
B.5.a.3
Anti-Harassment Policy? [see MD-
715(II)(B)]
YES
28
-------
53
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
54
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
B.6 - The agency involves
managers in the implementation of
its EEO program.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
55
B.6.a
Are senior managers involved in the
implementation of Special Emphasis
Programs? [see MD-715 Instructions,
Sec. I]
YES
56
B.6.b
Do senior managers participate in the
barrier analysis process? [see MD-
715 Instructions, Sec. I]
YES
57
B.6.C
When barriers are identified, do senior
managers assist in developing agency
EEO action plans (Part I, Part J, or the
Executive Summary)? [see MD-715
Instructions, Sec. I]
YES
58
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
29
-------
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
C.1 - The agency conducts regular
internal audits of its component and
field offices.
Measure
Met?
Comments
~
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
59
C.1.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.
60
C.1.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 during the
annual self-assessment process to help identify efforts to remove
potential barriers from the workplace. Each office also meets
with OCR quarterly to assess progress.
61
C.1.c
Do the component and field offices
make reasonable efforts to comply with
the recommendations of the field
audit? [see MD-715, ll(C)]
YES
30
-------
~
Compliance
Indicator
C.2 - The agency has established
procedures to prevent all forms of
EEO discrimination.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
62
C.2.a
Has the agency established
comprehensive anti-harassment policy
and procedures that comply with
EEOC's enforcement guidance? [see
MD-715, ll(C); Enforcement Guidance
on Vicarious Employer Liability for
Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors
(Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No.
915.002, §V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)]
YES
63
C.2.a.1
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.1]
YES
64
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
65
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.1 (June 18,
1999)]
YES
31
-------
66
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
67
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?
fsee ComDlainant v. DeD'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
68
C.2.a.6
Do the agency's training materials on
its anti-harassment policy include
examples of disability-based
harassment? [see 29 CFR
1614.203(d)(2)]
YES
69
C.2.b
Has the agency established disability
reasonable accommodation
procedures that comply with EEOC's
regulations and guidance? [see 29
CFR 1614.203(d)(3)]
YES
70
C.2.b.1
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
71
C.2.b.2
Has the agency established disability
reasonable accommodation
procedures that comply with EEOC's
regulations and guidance? [see 29
CFR 1614.203(d)(3)]
YES
32
-------
72
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)(1)(H) (B)]
YES
73
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
74
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, ll(C).] If "no", please provide the
percentage of timely-processed
requests in the comments column.
YES
75
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
76
C.2.C.1
Does the agency post its procedures
for processing requests for Personal
Assistance Services on its public
website? [see 29 CFR §
1614.203(d)(5)(v)]. If "yes", please
provide the internet address in the
comments column.
YES
EPA's current procedures for requesting RA requests are posted
at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
08/documents/afge nrap revised 2018.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
08/documents/non-afge nrap revised 2018.pdf
33
-------
~
Compliance
Indicator
C.3 - The agency evaluates
managers and supervisors on their
efforts to ensure equal employment
opportunity.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
77
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
78
C.3.b
Does the agency officials
to evaluate the performance
managers on
the
79
C.3.b.1
Resolve EEO
problems/disagreements/conflicts,
including the participation in ADR
proceedings? [seeMD-110, Ch. 3.1]
YES
80
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
81
C.3.b.3
Ensure a workplace that is free from all
forms of discrimination, including
harassment and retaliation? [see MD-
715, ll(C)]
YES
82
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. I]
YES
34
-------
83
C.3.b.5
Provide religious accommodations
when such accommodations do not
cause an undue hardship? [see 29
CFR §1614.102(a)(7)]
YES
84
C.3.b.6
Provide disability accommodations
when such accommodations do not
cause an undue hardship? [ see 29
CFR §1614.102(a)(8)]
YES
85
C.3.b.7
Support the EEO program in
identifying and removing barriers to
equal opportunity. [seeMD-715, ll(C)]
YES
86
C.3.b.8
Support the anti-harassment program
in investigating and correcting
harassing conduct, [see Enforcement
Guidance, V.C.2]
YES
87
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, ll(C)l
YES
88
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)]
N/A
EEO Director did not identify any manager or supervisor who
failed in their EEO responsibilities.
89
C.3.d
When the EEO Director recommends
remedial or disciplinary actions, are the
recommendations regularly
implemented by the Regional and
senior leadership? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(c)(2)]
N/A
In FY18the EEO Director did not recommend any remedial or
disciplinary actions.
Compliance
C.4 - The agency ensures effective
Measure
Comments
~
Indicator
coordination between its EEO
Met?
35
-------
programs and Human Resources
(HR) program.
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
Do the HR Director and the EEO
Director, including subcomponents
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)]
90
C.4.a
YES
The EEO Director and the HR Director established a monthly
schedule beginning June 2018. Please see Part H-3 for further
explanation.
91
C.4.b
Have Regions 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. I]
YES
92
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 theMD-715
workforce data tables? [see 29 CFR
§1614.601 (a)]
YES
93
C.4.d
Does the HR office timely provide the
EEO office with access to other data
(e.g., exit interview data, climate
assessment surveys, and grievance
data), upon request? [seeMD-715,
ll(C)]
YES
94
C.4.e
Pursuant to Section ll(C) ofMD-715,
does the EEO office collaborate with
the office
36
-------
95
C.4.e.1
Implement the Affirmative Action Plan
for Individuals with Disabilities? [see
29 CFR §1614.203(d); MD-715, ll(C)]
YES
96
CA.e.2
Develop and/or conduct outreach and
recruiting initiatives? [see MD-715,
ll(C)]
YES
97
C.4.e.3
Develop and/or provide training for
managers and employees? [see MD-
715, ll(C)]
YES
98
C.4.e.4
Identify and remove barriers to equal
opportunity in the workplace? [see MD-
715, ll(C)]
YES
99
C.4.e.5
Assist in preparing the MD-715 report?
[see MD-715, 11(C)]
YES
~
Compliance
Indicator
C.5 - Following a finding of
discrimination, the agency explores
whether it should take a disciplinary
action.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
100
C.5.a
Does the agency have a disciplinary
policy and/or table of penalties that
covers discriminatory conduct? [see
29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(6); see also
Doualas v. Veterans Administration. 5
MSPR280 (1981)]
YES
101
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.
N/A
The Agency had no disciplined/sanctioned individuals in FY18.
37
-------
102
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, ll(C)]
YES
~
Compliance
Indicator
C.6 - The EEO office advises
managers/supervisors on EEO
matters.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
103
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. I] If "yes", please
identify the frequency of the EEO
updates in the comments column.
YES
At least annually, the EEO office provides
management/supervisory officials with EEO updates.
104
C.6.b
Are EEO officials (EEOOs/PMOs)
readily available to answer managers'
and supervisors' questions or
concerns? [see MD-715 Instructions,
Sec. I]
YES
Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention
This element requires that the agency head make early efforts to prevent discrimination
and to identify and eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity.
~
Compliance
Indicator
D.1 - The agency conducts a
reasonable assessment to monitor
progress towards achieving equal
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
38
-------
Measures
employment opportunity throughout
the year.
105
D.1.a
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) have a
process for identifying triggers in the
workplace? [seeMD-715 Instructions,
Sec. I]
YES
106
D.1.b
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
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. I]
YES
107
D.1.c
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
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)(1) (iii)(C)]
NO
The Agency redeveloped its existing exit survey for employees to
include relevant questions for persons with disabilities in FY18.
The revised exit survey was launched in FY19.
Please see Part H-4 for further explanation.
+
Compliance
Indicator
D.2 - The agency identifies areas
where barriers may exclude EEO
groups (reasonable basis to act.)
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
108
D.2.a
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) have a
process for analyzing the identified
triggers to find possible barriers? [see
MD-715, (ll)(B)]
YES
39
-------
109
D.2.b
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
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
110
D.2.C
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
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
111
D.2.d
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
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. I] If "yes",
please identify the data sources in
the comments column.
YES
The Agency uses a number of sources to identify potential
barriers such as FEVS, EPA Form 462, i-Complaints, reasonable
accommodation program data, special emphasis programs and
advisory councils, affinity groups, and program evaluations.
+
Compliance
Indicator
D.3 - The agency establishes
appropriate action plans to remove
identified barriers.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
112
D.3.a.
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
effectively tailor action plans to
address the identified barriers, in
particular policies, procedures, or
practices? [see 29 CFR
§1614.102(a)(3)]
N/A
The Agency did not identify barriers in FY18.
40
-------
113
D.3.b
If the agency (HQ/Regions) identified
one or more barriers during the
reporting period, did the agency
(HQ/Regions) implement a plan in Part
I, including meeting the target dates for
the planned activities? [seeMD-715,
"(D)l
N/A
No barriers were identified in FY18.
114
D.3.C
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
periodically review the effectiveness of
the plans? [see MD-715, ll(D)]
N/A
No barriers were identified in FY18.
~
Compliance
Indicator
D.4 - The agency has an affirmative
action plan for people with
disabilities, including those with
targeted disabilities
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
115
D.4.a
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) 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
Please see Part H-8 for further explanation.
116
D.4.b
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) 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)(1) (i)]
YES
117
D.4.C
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) ensure
that disability-related questions from
members of the public are answered
promptly and correctly? [see 29 CFR
1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(A)]
YES
41
-------
118
D.4.d
Has the agency (HQ/Regions) 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
42
-------
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
Indicator
E.1 - The agency maintains an
efficient, fair, and impartial
complaint resolution process.
Measure
Met?
Comments
Measures
(Yes/No/NA)
119
E.1.a
Does the agency timely provide EEO
counseling, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.105?
YES
120
E.1.b
Does the agency provide written
notification of rights and responsibilities
in the EEO process during the initial
counseling session, pursuant to 29
CFR §1614.105(b)(1)?
YES
121
E.1.c
Does the agency issue
acknowledgment letters immediately
upon receipt of a formal complaint,
pursuant toMD-110, Ch. 5(l)?
YES
122
E.1.d
Does the agency issue acceptance
letters/dismissal decisions within a
reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) after
receipt of the written EEO Counselor
report, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(l)? If
so, please provide the average
processing time in the comments.
YES
Acceptance/dismissal letters are issued in an average of 30
days.
123
E.1.e
Does the agency ensure all employees
fully cooperate with EEO counselors
and EEO personnel in the EEO
process, including granting routine
access to personnel records related to
an investigation, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.102(b)(6)?
YES
43
-------
124
E.1.f
Does the agency timely complete
investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.108?
YES
125
E.1.g
If the agency does not timely complete
investigations, does the agency notify
complainants of the date by which the
investigation will be completed and of
their right to request a hearing or file a
lawsuit, pursuant to 29 CFR
§1614.108(g)?
YES
126
E.1.h
When the complainant does not
request a hearing, does the agency
timely issue the final agency decision,
pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(b)?
NO
In FY18 FADs were issued at an average rate of 70 days, which
is above the EEOC target of 60 days.
Please see Part H-5 for further explanation.
127
E. 1. 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
128
E.1.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. The Agency has on
occasion ceased working with the contractor due to performance
issues.
129
E.1.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
130
E.1.1
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
44
-------
~
Compliance
Indicator
E.2 - The agency has a neutral EEO
process.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
131
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
132
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.
133
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)]
N/A
134
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
135
E.2.e
If applicable, are processing time
frames incorporated for the legal
counsel's sufficiency review for timely
processing of complaints? [see EEOC
Report, Attaining a Model Agency
Program: Efficiency (Dec. 1, 2004)]
YES
~
Compliance
Indicator
E.3 - The agency has established
and encouraged the widespread use
Measure
Met?
Comments
45
-------
of a fair alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) program.
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
136
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
137
E.3.b
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) require
managers and supervisors to
participate in ADR once it has been
offered? [seeMD-715, 11(A)(1)]
YES
138
E.3.c
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
encourage all employees to use ADR,
where ADR is appropriate? [see MD-
110, Ch. 3(IV)(C)]
YES
139
E.3.d
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) ensure
a management official with settlement
authority is accessible during the
dispute resolution process? [see MD-
110, Ch. 3(III)(A)(9)]
YES
140
E.3.e
Does the agency prohibit the
responsible management official
named in the dispute from having
settlement authority? [seeMD-110, Ch.
3(l)]
YES
141
E.3.f
Does the agency annually evaluate the
effectiveness of its ADR program? [see
MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(D)]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
E.4 - The agency has effective and
accurate data collection systems in
place to evaluate its EEO program.
Measure
Met?
Comments
4-
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
46
-------
142
E.4.a
Does the agency have systems
place to accurately
analyze the
143
E.4.a.1
Complaint activity, including the issues
and bases of the complaints, the
aggrieved individuals/complainants,
and the involved management official?
[see MD-715, ll(E)]
YES
144
E.4.a.2
The race, national origin, sex, and
disability status of agency employees?
[see 29 CFR §1614.601 (a)]
YES
145
E.4.a.3
Recruitment activities? [see MD-715,
11(E)]
YES
146
E.4.a.4
External and internal applicant flow
data concerning the applicants' race,
national origin, sex, and disability
status? [see MD-715, ll(E)]
NO
This deficiency is specifically related to applicant flow data for
the attorney-advisor series (0905). Applicant flow data for the
0905 series is currently unavailable for analysis.
Please see Part H-6 for further explanation.
147
E.4.a.5
The processing of requests for
reasonable accommodation? [29 CFR
§ 1614.203(d)(4)]
YES
148
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
149
E.4.b
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) have a
system in place to re-survey the
workforce on a regular basis? [MD-
715 Instructions, Sec. I]
YES
Compliance
Indicator
E.5 - The agency identifies and
disseminates significant trends and
best practices in its EEO program.
Measure
Met?
Comments
+l
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
47
-------
150
E.5.a
Does the agency (HQ/Regions)
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
The largest trends represented allegations of harassment and
retaliation: 47% of the complaints included allegations of
harassment. 43% of the complaints were allegations of
retaliation.
151
E.5.b
Does the agency (HQ/Regions) review
other agencies' best practices and
adopt them, where appropriate, to
improve the effectiveness of its EEO
program? [seeMD-715, ll(E)] If "yes",
provide an example in the
comments.
YES
The Office of Civil Rights periodically benchmarks other
agencies' best practices to determine where they may be
applied. Benchmarking of other agencies' investigations
procedures was done while using the Lean process to evaluate
EPA's investigation procedures for efficiencies. Specifically,
OCR reviewed GSA's minimal review process for accept/dismiss
letters and the use of document sharing (i.e., OneDrive or
Google Docs). These and other GSA practices helped to better
inform OCR's efforts to improve the investigation procedures.
152
E.5.C
Does the agency compare its
performance in the EEO process to
other federal agencies of similar size?
[seeMD-715, ll(E)]
YES
Essential Element F:
This element requires f
and EEOC regulations,
Responsiveness and Legal Compliance
ederal agencies to comply with EEO statutes
Dolicy guidance, and other written instructions.
~
Compliance
Indicator
F.1 - The agency has processes in
place to ensure timely and full
compliance with EEOC Orders and
settlement agreements.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
153
F.1.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
48
-------
154
F.1.b
Does the agency have a system of
management controls to ensure the
timely, accurate, and complete
compliance with resolutions/settlement
agreements? [seeMD-715, ll(F)]
YES
155
F.1.C
Are there procedures in place to
ensure the timely and predictable
processing of ordered monetary relief?
[seeMD-715, ll(F)]
YES
156
F.1.d
Are procedures in place to process
other forms of ordered relief promptly?
[seeMD-715, ll(F)]
YES
157
F.1.e
When EEOC issues an order requiring
compliance by the agency, does the
agency hold its compliance officers)
accountable for poor work product
and/or delays during performance
review? [seeMD-110, Ch. 9(IX)(H)]
YES
49
-------
~
Compliance
Indicator
F.2 - The agency complies with the
law, including EEOC regulations,
management directives, orders, and
other written instructions.
Measure
Met?
Comments
(Yes/No/NA)
Measures
158
F.2.a
Does the agency timely respond and
fully comply with EEOC orders? [see
29 CFR §1614.502; MD-715, ll(E)]
YES
159
F.2.a.1
When a complainant requests a
hearing, does the agency timely
forward the investigative file to the
appropriate EEOC hearing office? [see
29 CFR §1614.108(g)]
YES
160
F.2.a.2
When there is a finding of
discrimination that is not the subject of
an appeal by the agency, does the
agency ensure timely compliance with
the orders of relief? [see 29 CFR
§1614.501]
YES
161
F.2.a.3
When a complainant files an appeal,
does the agency timely forward the
investigative file to EEOC's Office of
Federal Operations? [see 29 CFR
§1614.403(e)]
YES
162
F.2.a.4
Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.502, does
the agency promptly provide EEOC
with the required documentation for
completing compliance?
YES
Compliance
Indicator
F.3 - The agency reports to EEOC
Measure
Met?
~
its program efforts and
accomplishments.
(Yes/No/NA)
Comments
Measures
50
-------
163
F.3.a
Does the agency timely submit to
EEOC an accurate and complete No
FEAR Act report? [Public Law 107-174
(May 15, 2002), §203(a)]
YES
164
F.3.b
Does the agency timely post on its
public webpage its quarterly No FEAR
Act data? [see 29 CFR §1614.703(d)]
YES
51
-------
Part H - Plan to Correct Deficiencies
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:
PartG Compliance Indicator/Measure B.I.C. During this reporting period,
did the EEO Director presentto the head of the Agency (or delegate) and
othersenior management officials, theEEO's "State of the Agency"
briefing?This briefing covers the six essential elements of the model EEO
program and the status ofthe barrier analysis process.
The EEO's "State ofthe Agency" briefingwas not conducted in FY18.
Objective:
To conduct an annual EEO "State ofthe Agency" briefing with the Agency
head (or delegate) and senior management officials. Annual briefings will
begin in FY19.
Responsible Official:
Vicki Simons, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
April 22, 2019
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
OCR will deliver"State ofthe Agency EEO" briefings in FY19for
the Administrator and other Agency leadership to include the
Office of General Counsel (OGC),the Office of Mission Support
(OMS) (formerly known asOARM),andthe Deputy Civil Rights
Officials (DCROs).
Annual briefings will beginto be conducted in 2019
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
52
-------
Part H-2:
Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability-
Compliance Indicator C.2 - The Agency has established procedures to
prevent all forms of EEO discrimination.
Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency:
PartG Compliance lndicatorC.2.c.l-Does the Agency post its procedures for
processing Personal Assistance Services (PAS) / Reasonable Accommodation
(RA) requests on its public website?[See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5)(v)]
In FY18, the Agency did not post procedures for processing PAS requests on
its website.
Objective:
To develop, implementand publicly web-post procedures for PAS/RA
requests.
Responsible Official:
Vicki Simons, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
COMPLETED: August 2, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
1. OCR and Labor and Employee Relations (LER), in consultation
and coordination with OGC, will develop a proposal forthe EPA
PAS/RA request procedures.
March 30, 2018
2. OCR and LER, in consultation and coordination with OGC, will
ensure all EPAstakeholder(i.e., EPA Unions) concernsare
considered priortofinalizingthe EPA PAS/RA request
procedures.
September 28,2018
3. OCR will issue the EPA PAS/RA request procedures to all
employeesand applicantsand post to EPA's internal and
exte rnal webpages.
August 2, 2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
EPA's current procedures for requesting PAS/RA are web-posted:
https://www.epa.gOv/node/38461/view##unionprocedures
PAS/RA request procedures were updated June 2018:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/afge_nrap_revised_2018.pdf
53
-------
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:
PartG Compliance lndicatorC.4.a- Do theHR 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 Directorsdid not conduct regularmeetings in FY17.
Objective:
To ensure standing EEO/HR meetings occur a minimum of three times a year.
Responsible Official:
Vicki Simons, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Wes Carpenter, Acting Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
COMPLETED: May 31, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective:
Target Date
OCR and OHR will establish a regularmeetingschedule within
30 days ofthisannual report.
May 31, 2018
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
The EEO Director and the HR Director established a monthly schedule beginning May 2018.
54
-------
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:
PartG Compliance Indicator D.1.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? [See29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(l)(iii)]
ExistingAgency exitsurveysdo not include recruitment, hiring, inclusion,
retention and advancement improvementquestionsdirectlyrelated to
individuals with disabilities.
Objective:
To create a mechanism for exit surveys that will incorporate employment and
career development improvement quest ions for individuals with disabilities.
Responsible Official:
Vicki Simons, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Wes Carpenter, Acting Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Date Objective Initiated:
January 30, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
COMPLETED: January 28, 2019
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. OHR/PPTD will update itsexistingexit survey to gatherdata
that could improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, and
advancement of individuals with disabilities.
December26, 2018
2. OHR/PPTD will launch the updated EPA EmployeeExitSurvey
on EPA's Intranetsite.
January 28, 2019
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
55
-------
In FY18, the Policy, Plan ning and Training Division (PPTD) developed a phased process for re invigorating the Agency's exit survey. PPTD
developed a workgroup that assessed the Agency's existing, electronically-accessible exit survey. The workgroup redeveloped the exit survey
and proposed new questions to assist the Agency in evaluating areas of improvements in recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and
advancement related to individuals with disabilities. The final version of the EPA Employee Exit Survey can be found in the List of Additional
Appendices and is available on the EPA's Intranet: https://intranet.epa.gov/oarm/offboarding/index.html
Part H-5 (a):
Essential Element E: Efficiency- Compliance Indicator E.l- The Agency
maintains an efficient, fair, and impartial complaint resolution process.
Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency:
PartG Compliance IndicatorE.Lf-Does the Agency timely complete
investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108?
Objective:
To ensure EPAcompletestimely investigations.
Responsible Official:
Vicki Simons, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Date Objective Initiated:
March 1, 2011
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
COMPLETED: September28, 2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. OCR's Employment Complaints Resolution Staff (ECRS) will
conduct a LEAN Kaizen event for investigations. This event will
identify opportunities to frame accepted claims.Thisaction will
enable the investigation process to be completed within an
acce ptable timeframe.
December 15, 2017
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
The LEAN Kaizen eve nt for investigations was completed. The event produced an action plan that allowed ECRS to implement changes to the
investigation process. Asa result of the updated process, ECRS ended FY18 with a 90% timeliness completion rate. The 90% timeliness rate for
investigations exceeded the bench mark for performance for similar sized federal agencies and has allowed the Agency to note this portion of
the Planned Activity as completed.
56
-------
Part H-5 (b):
Essential Element E: Efficiency- Compliance Indicator E.l- The Agency
maintains an efficient, fair, and impartial complaint resolution process.
Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency:
PartG Compliance lndicatorE.l.h (formerly PartG: Q. 119) - When the
complainant does not request a hearing, does the Agency timely issue the
Final Agency Decision (FAD), pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(b) ?
Agency FADs were nottimely issued in FY18.
Objective:
To ensure EPAcompletestimelyand legally sufficient FADs.
Responsible Official:
Vicki Simons, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Date Objective Initiated:
March 1, 2011
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
September 28,2018
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. ECRS will continuously lookforopportunitiesto improvethe
timeliness of issuing FADs withthe expectation that bythe end
of FY19, the Agency will complete FADs withinthe 60-day
regulatory timeframe.
September 30,2019
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
By the end of FY18, ECRS reached an average of 70 days for issuing Final Agency Decisions, slightly above EEOC's target 60-day threshold.
57
-------
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:
PartG Compliance lndicatorE.4.a.4- Does the Agency have effective and
accurate data collection systems in place to collect, monitor, and analyze
data including: recruitment activities; external and internalapplicantflow
data concerning the applicants' race, national origin, sex, and disability
status?
EPA does not have a method to capture applicantflowdataforAttorney-
Advisers (Series 0905).
Objective:
To put in place effectiveand accurate data collection systems to evaluate
the Agency's EEO program with respectto attorney-advisors (Series 0905).
Responsible Official:
Elise Packard, Acting Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Council
(OGC)
Rafael DeLeon, Deputy Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE), Office of Compliance Assurance (OECA)
Date Objective Initiated:
Novemberl, 2013
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
Se pte m be r 27,2019
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
1. Identify Deputy Civil Rights Official (DCRO) Executive
Champions.
Novemberl, 2018
2. Establish a benchmark by assessing EPA regions' hiring
practices for Attorney-Advisors (Series 0905).
July 29, 2019
3. OCR, OECA, OGC, and OHR will collaborate to develop an
Age ncy-wide pracess for h iring Attorney-Advisors (Se ries 0905).
The current use of USA Jobs for all other positions at EPA may
be used as a recruitment/hiring processtemplate.
August 30, 2019
58
-------
4. Usingapplicantflowdatacapturedfromthe Agency-wide
processfor hiring Attorney-Advisors (Series 0905), OCR will
begin to conduct trigger analysis, looking for potential barriers
to equal opportunity employment.
Se pte m be r 27,2019
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
Two DCROs have been identified who willserve as Executive Championsforthis Planned Activity.
A pilot began in FY16 to collect applicant flow data and assist OCR in analyzing associated recruitment efforts. This resulted in a lack of
expected progress towards addressing this deficiency. The pilot yielded incomplete data that could not be analyzed to determine triggers.
Additionally, the pilot was specific to OGC and not applicable to all Attorney-Advisors (Series 0905) hiring in the Agency.
For FY16-18, OGC collected application qualification rates, but not selection rates; this was due to a technical processing issue that has since
been resolved through an interim workaround. Through the interim workaround OGC has retroactively applied the selection rates allowing for
a complete data set. This process is serving as a foundation for our efforts to develop a process for capturing applicant flow data forAttorney-
Advisers (Series 0905).
59
-------
Part H-7:
Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention - Compliance Indicator D.4 - The
Agency has an Affirmative Action Plan for people with disabilities, including
those with targeted disabilities.
Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency:
PartG Compliance lndicatorD.4.a - Does the Agency (HQ/Regions) post its
Affirmative Action PlanforPeople with Disabilities on its public website? [See
29 CFR 1614.203(d)(4)]
The Affirmative Action Plan for People with Disabilities, developedfrom PartJ,
will be postedtothe publicwebsitein FY19.
Objective:
To post the Agency's Affirmative Action PlanforPeople with Disabilities to the
publicwebsite.
Responsible Official:
Vicki Simons, Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Arron Helm, Acting Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR) (as of 2/2019)
Date Objective Initiated:
December28, 2018
Target Date for Completion of Objective:
June 3, 2019
Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective
Target Date
OCR will coordinate with OHR's Web Editor-in-Chiefto postthe
Affirmative Action Plan for People with Disabilities on the
Agency's public website.
June 3, 2019
Report of Accomplishments and Modifications to Objective:
60
-------
Part I-Agency EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier
Please describe the status of each plan that the agency implemented to identify possible barriers in policies, procedures,
or practices for employees and applicants by race, ethnicity, and gender.
0
If the agency did not con duct barrier analysis during the reporting period, please check the box.
ANALYSIS I: Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier:
Source of the
Trigger
Specific
Workforce
Data Table
Narrative Description of Trigger
Workforce
Data Tables
A4-1
A review of the FY18 workforce data (table A4-1)
indicates lower than expected participation rates in
certain categories (gender/RNO) in the Senior
Executive Service.
EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger
EEO Group
Females
Hispanic/Latina Females
Black/African American
Females
Asian Males and Females
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander Males and Females
Two or More Races Males and
Females
61
-------
Barrier Analysis Process
Sources of
Data
Source
Reviewed?
(Yes or No)
Identify Information Collected
Workforce
Data Tables
Yes
A review of FY18 data (Table A4-1) provided
information on the SES levels at EPA. Data analysis
demonstrated the following:
• Females have a less than expected participation
rate at the SES level (44.36%) when compared
to the G15 feeder pool (46.22%)
• Hispanic/Latino Females have a less than
expected participation rate at the SES level
(2.33%) when compared to the GS15 feeder
pool (2.38%)
• Black/African American Females have a less
than expected participation rate at the SES level
(6.61%) when compared to the GS15 feeder
pool (7.22%)
• Asian Males have a less than expected
participation rate at the SES level (1.57%) when
compared when compared to the GS15 feeder
pool (2.89%)
• Asian Females have a less than expected
participation rate at the SES level (0.78%) when
compared when compared to the GS15 feeder
pool (2.75%)
• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Males have a
less than expected participation rate at the SES
level (0.0%) when compared when compared to
the GS15 feeder pool (0.093%)
• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Females have
a less than expected participation rate at the
SES level (0.0%) when compared when
compared to the GS15 feeder pool (0.047%)
• Two or More Races Males have a less than
expected participation rate at the SES level
(0.0%) when compared when compared to the
GS15 feeder pool (0.19%)
• Two or More Races Females have a less than
expected participation rate at the SES level
62
-------
Sources of
Data
Source
Reviewed?
(Yes or No)
Identify Information Collected
(0.0%) when compared when compared to the
GS15 feeder pool (0.28%)
Career
Development
Program,
OHR/OMS-
RTP
Yes
Discussion with Lead HR Specialist from EPA's
Executive Resources Team provided information on
the Agency's SES process (application, qualification,
and selection of candidates) for FY18.
Status of Barrier Analysis Process
Barrier Analysis Process Completed?
(Yes or No)
Barrier(s) Identified?
(Yes or No)
No
N/A
Statement of Identified Barrier(s)
Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice
N/A
Objective(s) and DatesforEEO Plan
Objective
Date
Initiated
Target
Date
Sufficient
Funding
&
Staffing?
Modified
Date
Date
Completed
Assess opportunities to
enter the SES through
EPA's career
development program
and through external
hiring.
03/01/19
09/30/20
Yes
63
-------
Responsible Official(s)
Title
Name
Performance Standards
Addressthe Plan?
(Yes or No)
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Vicki Simons
Yes
Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Mara Kamen
Yes
Planned ActivitiesToward Completion of Objective
Target
Date
Planned Activities
Modified
Date
Completion
Date
09/30/20
Review available applicant flow data from the
FY16, 17, 18 SES cohorts to assess whether a
policy, practice, or procedure is a barrier to
advancement to the SES.
09/30/20
Analyze how existing developmental programs
for upward mobility to SES are available to a
wide and diverse applicant pool.
Re port of Accomplishments
Fiscal Year
Accomplishments
FY20
ANALYSIS II: Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier:
Source of the
Trigger
Specific
Workforce
Data Table
Narrative Description of Trigger
Workforce
Data Tables
A4-1
A review of the FY18 workforce data (Table A4-1)
indicates lower than expected participation rates for
Hispanic/Latino employees (Males and Females) in
certain categories in the senior grades (GS13 through SES
levels).
64
-------
EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger
EEO Group
Hispanic/Latino
Males and Females
Barrier Analysis Process
Sources of
Data
Source
Reviewed?
(Yes or No)
Identify Information Collected
Workforce
Data
Tables
Yes
A review of FY18 data (Table A4-1) provided information
on the upward mobility of Hispanics/Latinos at EPA. Data
analysis demonstrated the following:
• Hispanic/Latina Females at GS13 have a less than
expected participation rate (3.98%) when compared to
the feeder pool of GS12 Hispanic/Latina Females
(6.03%)
• Hispanic/Latina Females at GS14 have a less than
expected participation rate (2.56%) when compared to
the feeder pool of GS13 Hispanic/Latina Females
(3.98%)
• Hispanic/Latina Females at GS15 have a less than
expected participation rate (2.38%) when compared to
the feeder pool of GS14 Hispanic/Latina Females
(2.56%)
• Hispanic/Latina Females at SES level have a less than
expected participation rate (2.33%) when compared to
the feeder pool of GS15 Hispanic/Latino Females
(2.38%)
• Hispanic/Latino Males at GS14 have a less than
expected participation rate (3.45%) when compared to
the feeder pool of GS13 Hispanic/Latino Males (3.80%)
• Hispanic/Latino Males at GS15 have a less than
expected participation rate (2.66%) when compared to
the feeder pool of GS14 Hispanic/Latino Males (3.45%)
65
-------
Status of Barrier Analysis Process
Barrier Analysis Process Completed?
(Yes or No)
Barrier(s) Identified?
(Yes or No)
No
N/A
Statement of Identified Barrier(s)
Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice
N/A
Objective(s) and DatesforEEO Plan
Objective
Date
Initiated
Target
Date
Sufficient
Funding
&
Staffing?
Modified
Date
Date
Completed
Conduct analysis of
Agency policies,
practices, or procedures
that may create
potential barriers to the
upward mobility of
Hispanic/Latino
employees to the senior
grades of GS-13 through
SES.
03/01/19
09/20/20
Yes
ResponsibleOfficial(s)
Title
Name
Performance Standards
Addressthe Plan?
(Yes or No)
Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
Vicki Simons
Yes
Director, Office of Human Resources (OHR)
Mara Kamen
Yes
66
-------
Planned ActivitiesToward Completion of Objective
Target
Date
Planned Activities
Modified
Date
Completion
Date
09/20/20
Conduct internal employee focus groups with
Hispanic/Latino employees at EPA to solicit
input on their experiences with hiring and
career development opportunities.
09/20/20
Elevate the discussion of upward mobility for
Hispanics/Latinos to the Agency's Diversity and
Inclusion Advisory Committee.
09/20/20
Identify an Executive Champion who will
participate in an intra-agency committee
focusing on the issue of Hispanic/Latino upward
mobility.
Re port of Accomplishments
Fiscal Year
Accomplishments
FY20
67
-------
Part J - Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring,
Advancement, and Retention of Persons with Disabilities
To capture agencies' affirmative action plans 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.
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 0 No X
b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes X No 0
PWD in the GS-11 to SES cluster of the permanent workforce participate at 7.45%. This rate
is lower than the expected 12% benchmark. This indicates a trigger.
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 0 No X
b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Yes X No 0
PWTD in the GS-11 to SES cluster of the permanent workforce participate at 1.55%. This rate
is lower than the expected 2% benchmark. This indicates a trigger.
2. Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring
managers and/or recruiters.
EPA utilizes EEOC's 12% and 2% benchmarks for PWD and PTWD, respectively, as goals.
The goals were communicated to management, along with additional information on
PWD/PWTD, as part of the strategy to increase the use of Schedule A hiring authority in their
program level MD-715 planned activities.
In addition, EPA conducts ongoing briefings/trainings of federal agency disability hiring tools
for managers and supervisors and Equal Employment Opportunity Officers/Recruiters.
68
-------
Section II: Model Disability Program
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1), 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
has in place.
A. Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability
Program
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 X No 0
Identify all staff responsible for implementing the agency's disability employment
program by the office, staff employment status, and responsible official.
Disability
Program Task
# of FTE Staff by Employment
Status
Responsible Official
(Name, Title, Office, Email)
Full
Time
Part
Time
Collateral
Duty
Processing
applications from
PWD and PWTD
36
0
0
Kristen Arel, Grants Management
Specialist, Diversity, Recruitment and
Employee Services Division
(DRESD), Office of Human
Resources (OHR)
arel. kristen(S),epa. gov
Anthony Napoli, Diversity and
Inclusion Manager, DRESD, OHR
napoli. anthony(S),epa.gov
Sharon Hilliard, HR Specialist,
DRESD, OHR
hilliard.sharon(S),epa.gov
Tania Allen, Chief, Diversity and
Recruitment Branch, OHR
alien.tania(3)epa.aov
Jerome Bonner, Director, Cincinnati
Shared Service Center, Office of
69
-------
Mission Support (OMS)
bonner.ieromeOJepa.gov
Jeremy Taylor, Director,
Research Triangle Park Shared
Service Center, OMS
taylor.ieremyOJepa.gov
Answering
questions from
the public about
hiring authorities
that take
disability into
account
36
0
0
Christopher Emanuel, Disability
Program Manager, OCR
emanuel.christopherOiepa.gov
Kristen Arel, Grants Management
Specialist, DRESD, OHR
arel. kristen(S),epa. gov
Anthony Napoli, Diversity and
Inclusion Manager, DRESD, OHR
napoli. anthony(S),epa.gov
Processing
reasonable
Accommodation
requests from
applicants and
employees
2
0
2
Amanda Sweda, Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinator, OCR
sweda.amandaOiepa.gov
Kristin Tropp, Assistant Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinator, OCR
tropp.kristin(S),epa.gov
Section 508
Compliance
0
0
Solymar Grecco, Section
508 Coordinator, OMS
solymar.grecco(a),epa.gov
5
Sarah Sorathia, Assistant
Section 508 Coordinator, OMS
sorathia.sarah(5)epa.gov
Giselle Jasmin, Section 508, OMS
iasmin.giselleOJepa.gov
Christina Bell
Section 508, OMS
bell.christinaOJepa.gov
Jessica Neumann, OMS
neumann.iessica(S),epa.gov
70
-------
Architectural
Barriers Act
Compliance
1
0
0
Amanda Sweda, Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinator, OCR
sweda.amanda(S),epa.gov
Special
Emphasis
Program for
PWD and PWTD
3
0
0
Christopher Emanuel, Disability
Program Manager, OCR
emanuel.christopherOJepa.gov
Kristen Arel, Grants Management
Specialist, DRESD, OHR
arel. kristen(S),epa. gov
Anthony Napoli, Diversity and
Inclusion Manager, DRESD, OHR
napoli. anthony(S),epa.gov
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 X No 0
In FY18, EPA provided ongoing disability training to its disability program staff using various
educational methods. These methods included coaching/mentoring, small group discussions,
instructional on-the-job and online training, conferences and Office of Personnel (OPM)
training, (e.g., Skillport "Accessibility and Section 508 Awareness," "Reasonable
Accommodation for the Federal Workplace," and "EEOand Preventing Discrimination in the
Workplace"). Facilitated trainings captured the basic principles of disability awareness, laws
and regulations, Schedule A, resources for job applicants, Computer/Electronic
Accommodation Program (CAP), Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP), internal reasonable
Accommodation program and procedures, and sensitivity/cultural awareness (i.e., Disability
Etiquette).
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 X No 0
Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1 )(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to
increase the recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below
71
-------
are designed to identify outcomes of the agency's recruitment program plan for PWD
and PWTD.
A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities
Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants
with disabilities, including individuals with targeted disabilities.
In FY18, the EPA utilized a variety of programs and resources to identify qualified job
applicants with disabilities, including those with targeted disabilities. These included, but were
not limited to:
• An inbox was created for collecting Resumes and other documents for those applying
for consideration under Schedule A
• OPM has 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 (WRP) for College Students with Disabilities
• Special Emphasis Program Managers and Advisory Councils
• Volunteer Student Programs
• Selective Placement Program Coordinators (SPPC)/Disability Recruitment and Program
Managers
• Careers and Disability Job Expositions
• Pathways - Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program
• Pathways - Interns/Recent Graduates
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.
EPA uses all available and appropriate hiring authorities to recruit and hire. Examples of
authorities where PWD and PWTD are considered:
• Excepted Service, Schedule A: 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)
• Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP)
• Veterans Recruitment Appointments (VRA)
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.
EPA determines eligibility for individuals who apply using special hiring authorities, such as
Schedule A, using the following process:
72
-------
• Shared Service Centers (SSCs) review all incoming applicants who submit
documentation designating their disability status pursuant to special hiring authority
Schedule A (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)).
• 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 severe physical disability, or a psychiatric disability. The Agency
accepts, as proof of disability, appropriate documentation (e.g., records, statements, or
other appropriate information) issued by a licensed medical professional (e.g., a
physician or other medical professional duly certified by a state, the District of Columbia,
or a U.S. territory, to practice medicine); a licensed vocational rehabilitation specialist
(state or private); or any federal agency, state agency, or an agency of the District of
Columbia or a U.S. territory that issues or provides disability benefits. For permanent or
time-limited appointments, EPA also determines whether the individual is likely to
succeed in the performance of the duties of the position for which he or she is applying.
• 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. SSC and HR
specialists, along with 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).
• Candidates may be selected and appointed with or without the typical formal interview
process.
• 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. Applicants can be hired on
1) a temporary position with a Not to Exceed (NTE) date; 2) a non-temporary position
with an NTE date; or 3) a 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 SSC of their selection. SSC extends an official offer based
on the vacancy's selection factors and determines a start date based on dialogue with
the manager and selectee. Prior to the entry-on-duty, a manager discusses and verifies
the need for any accommodation with the selected individual.
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 X No 0 N/A 0
In FY18, EPA used various educational methods to provide ongoing training on the use of
hiring authorities that take disability into account. These methods included small group
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 training captured the
basic principles of disability awareness, laws and regulations, special hiring authorities
(Schedule A), resources for job applicants, WRP, CAP, internal reasonable Accommodation
program and procedures, and sensitivity/cultural awareness (i.e., Disability Etiquette).
73
-------
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 FY18, EPA and the Rochester Institute of Technology/National Technical Institute for the
Deaf (RIT/NTID) operated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) established in FY17.
Through this MOU, EPA and RIT/NTID collaborated on the advancement of environmental
education and the awareness of employment and other opportunities for individuals with
disabilities. Additionally, in FY18, EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) established
an EPA-wide MOU with Gallaudet University. This MOU will increase cooperation between
Gallaudet and EPA in areas of mutual interest, such as promoting equal opportunity in higher
education, contributing to the university's capacity to provide high-quality education, and
encouraging university participation in EPA programs. Gallaudet students will also be given
notice of publicly available career opportunities at EPA, through paid and unpaid internships.
EPA maintains the use of other programs, such as WRP (sponsored by Department of
Defense (DOD) and Department of Labor (DOL)). EPA works collaboratively with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Virginia Department of Vocational
Rehabilitation and the Federal Exchange on Employments Disability (FEED). FEED is an
interagency group managed through the DOL's Office of Disability Employment Policy
(ODEP), as well as its contactor, the Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability
Inclusion (EARN).
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 X
b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Yes X No 0
EPA utilized Table B8: New Hires by Type of Appointment - Distribution by Disability.
• There were 3 PWTD new hires out of 200 new permanent hires for a rate of 1.5%.
This rate is lower than the expected 2% benchmark. This indicates a trigger.
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 X No 0
b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 0
For FY18, EPA utilized Table B7: Application and Hires for Major Occupations by Disability. In
FY19, EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect data on the Agency's Mission Critical
Occupations.
74
-------
For PWD, triggers were identified in the following Major Occupation series:
• Environmental Protection Specialist (0028): Selection at 2.17% is less than
expected com pared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 5.49%.
• Misc. Administration and Program Specialist (0301): Selection at 8.00% is less
than expected compared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 8.25%.
• Management/ProgramAnalyst (0343): Selection at 2.04% is less than expected
compared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 6.97%.
• General Biological Science (0401): Selection at 3.90% is less than expected
com pared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 4.67%.
• Environmental Engineer (0819): Selection at 2.33% is less than expected compared
to the qualified applicant pool rate of 3.03%.
• Physical/Environmental Scientist (1301): Selection at 3.70% is less than expected
compared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 4.34%.
For PWTD, triggers were identified in the following Major Occupation series:
• Environmental Protection Specialist (0028): Selection at 2.17% is less than
expected com pared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 2.71%.
• Misc. Administration and Program Specialist (0301): Selection at 4.00% is less
than expected compared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 4.37%.
• Management/ProgramAnalyst (0343): Selection at 0.00% is less than expected
compared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 2.81%.
• General Biological Science (0401): Selection at 1.30% is less than expected
compared to the qualified applicant pool rate of 2.27%.
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)
b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD)
Yes X
Yes X
No 0
No 0
75
-------
For FY18, EPA utilized Table B9: Selection for Internal Completive Promotions for Major
Occupations by Disability. In FY19, EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect data on the
Agency's Mission Critical Occupations.
• Environmental Protection Specialist (0028): PWD Qualified Internal Applicants at
2.30% is less than expected compared to the PWD Applications Received at 4.48%.
This indicates a trigger.
PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants at 0.66% is less than expected compared to the
PWTD Applications Received at 2.01%. This indicates a trigger.
• Misc. Administration and Program Specialist (0301): PWD Qualified Internal
Applicants at 4.35% is less than expected com pared to the PWD Applications
Received at 12.84%. This indicates a trigger.
PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants at 2.61% is less than expected compared to the
PWTD Applications Received at 8.49%. This indicates a trigger.
• Management/ProgramAnalyst (0343): PWD Qualified Internal Applicants at 3.56%
is less than expected compared to the PWD Applications Received at 8.17%. This
indicates a trigger.
PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants at 1.78% is less than expected compared to the
PWTD Applications Received at 4.15%. This indicates a trigger.
• General Biological Science (0401): PWD Qualified Internal Applicants at 3.07% is
less than expected compared to the PWD Applications Received at 5.12%. This
indicates a trigger.
PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants at 1.44% is less than expected compared to the
PWD Applications Received at 2.61%. This indicates a trigger.
• Environmental Engineer (0819): PWD Qualified Internal Applicants at 0.97% is less
than expected compared to the PWD Applications Received at 1.21%. This indicates a
trigger.
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 X No 0
b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes X No 0
For FY18, EPA utilized Table B9: Selection for Internal Completive Promotions for Major
Occupations by Disability. In FY19, EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect data on the
Agency's Mission Critical Occupations.
• Management/ProgramAnalyst (0343): PWD promoted at 1.98% is less than
expected compared to the qualified applicant pool of 3.56%. This indicates a trigger.
PWTD promoted at 0.00% is less than expected compared to the qualified applicant
pool of 1.78%. This indicates a trigger.
• Environmental Protection Specialist (0028): PWD promoted at 2.13% is less than
expected compared to the qualified applicant pool of 2.30%. This indicates a trigger.
• General Biological Science (0401): PWD promoted at 3.03% is less than expected
com pared to the qualified applicant pool of 3.07%. This indicates a trigger.
• Environmental Engineer (0819): PWD promoted at 0.00% is less than expected
com pared to the qualified applicant pool of 0.97%. This indicates a trigger.
PWTD promoted at 0.00% is less than expected compared to the qualified applicant
pool of 0.97%. This indicates a trigger.
76
-------
Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for
Employees with Disabilities
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R §1614.203(d)(1 )(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
1. Describe the agency's plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient
opportunities for advancement.
EPA informs all employees of advancement opportunities through 1) the Talent Hub website (a
centralized experiential learning resource that promotes a range of career development
opportunities available across the Agency); 2) job sharing; and 3) fee/non-fee based in-person/
online training. Opportunities are marketed through email to all users, office announcements,
intranet postings, and newsletters. Additional opportunities may include fee/non-fee based in-
person/online training. Employees are encouraged to participate in skill-building trainings and
courses related to federal employment such as, how to search through USAJOBS, resume
writing, and improving interviewing skills are available.
Technical Assistance Visits: OCR plans to schedule visits in FY19. These visits will serve to
educate managers on how they may support opportunities for advancement and retain
employees with disabilities, provide information on the Schedule A hiring authority, and stress
the importance of timely conversion for those participating in the program.
Opportunities to Implement Strategiesto Mitigate Unconscious Bias: In FY18, EPA
finalized its 2018-2022 Strategy for Mitigating Unconscious Bias (MUB) in the human resources
selection process. MUB includes any human resources process or decision made regarding
recruitment, hiring, promotion, awards, development, advancement, and retention, including
PWD and PWTD. The MUB Strategy aligns with 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 2016 Report on Reducing
the Impact of Bias in the STEM Workforces (released jointly by the OPM and the White House
Office of Science & Technology Policy).
The MUB Strategy will help EPA employees: 1) recognize and mitigate potential unconscious
bias that may exist in the workplace; 2) raise awareness among EPA leaders, managers,
supervisors, and EPA personnel about the presence and impact of unconscious bias; and 3)
offer a toolkit of proven strategies to mitigate unconscious bias.
The-overarching goals of the EPA's MUB include: 1) reducing unconscious bias in the HR
selections process; 2) building unconscious bias awareness and mitigation skills among
employees; 3) identifying and measuring the effectiveness of strategies to mitigate unconscious
bias to determine the success of the strategy. The scope of this strategy is specifically focused
on HR selections. As part of this strategy in FY19, the development and implementation of a
pilot will ensure transparency in existing processes regarding career advancement and
development.
77
-------
Further, EPA created a Blanket Purchase Agreement for diversity and inclusion activities
associated with training, data analytics, and consultative services that support Agency offices
and regions.
Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan: EPA's 2017-2021 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic
Plan (DISP) guides the Agency's efforts in sustaining 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, specific
action items and measures that were developed by senior leadership and the EPA Human
Resources community. The DISP received concurrence from EPA's Diversity and Inclusion
Advisory Committee (DIAC), a subcommittee of the Human Resources Council. DISP goals are
outlined below.
Goal 1: Diversify the federal workforce through active engagement of leadership: a) senior
leaders will conduct regular informational sessions open to all employees to share
information on training and career development opportunities and resources; b) OARM will
ensure that all hiring managers receive training on the use of appropriate hiring authorities
and flexibilities; c) review of participation in leadership development programs and develop
strategies to eliminate any barriers to participation will be conducted.
Goal 2: Include and engage everyone in the workplace: senior leadership and managers will
use Talent Hub to promote and encourage all employees to apply for temporary, full-time
detail assignments, part-time projects/special assignments, temporary promotions, SES
rotations, and other developmental assignments.
Goal 3: Optimize inclusive diversity efforts using data-driven approaches: a) 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; b) 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 Upto Supervision: Continue to offer this training to all employees interested in
learning about the roles and responsibilities of formal leadership. 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 towards their career goals and objectives.
EPA's Successful Leader's Program: 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 training on the Disability
Hiring Tool such as the WRP, CAP, as well as training on what the Reasonable Accommodation
means to supervisors and manager.
Miscellaneous: In October2018, Fed Talent, was launched. Fed Talent is a new learning
management system that interfaces with the Agency's HR system of record (FPPS). The
interface allows EPA to track selectees in its training and coaching programs and allow offices
to report the type of employee learning opportunities afforded to staff career development.
78
-------
B. Career Development Opportunities
Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides
to its employees.
Employee career development is available through a variety of programs. Training is designed
to promote professional and personal development. EPA provides the following programs and
resources designated for career development:
• Fellowship Programs
• Mentoring Programs
• Coaching Programs
• Training Programs
• Detail Program
In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities
that require competition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to
participate. [Collection begins with the FY 2018 MD-715 report, due on May 31,
2019.]
EPA has made the capture of applicant flow data for career development opportunities a priority
for FY 2019.
Career Development
Opportunities
Total Participants
PWD
PWTD
Applicants
(#)
Selectees
(#)
Applicants
(%)
Selectees
(%)
Applicants
(%)
Selectees
(%)
Fellowship Programs
Mentoring Programs
Coaching Programs
Training Programs
Detail Programs
Other Career
Development
Programs
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 0 No X
b. Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X
Data is not available for FY18. EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect this data in FY19.
79
-------
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 0 No X
b. Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X
Data is not available for FY18. EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect this data in FY19.
1. 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 X No 0
b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes X No 0
Comparing Employee Recognition and Awards for PWD/PWTD (Table B13) to Total
Workforce for PWD/PWTD (Table B1), there are triggers in the following Awards, Bonuses
and Incentives category.
FY 18 Cash Awards $500+: PWD received awards at 84.62% com pared to people without
disabilities at 93.07%. This indicates a trigger.
PWTD received awards at 86.81% compared to people without a targeted disability at
92.49%. This indicates a trigger.
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 X No 0
b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes X No 0
Comparing Employee Recognition and Awards for PWD/PWTD (Table B13) to Total
Workforce for PWD/PWTD (Table B1), there is a trigger in one Awards, Bonuses and
Incentives category.
QSI: PWD received awards at 2.08% compared to people without disabilities at 2.81%. This
indicates a trigger.
PWTD received awards at 1.28% compared to people without a targeted disability at 2.77%.
This indicates a trigger.
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 0 N/A X
80
-------
C. Promotions
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.
a. SES
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
b. GradeGS-15
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No X
c. Grade GS-14
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0
d. GradeGS-13
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes X No 0
ForFY18, EPA utilized Table B11: Internal Selections for Senior Level (GS-13, 14, 15)
Positions by Disability. In FY19, EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect data on the
Agency's Mission Critical Occupations.
Using PWD Applications Received when analyzing the applicant flow of internal applicants
and/or selections for promotions by grade (Table B11), the following triggers are identified for
GS-13 thru GS-15:
• GS-13: PWD Qualified Internal Applicants at 4.04% is less than expected compared to
the PWD Applications Received at 9.28%. This indicates a trigger.
PWD Selected Internal Applicants at 1.91 % is less than expected compared to the
Qualified Applicants at 4.04%. This indicates a trigger.
• GS-14: PWD Qualified Internal Applicants at 1.69% is less than expected compared to
the PWD Applications Received at 4.19%. This indicates a trigger.
PWD Selected Internal Applicants at 0.00% is less than expected compared to the
Qualified Applicants at 1.69%. This indicates a trigger.
• GS-15: PWD Qualified Internal Applicants at 1.41% is less than expected compared
to the PWD Applications Received at 4.84%. This indicates a trigger.
81
-------
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.
a. SES
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
b. GradeGS-15
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No X
c. Grade GS-14
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0
d. GradeGS-13
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes X No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes X No 0
EPA used Table B11: Internal Selections for Senior Level Positions, to analyze the applicant
flow of internal applicants and/or selections for promotions by grade for PWTD. The senior
level analysis includes grades 13-15. The SES is excluded from this analysis because
relevant data was not collected for this series in FY18. EPA will make reasonable efforts to
collect this data in FY19.
• GS-13: PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants at 2.57% is less than expected compared
to the PWTD Applications Received at 4.76%. This indicates a trigger.
PWTD Selected Internal Applicants at 1.91 % is less than expected compared to the
Qualified Applicants at 2.57%. This indicates a trigger.
• GS-14: PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants at 1.22% is less than expected compared
to the PWTD Applications Received at 2.05%. This indicates a trigger.
PWTD Selected Internal Applicants at 0.00% is less than expected compared to the
Qualified Applicants at 1.22%. This indicates a trigger.
• GS-15: PWTD Qualified Internal Applicants at 0.80% is less than expected compared
to the PWTD Applications Received at 3.10%. This indicates a trigger.
82
-------
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? Fornon-
GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If "yes", describe
the trigger(s) in the text box.
a.
New Hires to SES
(PWD)
Yes
0
No
0
b.
New Hires to GS-15
(PWD)
Yes
0
No
0
c.
New Hires to GS-14
(PWD)
Yes
0
No
0
d.
New Hires to GS-13
(PWD)
Yes
0
No
0
EPA's official EEO FY18 workforce data tables do not provide information on New Hires of
PWD in the senior grades. Thus, analysis for FY18 could not be conducted. EPA will make
reasonable efforts to collect this data in FY19.
5. 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.
a.
New Hires to SES (PWTD)
Yes
0
No
0
b.
New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD)
Yes
0
No
0
c.
New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD)
Yes
0
No
0
d.
New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD)
Yes
0
No
0
EPA's official EEO FY18 workforce data tables do not provide information on New Hires of
PWTD in the senior grades. Thus, analysis for FY18 could not be conducted. EPA will make
reasonable efforts to collect this data in FY19.
6. 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.
83
-------
a. Executives
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0
b. Managers
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0
c. Supervisors
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes 0 No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 No 0
EPA's official EEO FY18 workforce data tables do not provide information on PWD internal
applicants and/or selectees for promotions to supervisory positions. EPA will make
reasonable efforts to collect this data in FY19.
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 0 No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0
b. Managers
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0
c. Supervisors
i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0
ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 No 0
84
-------
EPA's official EEO FY18 workforce data tables do not provide information on PWTD internal
applicants and/or selectees for promotions to supervisory positions. EPA will make
reasonable efforts to collect this data in FY19.
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
0
No
0
b.
New Hires for Managers (PWD)
Yes
0
No
0
c.
New Hires for Supervisors (PWD)
Yes
0
No
0
EPA's official EEO FY18 workforce data tables do not provide information on PWD selections
of new hires to supervisory positions. EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect this data in
FY19.
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
0
No
0
b.
New Hires for Managers (PWTD)
Yes
0
No
0
c.
New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD)
Yes
0
No
0
EPA's official EEO FY18 workforce data tables do not provide information on PWTD
selections to supervisory positions. EPA will make reasonable efforts to collect this data in
FY19.
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 X No 0 N/A 0
85
-------
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.
d. Voluntary Separations (PWD) Yes X No 0
e. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes X No 0
PWD Voluntary Separations (Tables B1 and B14): The PWD inclusion rate for Voluntary
Separations is 8.24%. The People Without Disabilities inclusion rate for Voluntary
Separations is 5.53%. The PWD inclusion rate is greater than the People Without Disability
inclusion rate. This indicates a trigger.
PWD Involuntary Separations (Tables B1 and B14): The PWD inclusion rate for Involuntary
Separations is 0.72%. The People Without Disabilities inclusion rate for Involuntary
Separations is 0.12%. The PWD inclusion rate is greater than the People Without Disability
inclusion rate. This indicates a trigger.
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.
Voluntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0
Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes X No 0
PWTD Voluntary Separations (Tables B1 and B14): The PWTD inclusion rate for Voluntary
Separations is 11.06%. The People Without Targeted Disabilities inclusion rate for Voluntary
Separations is 5.66%. The PWTD inclusion rate is greater than the People Without Targeted
Disabilities inclusion rate. This indicates a trigger.
PWTD Involuntary Separations (Tables B1 and B14): The PWTD inclusion rate for Involuntary
Separations is 0.85%. The People Without Targeted Disabilities inclusion rate for Involuntary
Separations is 0.16%. The PWTD inclusion rate is greater than the People Without Targeted
Disabilities inclusion rate. This indicates a trigger.
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.
At the end of FY 2018, EPA updated its exit survey to include questions related to disability to
better identify possible reasons why PWD/PWTD left the Agency. The revised (voluntary) exit
survey is now available to departing employees. Data from the surveys will be analyzed as
departures occur.
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
86
-------
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.
The Accessibility Statement explains employees' and applicants' rights under Section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act. https://www.epa.gov/accessibility/epa-accessibilitv-statement
EPA follows the same process for Section 508 complaints as for other employment
discrimination complaints, https://www.epa.gov/ocr/emplovment-complaint-resolutions
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.
EPA currently does not have such a notice available on its public website. In FY19,
EPA will web-post information on the Architectural Barriers Act that will include a copy
of the Act and provide detailed information on employees' and applicants' rights,
including information on how to file a complaint.
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.
EPA is revising its Section 508 Policy and Section 508 Procedures for Compliance to address
the Section 508 Refresh. The revised procedures will focus on the acguisitions, testing and
exceptions processes. EPA anticipates submitting all for Agency-wide review within FY2019.
EPA Compliance Assessment and Remediation Plan (CARP):
CARP aims to help EPA assess and enhance the accessibility of its existing Information and
Communication Technology (ICT), develop a baseline from which to measure improvements,
and report bi-annually to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). CARP takes a
phased approach with each phase focusing on certain types of ICT. Activities include:
1. Conduct an inventory of EPA's ICT and prioritize ICT for assessments.
2. Assess the inventoried ICTs'compliance.
3. Develop and implement remediation plans to address concerns identified during the
assessments.
4. Report compliance within EPA and to OMB.
In FY19, EPA will assess internal ICT used by every employee within EPA. The inventory of
all internal ICT used by specific EPA offices and groups of employees, intranet sites used by
all employees, internal communication products and any other ICT essential to performing job
duties will be assessed.
EPA Accessibility Forum:
In late FY18, EPA expanded the Section 508 Community Forum to include all accessibility-
related issues. Now known as the Accessibility Forum, this is a voluntary forum for employees
to provide input, feedback and recommendations to EPA's Section 508 Program, the Office of
Mission Support/Administration and Resources Management, and the National Reasonable
Accommodation Coordinators on how EPA can better identify, address and prevent
87
-------
accessibility issues related to EPA resources. Meeting quarterly, participation is open to all
employees who are interested in generally improving accessibility at EPA, eliminating barriers
for persons with disabilities, Section 508, assistive technology (AT) tools or the accessibility of
ICT.
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 Accommodation during the reporting period. (Please do not include
previously approved requests with repetitive Accommodation, such as
interpreting services.)
For the 459 reasonable Accommodation (RA) requests made in FY18, the average
processing time (i.e., the time a request is made to the time a decision is made) was 35 days.
The average included requests that required medical documentation, which can add an
additional 60 days to the RA process.
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
Accommodation, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and
monitoring Accommodation requests for trends.
In FY18, EPA demonstrated efficiency within its reasonable Accommodation program by
processing 445 of the 459 requests (or 96.9%) within the time-frames identified in both
AFGE's National Reasonable Accommodation Procedures (NRAP) and EPA's Reasonable
Accommodation Procedures. EPA has attained 90% or greater processing rate for the eighth
consecutive year in compliance with the MD-715 requirements.
The RA Program delivered training to 298 participants, including managers / supervisors and
employees across the Agency.
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
88
-------
requests for PAS, timely providing approved services, conducting training for
managers and supervisors, and monitoring PAS requests for trends.
In FY18, EPA posted addendums to the reasonable Accommodation procedures to explain
how to request PAS. Additionally, all RA trainings for both managers and employees were
updated to include information on PAS. At the time of this reporting, there is not enough data
to identify trends. More information on PAS is expected to be available for FY19 reporting.
Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data
A. EEO Complaint data involving Harassment
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 0 No X N/A 0
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 0 No X N/A 0
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.
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 X No 0 N/A 0
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 0 No X N/A 0
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.
89
-------
Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers
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 0 No X
2. Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD
and/or PWTD?
Yes 0 No 0 N/A X
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
Several triggers related to MCOs for PWD/PWTD have been identified in FY18
data (see Section III, C; Section IV, B and C; Section V, A). Further analysis is
being done on these triggers to narrow the focus of the barrier analysis efforts.
This is a priority for FY19.
Barrier(s)
Barrier analysis to be conducted and completed in FY19.
Objective(s)
To be determined after further analysis of triggers.
Responsible Official(s)
Vicki Simons, Director, OCR
Performance Standards Address the Plan?
(Yes or No)
YES
Barrier Analysis Process Completed?
(Yes or No)
NO
Barrier(s) Identified?
(Yes or No)
NO
Sources of Data
Sources
Reviewed?
(Yes or No)
Identify Information Collected
Workforce Data Tables
YES
EPA's existing EEO workforce tables were
reviewed resulting in the identification of
triggers that require further analysis.
Complaint Data (Trends)
NO
Grievance Data (Trends)
NO
Findings from Decisions (e.g.,
EEO, Grievance, MSPB, Anti-
Harassment Processes)
NO
Climate Assessment Survey (e.g.,
FEVS)
NO
Exit Interview Data
NO
90
-------
Focus Groups
NO
Interviews
NO
Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC,
MSPB, GAO, OPM)
NO
Other (Please Describe)
NO
Target Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Planned Activities
Sufficient
Staffing &
Funding
(Yes or No)
Modified Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Completion
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Fiscal Year
Yes
09/30/2019
Barrier Analysis
4. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing
any of the planned activities.
EPA will make reasonable efforts to complete the Planned Activities in FY19.
5. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual
impact of those activities toward eliminating the barrier(s).
N/A for FY18.
6. 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.
N/A for FY18.
91
-------
EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period from 201721 to 201821
Table Al: TOTAL WORKFORCE - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Table A1
Total Workforce
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
TOTAL WORKFORCE
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanicor
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
American Indian
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All |male |female
male |female
male |female
male |female
male |female
male |female
male |female
male |female
TOTAL WORKFOCE - Permanent and Temporary
Prior FY 17
#
15179
7442
7737
477
574
5583
4619
743
1835
531
556
9
9
70
82
24
51
%
100%
49.03%
50.97%
3.14
3.78
36.78
30.43
4.89
12.09
3.5
3.66
0.06
0.06
0.46
0.54
0.16
0.34
Current FY 18
#
14567
7120
7447
470
553
5322
4434
712
1772
507
540
8
8
68
79
29
55
%
100%
48.88%
51.12%
3.23
3.8
36.53
30.44
4.89
12.16
3.48
3.71
0.05
0.05
0.47
0.54
0.2
0.38
CLF 2010
%
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%
OrgCLF
%
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
#
-612
-322
-290
-7
-21
-261
-185
-31
-63
-24
-16
-1
-1
-2
-3
5
4
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-0.15%
0.15%
0.08%
0.01%
-0.25%
0.01%
-0.01%
0.08%
-0.02%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.04%
0.04%
Net C hange
%
-4.03%
-4.33%
-3.75%
-1.47%
-3.66%
-4.67%
-4.01%
-4.17%
-3.43%
-4.52%
-2.88%
-11.11%
-11.11%
-2.86%
-3.66%
20.83%
7.84%
PERMANENT WORKFORCE
Prior FY
#
14333
6896
7437
463
563
5124
4378
721
1817
486
529
8
9
67
82
23
50
%
100%
48.11%
51.89%
3.23%
3.93%
35.75%
30.54%
5.03%
12.68%
3.39%
3.69%
0.06%
0.06%
0.47%
0.57%
0.16%
0.35%
Current FY
#
13753
6580
7173
458
546
4855
4210
693
1758
471
516
7
8
67
77
27
54
%
100%
47.84%
52.16%
3.33%
3.97%
35.30%
30.61%
5.04%
12.78%
3.42%
3.75%
0.05%
0.06%
0.49%
0.56%
0.20%
0.39%
Difference
#
-580
-316
-264
-5
-17
-269
-168
-28
-59
-15
-13
-1
-1
0
-5
4
4
Ratio Change
%
0%
-0.27%
0.27%
0.10%
0.04%
-0.45%
0.07%
0.01%
0.11%
0.03%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
-0.01%
0.04%
0.04%
Net C hange
%
-4.05%
-4.58%
-3.55%
-1.08%
-3.02%
-5.25%
-3.84%
-3.88%
-3.25%
-3.09%
-2.46%
-12.50%
-11.11%
0.00%
-6.10%
17.39%
8.00%
TEMPORARY WORKFORCE
Prior FY
#
846
546
300
14
11
459
241
22
18
45
27
1
0
3
0
1
1
%
100%
64.54%
35.46%
1.65
1.3
54.26
28.49
2.6
2.13
5.32
3.19
0.12
0
0.35
0
0.12
0.12
Current FY
#
814
540
274
12
7
467
224
19
14
36
24
1
0
1
2
2
1
%
100%
66.34%
33.66%
1.47
0.86
57.37
27.52
2.33
1.72
4.42
2.95
0.12
0
0.12
0.25
0.25
0.12
Difference
#
-32
-6
-26
-2
-4
8
-17
-3
-4
-9
-3
0
0
-2
2
1
0
Ratio Change
%
0%
1.80%
-1.80%
-0.18%
-0.44%
3.12%
-0.97%
-0.27%
-0.41%
-0.90%
-0.24%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.23%
0.25%
0.13%
0.00%
Net C hange
%
-3.78%
-1.10%
-8.67%
-14.29%
-36.36%
1.74%
-7.05%
-13.64%
-22.22%
-20.00%
-11.11%
0.00%
0%
-66.67%
0%
100.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
92
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period from 201721 to 201821
Table B1 - Total Workforce - Distribution by Disability
Table B1
Total Workforce
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail forTargeted 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
TOTAL WORKFORCE - Permanent and Temporary
Prior FY 17
#
15179
13521
477
1181
269
20
29
6
103
6
25
4
74
2
%
100%
89.08%
3.14%
7.78%
1.77%
0.13%
0.19%
0.04%
0.68%
0.04%
0.16%
0.03%
0.49%
0.01%
Current FY 18
#
14567
12942
483
1142
239
21
29
4
82
6
24
4
68
1
%
100%
88.84%
3.32%
7.84%
1.64%
0.14%
0.20%
0.03%
0.56%
0.04%
0.16%
0.03%
0.47%
0.01%
Federal Goal (FY09)
#
12%
2.00%
Difference
#
-612
-579
6
-39
-30
1
0
-2
-21
0
-1
0
-6
-1
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-0.23%
0.17%
0.06%
-0.13%
0.01%
0.01%
-0.01%
-0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.02%
-0.01%
Net Change
%
-4.03%
-4.28%
1.26%
-3.30%
-11.15%
5.00%
0.00%
-33.33%
-20.39%
0.00%
-4.00%
0.00%
-8.11%
-50.00%
PERMANENT WORKFORCE
Prior FY
#
14333
12817
382
1134
263
20
29
6
102
6
23
4
71
2
%
100%
89.42%
2.67%
7.91%
1.83%
0.14%
0.20%
0.04%
0.71%
0.04%
0.16%
0.03%
0.50%
0.01%
Current FY
#
13753
12265
383
1105
235
21
29
4
81
6
22
4
67
1
%
100%
89.18%
2.78%
8.03%
1.71%
0.15%
0.21%
0.03%
0.59%
0.04%
0.16%
0.03%
0.49%
0.01%
Difference
#
-580
-552
1
-29
-28
1
0
-2
-21
0
-1
0
-4
-1
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-0.24%
0.12%
0.12%
-0.13%
0.01%
0.01%
-0.01%
-0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.01%
-0.01%
Net Change
%
-4.05%
-4.31%
0.26%
-2.56%
-10.65%
5.00%
0.00%
-33.33%
-20.59%
0.00%
-4.35%
0.00%
-5.63%
-50.00%
TEMPORARY WORKFORCE
Prior FY
#
846
704
95
47
6
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
%
100%
83.22%
11.23%
5.56%
0.71%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.00%
0.24%
0.00%
0.35%
0.00%
Current FY
#
814
677
100
37
4
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
%
100%
83.17%
12.29%
4.55%
0.49%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.00%
0.25%
0.00%
0.12%
0.00%
Difference
#
-32
-27
5
-10
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2
0
Ratio Change
%
0.00%
-0.05%
1.06%
-1.01%
-0.22%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
-0.23%
0.00%
Net Change
%
-3.78%
-3.84%
5.26%
-21.28%
-33.33%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0%
0.00%
0%
-66.67%
0%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
93
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period (September 30, 2018)
Table A2 - Permanent Workforce By Component - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Table A2
Permanent Workforce
10/01/17 - 09/30/2018
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
American Indian
Alaska Native
Two or more
races
All
male
f e m a 1 e
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
f e m a 1 e
male
f e m a 1 e
male
female
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%
Region 02 New York, NY (SB)
#
739
367
372
61
73
250
194
22
56
32
43
0
2
2
2
0
2
%
100%
49.66%
50.34%
8.25%
9.88%
33.83%
26.25%
2.98%
7.58%
4.33%
5.82%
0.00%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.00%
0.27%
Region 01 Boston, MA (SB)
#
515
242
273
13
18
200
220
13
20
14
12
0
0
1
2
1
1
%
100%
46.99%
53.01%
2.52%
3.50%
38.83%
42.72%
2.52%
3.88%
2.72%
2.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.19%
0.39%
0.19%
0.19%
Region 03 Philadelphia, PA (SB)
#
739
326
413
18
28
247
285
37
79
22
17
1
0
0
4
1
0
%
100%
44.11%
55.89%
2.44%
3.79%
33.42%
38.57%
5.01%
10.69%
2.98%
2.30%
0.14%
0.00%
0.00%
0.54%
0.14%
0.00%
Region 04 Atlanta, GA (SB)
#
855
416
439
27
18
280
197
82
207
23
11
0
0
2
2
2
4
%
100%
48.65%
51.35%
3.16%
2.11%
32.75%
23.04%
9.59%
24.21%
2.69%
1.29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.23%
0.23%
0.23%
0.47%
Region 05 Chicago, 1 L (SB)
#
977
461
516
26
36
355
289
45
149
31
32
0
0
3
5
1
5
%
100%
47.19%
52.81%
2.66%
3.68%
36.34%
29.58%
4.61%
15.25%
3.17%
3.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.31%
0.51%
0.10%
0.51%
Region 06 Dallas, TX (SB)
#
684
353
331
57
52
209
136
50
115
30
22
0
0
6
4
1
2
%
100%
51.61%
48.39%
8.33%
7.60%
30.56%
19.88%
7.31%
16.81%
4.39%
3.22%
0.00%
0.00%
0.88%
0.58%
0.15%
0.29%
Region 07 Lenexa, KS (SB)
#
455
228
227
12
18
185
161
13
38
11
5
0
0
7
4
0
1
%
100%
50.11%
49.89%
2.64%
3.96%
40.66%
35.38%
2.86%
8.35%
2.42%
1.10%
0.00%
0.00%
1.54%
0.88%
0.00%
0.22%
Region 08 Denver, CO (SB)
#
480
227
253
26
28
173
188
10
18
16
15
1
0
0
2
1
2
%
100%
47.29%
52.71%
5.42%
5.83%
36.04%
39.17%
2.08%
3.75%
3.33%
3.13%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.42%
0.21%
0.42%
Region 09 San Francisco, CA (SB)
#
669
294
375
34
44
204
195
15
40
30
85
2
1
6
8
3
2
%
100%
43.95%
56.05%
5.08%
6.58%
30.49%
29.15%
2.24%
5.98%
4.48%
12.71%
0.30%
0.15%
0.90%
1.20%
0.45%
0.30%
Region 10 Seattle WA (SB)
#
497
219
278
13
17
165
205
10
14
23
31
1
2
5
6
2
3
%
100%
44.06%
55.94%
2.62%
3.42%
33.20%
41.25%
2.01%
2.82%
4.63%
6.24%
0.20%
0.40%
1.01%
1.21%
0.40%
0.60%
OFC INSPECTOR GENERAL (SB)
#
265
130
135
9
7
82
64
30
48
5
15
1
0
2
1
1
0
%
100%
49.06%
50.94%
3.40%
2.64%
30.94%
24.15%
11.32%
18.11%
1.89%
5.66%
0.38%
0.00%
0.75%
0.38%
0.38%
0.00%
OFFICE OF WATER (SB)
#
528
231
297
12
17
178
194
21
59
17
26
0
0
2
0
1
1
%
100%
43.75%
56.25%
2.27%
3.22%
33.71%
36.74%
3.98%
11.17%
3.22%
4.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.38%
0.00%
0.19%
0.19%
OFC CHIEF FINCL OFCR (SB)
#
292
131
161
3
9
78
70
28
69
21
9
0
0
0
2
1
2
%
100%
44.86%
55.14%
1.03%
3.08%
26.71%
23.97%
9.59%
23.63%
7.19%
3.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.68%
0.34%
0.68%
OFC RESEARCH & DEVELOP (SB)
#
1407
758
649
21
21
634
474
34
94
56
46
0
0
12
11
1
3
%
100%
53.87%
46.13%
1.49%
1.49%
45.06%
33.69%
2.42%
6.68%
3.98%
3.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.85%
0.78%
0.07%
0.21%
OFC INTERNTNL & TRIB AF (SB)
#
67
29
38
4
5
18
17
3
13
3
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
%
100%
43.28%
56.72%
5.97%
7.46%
26.87%
25.37%
4.48%
19.40%
4.48%
4.48%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.49%
0.00%
OFC OF GENERAL COUNSEL (SB)
#
220
91
129
2
8
74
81
7
28
8
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100%
41.36%
58.64%
0.91%
3.64%
33.64%
36.82%
3.18%
12.73%
3.64%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.45%
0.00%
0.00%
OFC OF LAND & EMER MGMT
(SB)
#
469
211
258
10
15
157
161
26
70
13
9
0
0
4
1
1
2
%
100%
44.99%
55.01%
2.13%
3.20%
33.48%
34.33%
5.54%
14.93%
2.77%
1.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.85%
0.21%
0.21%
0.43%
OFC OF ENVIRNMTL INFO (SB)
#
309
151
158
11
9
103
61
28
74
6
10
1
1
0
1
2
2
%
100%
48.87%
51.13%
3.56%
2.91%
33.33%
19.74%
9.06%
23.95%
1.94%
3.24%
0.32%
0.32%
0.00%
0.32%
0.65%
0.65%
OFC ENF & COMPL ASSURAN
(SB)
#
618
342
276
31
28
273
164
25
58
9
18
0
1
4
1
0
6
%
100%
55.34%
44.66%
5.02%
4.53%
44.17%
26.54%
4.05%
9.39%
1.46%
2.91%
0.00%
0.16%
0.65%
0.16%
0.00%
0.97%
OFC OF ADMINISTRATOR (SB)
#
330
124
206
9
11
78
84
31
96
6
11
0
0
0
3
0
1
%
100%
37.58%
62.42%
2.73%
3.33%
23.64%
25.45%
9.39%
29.09%
1.82%
3.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.91%
0.00%
0.30%
OFFICE OF CS AND PP (SB)
#
959
427
532
23
40
288
286
60
151
48
46
0
0
4
4
4
5
%
100%
44.53%
55.47%
2.40%
4.17%
30.03%
29.82%
6.26%
15.75%
5.01%
4.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.42%
0.42%
0.42%
0.52%
OFC ADMIN & RES MGMT (SB)
#
608
246
362
17
19
145
152
71
169
9
10
0
1
2
6
2
5
%
100%
40.46%
59.54%
2.80%
3.13%
23.85%
25.00%
11.68%
27.80%
1.48%
1.64%
0.00%
0.16%
0.33%
0.99%
0.33%
0.82%
OFC AIR AND RADIATION (SB)
#
1065
574
491
19
25
479
332
32
93
38
29
0
0
5
7
1
5
%
100%
53.90%
46.10%
1.78%
2.35%
44.98%
31.17%
3.00%
8.73%
3.57%
2.72%
0.00%
0.00%
0.47%
0.66%
0.09%
0.47%
T ota 1
#
13747
6578
7169
458
546
4855
4210
693
1758
471
516
7
8
67
77
27
54
%
100%
47.85%
52.15%
3.33%
3.97%
35.32%
30.62%
5.04%
12.79%
3.43%
3.75%
0.05%
0.06%
0.49%
0.56%
0.20%
0.39%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
94
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period (September30, 2018)
Table B2 - Permanent Workforce By Component - Distribution by Disability
Total by Disability Status
Detail forTargeted Disabilities
Table B2
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targe ted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-
38)
Missing
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Permanent Workforce
10/01/17 - 09/30/2018
Total
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Fnilensv
Retardation
/ Severe
Illness/
Psvrhiatrir
Limb-
Snine/
Federal Goal (FY09)
%
12%
2.00%
Region 02 New York, NY
#
739
673
15
51
16
4
3
0
6
0
1
0
2
0
(SB)
%
100%
91.07%
2.03%
6.90%
2.17%
0.54%
0.41%
0.00%
0.81%
0.00%
0.14%
0.00%
0.27%
0.00%
#
515
473
11
31
6
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
Region 01 Boston, MA (SB)
%
100%
91.84%
2.14%
6.02%
1.17%
0.19%
0.19%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.58%
0.00%
Region 03 Philadelphia, PA
#
739
662
23
54
14
1
1
1
6
0
1
0
4
0
(SB)
%
100%
89.58%
3.11%
7.31%
1.89%
0.14%
0.14%
0.14%
0.81%
0.00%
0.14%
0.00%
0.54%
0.00%
#
855
759
13
83
10
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
4
0
Region 04Atlanta, GA (SB)
%
100%
88.77%
1.52%
9.71%
1.17%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.47%
0.00%
0.23%
0.00%
0.47%
0.00%
#
977
871
21
85
26
0
3
1
7
1
3
1
9
1
Region 05 Chicago, IL (SB)
%
100%
89.15%
2.15%
8.70%
2.66%
0.00%
0.31%
0.10%
0.72%
0.10%
0.31%
0.10%
0.92%
0.10%
#
684
600
15
69
10
2
2
0
2
0
1
0
3
0
Region 06 Dallas, TX (SB)
%
100%
87.72%
2.19%
10.09%
1.46%
0.29%
0.29%
0.00%
0.29%
0.00%
0.15%
0.00%
0.44%
0.00%
#
455
382
13
60
16
5
0
0
3
2
1
1
4
0
Region 07 Lenexa, KS (SB)
%
100%
83.96%
2.86%
13.19%
3.52%
1.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.66%
0.44%
0.22%
0.22%
0.88%
0.00%
#
481
427
16
38
14
0
2
0
5
0
1
0
6
0
Region 08 Denver, CO (SB)
%
100%
88.77%
3.33%
7.90%
2.91%
0.00%
0.42%
0.00%
1.04%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
1.25%
0.00%
Region 09 San Francisco, CA
#
669
610
11
48
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
(SB)
%
100%
91.18%
1.64%
7.17%
0.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.60%
0.00%
#
499
451
13
35
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
Region 10 Seattle WA (SB)
%
100%
90.38%
2.61%
7.01%
0.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
OFC INSPECTOR GENERAL
#
265
239
6
20
4
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
(SB)
%
100%
90.19%
2.26%
7.55%
1.51%
0.00%
0.38%
0.00%
0.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.38%
0.00%
#
528
484
14
30
8
1
1
0
2
0
3
0
1
0
OFFICE OF WATER (SB)
%
100%
91.67%
2.65%
5.68%
1.52%
0.19%
0.19%
0.00%
0.38%
0.00%
0.57%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
#
292
260
8
24
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
OFC CHIEF FINCLOFCR (SB)
%
100%
89.04%
2.74%
8.22%
1.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.34%
0.00%
0.34%
0.00%
0.34%
0.00%
OFC RESEARCH & DEVELOP
#
1407
1272
42
93
27
0
8
1
11
0
2
1
4
0
(SB)
%
100%
90.41%
2.99%
6.61%
1.92%
0.00%
0.57%
0.07%
0.78%
0.00%
0.14%
0.07%
0.28%
0.00%
OFC INTERNTNL & TRIB AF
#
67
59
2
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
(SB)
%
100%
88.06%
2.99%
8.96%
4.48%
1.49%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.49%
0.00%
1.49%
0.00%
OFC OF GENERAL COUNSEL
#
220
199
8
13
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
(SB)
%
100%
90.45%
3.64%
5.91%
0.91%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.45%
0.00%
OFC OF LAND & EMER
#
469
425
10
34
7
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
MGMT (SB)
%
100%
90.62%
2.13%
7.25%
1.49%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.07%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
OFC OF ENVIRNMTL INFO
#
309
259
11
39
12
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
6
0
(SB)
%
100%
83.82%
3.56%
12.62%
3.88%
0.32%
0.65%
0.00%
0.32%
0.00%
0.65%
0.00%
1.94%
0.00%
OFC ENF &COMPL
#
618
584
13
21
6
1
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
ASSURAN (SB)
%
100%
94.50%
2.10%
3.40%
0.97%
0.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.81%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
OFC OF ADMINISTRATOR
#
330
284
12
34
9
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
(SB)
%
100%
86.06%
3.64%
10.30%
2.73%
0.30%
0.61%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
0.30%
0.00%
0.61%
0.00%
#
959
833
39
87
16
3
0
0
8
1
0
0
4
0
OFFICE OF CS AND PP (SB)
%
100%
86.86%
4.07%
9.07%
1.67%
0.31%
0.00%
0.00%
0.83%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.42%
0.00%
OFC ADMIN & RES MGMT
#
610
497
41
72
7
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
3
0
(SB)
%
100%
81.48%
6.72%
11.80%
1.15%
0.00%
0.16%
0.00%
0.33%
0.00%
0.16%
0.00%
0.49%
0.00%
OFC AIR AND RADIATION
#
1066
962
26
78
11
0
2
0
6
0
0
1
2
0
(SB)
%
100%
90.24%
2.44%
7.32%
1.03%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.09%
0.19%
0.00%
#
13753
12265
383
1105
235
21
29
4
81
6
22
4
67
1
To ta 1
%
100%
89.18%
2.78%
8.03%
1.71%
0.15%
0.21%
0.03%
0.59%
0.04%
0.16%
0.03%
0.49%
0.01%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
95
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Pay Period 201821
Table B3-1 - Occupational Categories - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
Table B3-1
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-
38)
Missing
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Permanent Workforce
10/01/17 - 09/30/2018
Total
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Retardation
/ Severe
Illness/
Psych iatri
Limb-
Spine/
1. Officials and Managers
Executive/Senior Level (Grades 15 and
#
1354
1248
30
76
12
0
5
0
3
0
3
0
1
0
Above)
%
100%
92.17%
2.22%
5.61%
0.89%
0.00%
0.37%
0.00%
0.22%
0.00%
0.22%
0.00%
0.07%
0.00%
#
480
458
4
18
5
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
Mid-Level (Grades 13-14)
%
100%
95.42%
0.83%
3.75%
1.04%
0.00%
0.21%
0.21%
0.21%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
0.21%
0.00%
#
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
First-Level (Grades 12and Below)
%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
2571
2184
106
281
64
5
7
0
24
3
6
0
18
1
Other
%
100%
84.95%
4.12%
10.93%
2.49%
0.19%
0.27%
0.00%
0.93%
0.12%
0.23%
0.00%
0.70%
0.04%
#
4406
3891
140
375
81
5
13
1
28
3
10
0
20
1
Officials And Managers - TOTAL
%
100%
88.31%
3.18%
8.51%
1.84%
0.11%
0.30%
0.02%
0.64%
0.07%
0.23%
0.00%
0.45%
0.02%
#
8714
7847
229
638
126
9
13
3
50
3
7
1
40
0
2. Professionals
%
100%
90.05%
2.63%
7.32%
1.45%
0.10%
0.15%
0.03%
0.57%
0.03%
0.08%
0.01%
0.46%
0.00%
#
95
83
1
11
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3. Technicians
%
100%
87.37%
1.05%
11.58%
2.11%
1.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.05%
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%
#
315
242
9
64
23
6
3
0
2
0
4
3
5
0
5. Administrative Support Workers
%
100%
76.83%
2.86%
20.32%
7.30%
1.90%
0.95%
0.00%
0.63%
0.00%
1.27%
0.95%
1.59%
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%
#
186
176
4
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
9. Service Workers
%
100%
94.62%
2.15%
3.23%
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
96
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Pay Period 201821
Table A4-1: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Table A4-1:
General Schedule
Feeder Pool
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
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
#
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
50.00%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-02
#
5
3
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
60.00%
40.00%
0.00%
40.00%
0.00%
0.00%
60.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-03
#
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
50.00%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
50.00%
25.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-04
#
23
9
14
1
0
5
7
3
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
39.13%
60.87%
4.35%
0.00%
21.74%
30.43%
13.04%
21.74%
0.00%
8.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-05
#
14
7
7
0
0
4
4
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
50.00%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
28.57%
28.57%
21.43%
21.43%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-06
#
20
8
12
2
2
3
3
2
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
40.00%
60.00%
10.00%
10.00%
15.00%
15.00%
10.00%
35.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-07
#
114
25
89
3
12
14
27
6
46
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
%
100%
21.93%
78.07%
2.63%
10.53%
12.28%
23.68%
5.26%
40.35%
1.75%
0.88%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.63%
GS-08
#
84
7
77
0
10
5
20
2
41
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
%
100%
8.33%
91.67%
0.00%
11.90%
5.95%
23.81%
2.38%
48.81%
0.00%
3.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.57%
GS-09
#
319
75
244
9
28
50
112
12
84
2
11
0
1
1
4
1
4
%
100%
23.51%
76.49%
2.82%
8.78%
15.67%
35.11%
3.76%
26.33%
0.63%
3.45%
0.00%
0.31%
0.31%
1.25%
0.31%
1.25%
GS-10
#
46
21
25
0
0
16
17
3
5
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
%
100%
45.65%
54.35%
0.00%
0.00%
34.78%
36.96%
6.52%
10.87%
2.17%
2.17%
0.00%
0.00%
2.17%
4.35%
0.00%
0.00%
GS-11
#
519
196
323
19
31
128
161
29
93
17
30
0
1
1
3
2
4
%
100%
37.76%
62.24%
3.66%
5.97%
24.66%
31.02%
5.59%
17.92%
3.28%
5.78%
0.00%
0.19%
0.19%
0.58%
0.39%
0.77%
GS-12
#
1791
678
1113
49
108
440
542
113
360
65
78
2
3
8
15
1
7
%
100%
37.86%
62.14%
2.74%
6.03%
24.57%
30.26%
6.31%
20.10%
3.63%
4.36%
0.11%
0.17%
0.45%
0.84%
0.06%
0.39%
GS-13
#
5761
2907
2854
219
229
2074
1663
317
675
241
232
1
2
37
32
18
21
%
100%
50.46%
49.54%
3.80%
3.98%
36.00%
28.87%
5.50%
11.72%
4.18%
4.03%
0.02%
0.03%
0.64%
0.56%
0.31%
0.36%
GS-14
#
2577
1298
1279
89
66
1011
836
112
262
72
93
2
0
11
16
1
6
%
100%
50.37%
49.63%
3.45%
2.56%
39.23%
32.44%
4.35%
10.17%
2.79%
3.61%
0.08%
0.00%
0.43%
0.62%
0.04%
0.23%
GS-15
#
2146
1154
992
57
51
952
716
70
155
62
59
2
1
7
4
4
6
%
100%
53.77%
46.23%
2.66%
2.38%
44.36%
33.36%
3.26%
7.22%
2.89%
2.75%
0.09%
0.05%
0.33%
0.19%
0.19%
0.28%
All other(unspecified)
#
61
40
21
1
1
35
13
1
3
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
65.57%
34.43%
1.64%
1.64%
57.38%
21.31%
1.64%
4.92%
4.92%
6.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Senior
Executive
Service
#
257
143
114
9
6
117
88
12
17
4
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
%
100%
55.64%
44.36%
3.50%
2.33%
45.53%
34.24%
4.67%
6.61%
1.56%
0.78%
0.00%
0.00%
0.39%
0.39%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
97
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Pay Period 201821
Table A4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Table A4-2:
General Schedule
Feeder Pool
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanicor Latino
Non- Hispanicor
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
American Indian
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
#
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
O.OCP/o
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.02%
0.14%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
GS-02
#
5
3
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.04%
0.05%
0.03%
O.OCP/o
0.37%
0.00%
0.00%
0.43%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
GS-03
#
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
O.OCP/o
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
0.14%
0.11%
0.21%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
GS-04
#
23
9
14
1
0
5
7
3
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.17%
0.14%
0.20%
0.22%
O.OCP/o
0.10%
0.17%
0.43%
0.28%
0.00%
0.39%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
GS-05
#
14
7
7
0
0
4
4
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.10%
0.11%
O.lCP/o
O.OCP/o
O.OCP/o
0.08%
0.10%
0.43%
0.17%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
GS-06
#
20
8
12
2
2
3
3
2
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0.15%
0.12%
0.17%
0.44%
0.37%
0.06%
0.07%
0.29%
0.40%
0.21%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
GS-07
#
114
25
89
3
12
14
27
6
46
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
%
0.83%
0.38%
1.24%
0.66%
2.20%
0.29%
0.64%
0.87%
2.62%
0.42%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
5.56%
GS-08
#
84
7
77
0
10
5
20
2
41
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
%
0.61%
0.11%
1.07%
O.OCP/o
1.83%
0.10%
0.48%
0.29%
2.33%
0.00%
0.58%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
5.56%
GS-09
#
319
75
244
9
28
50
112
12
84
2
11
0
1
1
4
1
4
%
2.32%
1.14%
3.40%
1.97%
5.13%
1.03%
2.66%
1.74%
4.78%
0.42%
2.13%
0.00%
12.50%
1.49%
5.19%
3.70%
7.41%
GS-10
#
46
21
25
0
0
16
17
3
5
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
%
0.33%
0.32%
0.35%
O.OCP/o
O.OCP/o
0.33%
0.40%
0.43%
0.28%
0.21%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
1.49%
2.6CP/o
0.00%
0.00%
GS-11
#
519
196
323
19
31
128
161
29
93
17
30
0
1
1
3
2
4
%
3.78%
2.98%
4.51%
4.15%
5.68%
2.64%
3.82%
4.20%
5.29%
3.61%
5.81%
0.00%
12.50%
1.49%
3.90%
7.41%
7.41%
GS-12
#
1791
678
1113
49
108
440
542
113
360
65
78
2
3
8
15
1
7
%
13.03%
10.31%
15.53%
10.70%
19.78%
9.06%
12.87%
16.38%
20.48%
13.80%
15.12%
28.57%
37.50%
11.94%
19.48%
3.70%
12.96%
GS-13
#
5761
2907
2854
219
229
2074
1663
317
675
241
232
1
2
37
32
18
21
%
41.92%
44.22%
39.81%
47.82%
41.94%
42.73%
39.50%
45.94%
38.40%
51.17%
44.96%
14.29%
25.00%
55.22%
41.56%
66.67%
38.89%
GS-14
#
2577
1298
1279
89
66
1011
836
112
262
72
93
2
0
11
16
1
6
%
18.75%
19.74%
17.84%
19.43%
12.09%
20.83%
19.86%
16.23%
14.90%
15.29%
18.02%
28.57%
0.00%
16.42%
20.78%
3.70%
11.11%
GS-15
#
2146
1154
992
57
51
952
716
70
155
62
59
2
1
7
4
4
6
%
15.62%
17.55%
13.84%
12.45%
9.34%
19.61%
17.01%
10.14%
8.82%
13.16%
11.43%
28.57%
12.50%
10.45%
5.19%
14.81%
11.11%
All other (unspecified)
#
61
40
21
1
1
35
13
1
3
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
65.57%
34.43%
1.64%
1.64%
57.38%
21.31%
1.64%
4.92%
4.92%
6.56%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
O.OCP/o
0.00%
0.00%
Senior
Executive
Service
#
257
143
114
9
6
117
88
12
17
4
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
%
1.87%
2.18%
1.59%
1.97%
1.10%
2.41%
2.09%
1.74%
0.97%
0.85%
0.39%
0.00%
0.00%
1.49%
1.30%
0.00%
0.00%
TOTAL
#
13743
6574
7169
458
546
4854
4210
690
1758
471
516
7
8
67
77
27
54
%
100%
100%
lOCP/o
lOCP/o
lOCP/o
100%
100%
lOCP/o
lOCP/o
100%
lOCP/o
lOCP/o
100%
100%
lOCP/o
100%
100%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
98
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Pay Period 201821
Table B4-2: Participation Rates for General Schedule Grades - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail forTargeted Disabilities
Table B4-2
General Schedule
Feeder Pool
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
(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/
Epilepsv
-90
Mental
Retardation
/ Severe
-91
Mental
Illness/
Psvchiatr
-92
Distortion
Limb-
Spine/
#
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GS-01
%
0.01%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
5
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GS-02
%
0.04%
0.02%
0.52%
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-03
%
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%
#
23
18
1
4
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
GS-04
%
0.17%
0.15%
0.26%
0.36%
1.70%
0.00%
3.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
1.49%
0.00%
#
14
6
0
8
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
GS-05
%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
0.72%
2.13%
9.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
2.99%
0.00%
#
20
8
2
10
4
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
GS-06
%
0.15%
0.07%
0.52%
0.90%
1.70%
9.52%
3.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
114
84
2
28
8
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
GS-07
%
0.83%
0.69%
0.52%
2.53%
3.40%
14.29%
3.45%
0.00%
1.23%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.48%
0.00%
#
84
64
0
20
6
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
2
0
GS-08
%
0.61%
0.52%
0.00%
1.81%
2.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.23%
0.00%
13.64%
0.00%
2.99%
0.00%
#
321
252
16
53
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
GS-09
%
2.33%
2.06%
4.18%
4.80%
2.13%
9.52%
3.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.99%
0.00%
#
46
40
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
GS-10
%
0.33%
0.33%
0.26%
0.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
520
428
34
58
8
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
GS-11
%
3.78%
3.49%
8.88%
5.25%
3.40%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.46%
0.00%
#
1792
1478
83
231
53
4
9
0
17
2
4
1
16
0
GS-12
%
13.03%
12.05%
21.67%
20.90%
22.55%
19.05%
31.03%
0.00%
20.99%
33.33%
18.18%
25.00%
23.88%
0.00%
#
5763
5179
152
432
93
6
8
2
40
2
6
0
28
1
GS-13
%
41.92%
42.24%
39.69%
39.10%
39.57%
28.57%
27.59%
50.00%
49.38%
33.33%
27.27%
0.00%
41.79%
100.00%
#
2577
2415
44
118
23
1
2
1
9
2
3
0
5
0
GS-14
%
18.74%
19.70%
11.49%
10.68%
9.79%
4.76%
6.90%
25.00%
11.11%
33.33%
13.64%
0.00%
7.46%
0.00%
#
2146
1987
36
123
24
1
5
1
10
0
4
0
3
0
GS-15
%
15.61%
16.21%
9.40%
11.13%
10.21%
4.76%
17.24%
25.00%
12.35%
0.00%
18.18%
0.00%
4.48%
0.00%
All other
#
61
56
2
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
(unspecified)
%
0.44%
0.46%
0.52%
0.27%
0.85%
0.00%
3.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Senior
Executive
#
257
237
8
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Service
%
1.87%
1.93%
2.09%
1.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
13749
12261
383
1105
235
21
29
4
81
6
22
4
67
1
TOTAL
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period 201821
Table A6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Table A6
Participation Rates for
Major Occupationals
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian
Other Pacific
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
Environmental Protection
Specialist
#
1911
764
1147
66
92
575
721
70
241
31
69
0
2
15
19
7
3
%
100%
39.98%
60.02%
3.45%
4.81%
30.09%
37.73%
3.66%
12.61%
1.62%
3.61%
0.00%
0.10%
0.78%
0.99%
0.37%
0.16%
Occupational CLF
#
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%
General Administrative
#
489
162
327
14
31
105
120
30
163
9
7
0
0
3
1
1
5
%
100%
33.13%
66.87%
2.86%
6.34%
21.47%
24.54%
6.13%
33.33%
1.84%
1.43%
0.00%
0.00%
0.61%
0.20%
0.20%
1.02%
Occupational CLF
#
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%
Management Analysis
#
1295
385
910
18
49
279
421
59
383
22
40
0
0
4
8
3
9
%
100%
29.73%
70.27%
1.39%
3.78%
21.54%
32.51%
4.56%
29.58%
1.70%
3.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.31%
0.62%
0.23%
0.69%
Occupational CLF
#
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%
Biologist
#
1092
506
586
21
35
412
437
33
57
36
48
0
0
3
6
1
3
%
100%
46.34%
53.66%
1.92%
3.21%
37.73%
40.02%
3.02%
5.22%
3.30%
4.40%
0.00%
0.00%
0.27%
0.55%
0.09%
0.27%
Occupational CLF
#
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%
Environmental Engineering
#
1548
945
603
100
68
644
373
76
73
114
80
1
0
8
6
2
3
%
100%
61.05%
38.95%
6.46%
4.39%
41.60%
24.10%
4.91%
4.72%
7.36%
5.17%
0.06%
0.00%
0.52%
0.39%
0.13%
0.19%
Occupational CLF
#
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%
Attorney
#
977
451
526
30
35
374
378
19
53
23
48
1
0
4
6
0
6
%
100%
46.16%
53.84%
3.07%
3.58%
38.28%
38.69%
1.94%
5.42%
2.35%
4.91%
0.10%
0.00%
0.41%
0.61%
0.00%
0.61%
Occupational CLF
#
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%
General Physical Science
#
2046
1152
894
79
66
932
658
56
83
71
74
0
0
13
11
1
2
%
100%
56.30%
43.70%
3.86%
3.23%
45.55%
32.16%
2.74%
4.06%
3.47%
3.62%
0.00%
0.00%
0.64%
0.54%
0.05%
0.10%
Occupational CLF
#
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: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
100
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period 201821
Table B6: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Table B6
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
Participation Rates for
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-
38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Major Occupationals
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Epilepsy
Severe
Intellectual
Psychiatric
Disabilty
Limb-Spine/
Dwarfism
Environmental
#
1911
1716
36
159
30
2
6
2
10
1
2
0
7
0
Protection
%
100%
89.80%
1.88%
8.32%
1.57%
0.10%
0.31%
0.10%
0.52%
0.05%
0.10%
0.00%
0.37%
0.00%
General
#
490
413
20
57
9
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
4
0
Administrative
%
100%
84.29%
4.08%
11.63%
1.84%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.41%
0.20%
0.20%
0.00%
0.82%
0.00%
Management
#
1296
1145
33
118
35
4
4
0
16
1
5
0
4
1
Analysis
%
100%
88.35%
2.55%
9.10%
2.70%
0.31%
0.31%
0.00%
1.23%
0.08%
0.39%
0.00%
0.31%
0.08%
#
1092
971
48
73
7
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
Biologist
%
100%
88.92%
4.40%
6.68%
0.64%
0.00%
0.27%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
Environmental
#
1549
1430
18
101
22
2
1
0
13
1
1
0
4
0
Engineering
%
100%
92.32%
1.16%
6.52%
1.42%
0.13%
0.06%
0.00%
0.84%
0.06%
0.06%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
#
977
913
18
46
7
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
Attorney
%
100%
93.45%
1.84%
4.71%
0.72%
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
0.20%
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
0.10%
0.00%
General Physical
#
2047
1885
44
118
25
1
3
0
10
0
3
0
8
0
Science
%
100%
92.09%
2.15%
5.76%
1.22%
0.05%
0.15%
0.00%
0.49%
0.00%
0.15%
0.00%
0.39%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
101
-------
Table A7: APPLICANTS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Table A7
Applicant Flow Data
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
White
Black or African
Asian
Native
American
Two or More Races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Job Title/Series: 0028 Environmental Protection Specialist
Total Receiusd
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
1787
872
915
87
87
508
481
173
220
64
95
7
0
26
15
7
17
%
' 100%
48.80%
51.20%
4.87%
4.87%
28.43%
26.92%
9.68%
12.31%
3.58%
5.32%
.39%
.00%
1.45%
.84%
.39%
.95%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1475
689
786
61
77
420
422
130
181
53
83
5
0
14
12
6
11
%
' 100%
46.71%
53.29%
4.14%
5.22%
28.47%
28.61%
8.81%
12.27%
3.59%
5.63%
.34%
.00%
.95%
.81%
.41%
.75%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
36
8
28
0
4
6
12
0
4
1
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
%
' 100%
22.22%
77.78%
.00%
11.11%
16.67%
33.33%
.00%
11.11%
2.78%
19.44%
.00%
.00%
2.78%
2.78%
.00%
.00%
CLF
dministrat
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 Misc A
on and Program Specialist
Total Receiusd
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
1980
631
1349
70
112
310
444
187
700
38
37
3
2
15
17
8
37
%
' 100%
31.87%
68.13%
3.54%
5.66%
15.66%
22.42%
9.44%
35.35%
1.92%
1.87%
.15%
.10%
.76%
.86%
.40%
1.87%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1368
364
1004
30
83
176
335
116
523
31
27
2
1
5
11
4
24
%
' 100%
26.61%
73.39%
2.19%
6.07%
12.87%
24.49%
8.48%
38.23%
2.27%
1.97%
.15%
.07%
.37%
.80%
.29%
1.75%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
42
9
33
1
3
7
15
1
11
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
%
¦ 100%
21.43%
78.57%
2.38%
7.14%
16.67%
35.71%
2.38%
26.19%
.00%
2.38%
.00%
.00%
.00%
4.76%
.00%
2.38%
CLF
ement/Prc
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 Manac
gram Analyst
Total Receiusd
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
2466
1198
1268
125
129
587
315
360
705
91
71
3
0
21
10
11
38
%
" 100%
48.58%
51.42%
5.07%
5.23%
23.80%
12.77%
14.60%
28.59%
3.69%
2.88%
.12%
.00%
.85%
.41%
.45%
1.54%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1308
601
707
50
62
291
202
198
383
45
38
2
0
9
5
6
17
%
' 100%
45.95%
54.05%
3.82%
4.74%
22.25%
15.44%
15.14%
29.28%
3.44%
2.91%
.15%
.00%
.69%
.38%
.46%
1.30%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
77
23
54
1
4
12
25
9
19
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
' 100%
29.87%
70.13%
1.30%
5.19%
15.58%
32.47%
11.69%
24.68%
1.30%
6.49%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
1.30%
CLF
1 Biologic
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 Gener
al Science (RESEARCH)
Total Receiusd
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
4425
2244
2181
209
221
1260
1155
336
452
400
316
2
0
29
23
8
14
%
' 100%
50.71%
49.29%
4.72%
4.99%
28.47%
26.10%
7.59%
10.21%
9.04%
7.14%
.05%
.00%
.66%
.52%
.18%
.32%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
3855
1902
1953
169
187
1079
1034
280
417
350
288
2
0
19
19
3
8
%
' 100%
49.34%
50.66%
4.38%
4.85%
27.99%
26.82%
7.26%
10.82%
9.08%
7.47%
.05%
.00%
.49%
.49%
.08%
.21%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
120
50
70
5
7
33
41
6
13
6
7
0
0
0
1
0
1
%
' 100%
41.67%
58.33%
4.17%
5.83%
27.50%
34.17%
5.00%
10.83%
5.00%
5.83%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.83%
.00%
.83%
CLF
lmental E
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 Enviro
lgineer
Total Receiusd
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
1557
952
605
87
66
621
400
96
65
108
66
3
0
28
4
9
4
%
' 100%
61.14%
38.86%
5.59%
4.24%
39.88%
25.69%
6.17%
4.17%
6.94%
4.24%
.19%
.00%
1.80%
.26%
.58%
.26%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1027
627
400
55
49
426
255
60
39
67
53
3
0
13
2
3
2
%
' 100%
61.05%
38.95%
5.36%
4.77%
41.48%
24.83%
5.84%
3.80%
6.52%
5.16%
.29%
.00%
1.27%
.19%
.29%
.19%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
68
34
34
2
8
25
17
3
2
3
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
%
' 100%
50.00%
50.00%
2.94%
11.76%
36.76%
25.00%
4.41%
2.94%
4.41%
10.29%
.00%
.00%
1.47%
.00%
.00%
.00%
CLF
y
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 Attorne
Total Receiusd
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
1147
633
514
76
33
393
280
103
150
52
46
0
0
7
3
2
2
%
' 100%
55.19%
44.81%
6.63%
2.88%
34.26%
24.41%
8.98%
13.08%
4.53%
4.01%
.00%
.00%
.61%
.26%
.17%
.17%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1097
613
484
74
31
383
266
97
141
51
42
0
0
6
3
2
1
%
' 100%
55.88%
44.12%
6.75%
2.83%
34.91%
24.25%
8.84%
12.85%
4.65%
3.83%
.00%
.00%
.55%
.27%
.18%
.09%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
5
2
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
' 100%
40.00%
60.00%
.00%
.00%
40.00%
60.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
CLF
al Scientis
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 Physic
/Environmental Scientist
Total Receiusd
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
442
230
212
23
25
141
131
30
32
31
19
0
1
2
2
3
2
%
' 100%
52.04%
47.96%
5.20%
5.66%
31.90%
29.64%
6.79%
7.24%
7.01%
4.30%
.00%
.23%
.45%
.45%
.68%
.45%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
373
193
180
15
21
126
115
20
24
28
15
0
1
1
2
3
2
%
" 100%
51.74%
48.26%
4.02%
5.63%
33.78%
30.83%
5.36%
6.43%
7.51%
4.02%
.00%
.27%
.27%
.54%
.80%
.54%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
17
9
8
4
0
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
%
' 100%
52.94%
47.06%
23.53%
.00%
23.53%
47.06%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
.00%
5.88%
.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%
Source: Monster
Date: 10/16/2018
102
-------
Table B7: APPLICATIONS AND HIRES FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS - Distribution by Disability (Permanent)
Table B7
Applicant Flow Data
for People with Disabilities
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01]
Disability [06 -
98]
Targeted
Disability
Developmeit
al Disability
[02]
Traumatic
Brain Injury
[03]
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
Hearing [19]
Blind Dr
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing [20]
Missing
Extremities
[31]
Significant
Mobility
Impairment
[40]
Partial or
Complete
Paralysis [60]
Epilepsy Dr
Other Seizure
Disorders [82]
Intellectual
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
#
17038
10438
5534
1066
540
34
47
84
69
10
48
16
36
8
254
4
11
%
100.00%
61.26%
32.48%
6.26%
3.17%
0.20%
0.28%
0.49%
0.40%
0.06%
0.28%
0.09%
0.21%
0.05%
1.49%
0.02%
0.06%
Hires
#
353
204
139
10
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
57.79%
39.38%
2.83%
0.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0028
Total Received
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
2180
1374
682
124
62
5
2
13
10
0
4
0
5
2
26
2
1
%
100.00%
63.03%
31.28%
5.69%
2.84%
0.23%
0.09%
0.60%
0.46%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.23%
0.09%
1.19%
0.09%
0.05%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1768
1147
524
97
48
5
0.0028281
9
7
0
4
0
4
1
18
2
1
%
100.00%
64.88%
29.64%
5.49%
2.71%
0.28%
0.11%
0.51%
0.40%
0.00%
0.23%
0.00%
0.23%
0.06%
1.02%
0.11%
0.06%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
46
29
16
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
63.04%
34.78%
2.17%
2.17%
0.00%
0.00%
2.17%
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
#
2381
1459
674
248
138
3
13
16
10
3
17
3
7
0
79
1
4
%
100.00%
61.28%
28.31%
10.42%
5.80%
0.13%
0.55%
0.67%
0.42%
0.13%
0.71%
0.13%
0.29%
0.00%
3.32%
0.04%
0.17%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1624
1050
440
134
71
2
0.0012315
9
5
1
11
1
2
0
38
1
3
%
100.00%
64.66%
27.09%
8.25%
4.37%
0.12%
0.37%
0.55%
0.31%
0.06%
0.68%
0.06%
0.12%
0.00%
2.34%
0.06%
0.18%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
50
33
13
4
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
66.00%
26.00%
8.00%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0343
Total Received
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
3283
1755
1260
268
124
4
17
18
27
1
15
9
10
2
52
0
4
%
100.00%
53.46%
38.38%
8.16%
3.78%
0.12%
0.52%
0.55%
0.82%
0.03%
0.46%
0.27%
0.30%
0.06%
1.58%
0.00%
0.12%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1707
951
637
119
48
2
0.0011716
11
13
0
6
4
3
1
17
0
2
%
100.00%
55.71%
37.32%
6.97%
2.81%
0.12%
0.23%
0.64%
0.76%
0.00%
0.35%
0.23%
0.18%
0.06%
1.00%
0.00%
0.12%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
98
60
36
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
61.22%
36.73%
2.04%
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): 0401
Total Received
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
5246
3465
1523
258
129
11
6
33
3
1
6
2
8
3
65
1
1
%
100.00%
66.05%
29.03%
4.92%
2.46%
0.21%
0.11%
0.63%
0.06%
0.02%
0.11%
0.04%
0.15%
0.06%
1.24%
0.02%
0.02%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
4542
3045
1285
212
103
10
0.0022017
22
0
1
5
1
8
2
54
1
0
%
100.00%
67.04%
28.29%
4.67%
2.27%
0.22%
0.11%
0.48%
0.00%
0.02%
0.11%
0.02%
0.18%
0.04%
1.19%
0.02%
0.00%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
154
90
58
6
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
58.44%
37.66%
3.90%
1.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.65%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.65%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0819
Total Received
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
1881
1176
639
66
31
5
4
1
2
0
4
1
1
1
16
0
0
%
100.00%
62.52%
33.97%
3.51%
1.65%
0.27%
0.21%
0.05%
0.11%
0.00%
0.21%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.85%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1253
780
435
38
13
2
0.0015962
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
3
0
0
%
100.00%
62.25%
34.72%
3.03%
1.04%
0.16%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.00%
0.24%
0.08%
0.08%
0.08%
0.24%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
86
52
32
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
60.47%
37.21%
2.33%
1.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.16%
0.00%
0.00%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 0905
Total Received
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
1537
890
568
79
45
3
5
2
17
4
0
1
4
0
12
0
0
%
100.00%
57.91%
36.96%
5.14%
2.93%
0.20%
0.33%
0.13%
1.11%
0.26%
0.00%
0.07%
0.26%
0.00%
0.78%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
1472
848
549
75
41
1
0.0006793
2
17
4
0
1
4
0
9
0
0
%
100.00%
57.61%
37.30%
5.10%
2.79%
0.07%
0.27%
0.14%
1.15%
0.27%
0.00%
0.07%
0.27%
0.00%
0.61%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
9
4
5
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%
Occupation Series Code (Four Digits): 1301
Total Received
#
Voluntarily Identified
#
530
319
188
23
11
3
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
4
0
1
%
100.00%
60.19%
35.47%
4.34%
2.08%
0.57%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.19%
0.38%
0.00%
0.19%
0.00%
0.75%
0.00%
0.19%
Qualified ofthose
Identified
#
438
269
150
19
8
1
0.0022831
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
3
0
1
%
100.00%
61.42%
34.25%
4.34%
1.83%
0.23%
0.00%
0.23%
0.00%
0.23%
0.23%
0.00%
0.23%
0.00%
0.68%
0.00%
0.23%
Selected ofthose
Identified
#
27
14
12
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
51.85%
44.44%
3.70%
3.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Monster
Date: 10/16/2018
103
-------
EPA- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For Period (2017-10-01 TO 2018-09-30)
Table A8: NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Table A8
New Hires
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanicor Latino
Non- Hispanicor
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
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
#
200
84
116
6
8
58
55
8
35
9
13
0
0
0
0
2
2
%
100%
42.00%
58.00%
3.00%
4.00%
29.00%
27.50%
4.00%
17.50%
4.50%
6.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00%
1.00%
Temporary
#
160
109
51
0
0
103
40
2
4
2
5
0
0
0
2
1
0
%
100%
68.13%
31.87%
0.00%
0.00%
64.38%
25.00%
1.25%
2.50%
1.25%
3.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.25%
0.63%
0.00%
TOTAL
#
360
193
167
6
8
161
95
10
39
11
18
0
0
0
2
3
2
%
100%
53.61%
46.39%
1.67%
2.22%
44.72%
26.39%
2.78%
10.83%
3.06%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.56%
0.83%
0.56%
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
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
104
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For Period ( 2017-10-01 TO 2018-09-30)
Table B8: NEW HIRES BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT - Distribution by Disability
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
Table B8
(28,30,32-
New Hires
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
38)
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
10/01/2017 to
Convulsi
09/30/2018
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Missing
Partial
Total
ve
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Total
Disability
Identified
Extremities
Paralysis
Paralysis
Epilepsy
on/
Psychiatric
Spine/
#
200
153
23
24
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Permanent
%
100%
76.50%
11.50%
12.00%
1.50%
0.50%
0.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.50%
0.00%
#
160
136
19
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temporary
%
100%
85.00%
11.88%
3.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
360
289
42
29
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total
%
100%
80.28%
11.67%
8.06%
0.83%
0.28%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
105
-------
Table A9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS FOR MAJOR OCCUPATIONS by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Table A9 Applicant Flow
Total
RACBETHNICfTY
Data for Disabilities
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
White
Black or African
Asian
Native
American
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
#
483
230
253
32
25
121
120
36
59
18
36
6
0
13
6
4
7
Qualified
#
229
88
141
9
14
54
72
7
26
9
25
4
0
2
3
3
1
%
1 100%
38.43%
61.57%
3.93%
6.11%
23.58%
31.44%
3.06%
11.35%
3.93%
10.92%
1.75%
0.00%
0.87%
1.31%
1.31%
0.44%
Selected
#
37
7
30
0
4
5
14
0
4
1
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
%
' 100%
18.92%
81.08%
0.00%
10.81%
13.51%
37.84%
0.00%
10.81%
2.70%
18.92%
0.00%
0.00%
2.70%
2.70%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 0301 Misc Administration and Program Specialist
Total Applications
Received
#
374
179
195
30
14
83
73
43
89
8
8
2
0
9
4
4
7
Qualified
#
87
31
56
4
3
10
30
10
18
4
3
1
0
2
0
0
2
%
' 100%
35.63%
64.37%
4.60%
3.45%
11.49%
34.48%
11.49%
20.69%
4.60%
3.45%
1.15%
0.00%
2.30%
0.00%
0.00%
2.30%
Selected
#
24
4
20
0
1
4
10
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
1 100%
16.67%
83.33%
0.00%
4.17%
16.67%
41.67%
0.00%
37.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 0343 Management/Program Analyst
Total Applications
Received
#
1163
559
604
76
61
281
144
161
338
28
44
1
0
9
5
3
12
Qualified
#
390
140
250
18
15
77
83
38
129
5
20
0
0
2
1
0
2
%
' 100%
35.90%
64.10%
4.62%
3.85%
19.74%
21.28%
9.74%
33.08%
1.28%
5.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.51%
0.26%
0.00%
0.51%
Selected
#
79
23
56
1
3
13
27
8
21
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
' 100%
29.11%
70.89%
1.27%
3.80%
16.46%
34.18%
10.13%
26.58%
1.27%
5.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.27%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 0401 General Biological Science (RESEARCH)
Total Applications
Received
#
750
390
360
30
50
263
223
48
43
35
32
0
0
11
7
3
5
Qualified
#
410
202
208
12
33
146
137
18
19
23
16
0
0
2
3
1
0
%
' 100%
49.27%
50.73%
2.93%
8.05%
35.61%
33.41%
4.39%
4.63%
5.61%
3.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.49%
0.73%
0.24%
0.00%
Selected
#
75
35
40
1
2
28
31
2
3
4
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
' 100%
46.67%
53.33%
1.33%
2.67%
37.33%
41.33%
2.67%
4.00%
5.33%
4.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.33%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 0819 Environmental Engineer
Total Applications
Received
#
329
196
133
30
21
116
91
20
10
10
8
0
0
14
1
6
2
Qualified
#
165
89
76
15
14
52
46
11
8
7
8
0
0
3
0
1
0
%
1 100%
53.94%
46.06%
9.09%
8.48%
31.52%
27.88%
6.67%
4.85%
4.24%
4.85%
0.00%
0.00%
1.82%
0.00%
0.61%
0.00%
Selected
#
47
20
27
3
7
12
13
2
1
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
' 100%
42.55%
57.45%
6.38%
14.89%
25.53%
27.66%
4.26%
2.13%
6.38%
12.77%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 0905 Attorney
Total Applications
Received
#
15
9
6
2
0
5
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Qualified
#
11
8
3
2
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
%
100%
72.73%
27.27%
18.18%
0.00%
36.36%
27.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
18.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
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%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Job Series of Vacancy: 1301 Physical Scientist/Environmental Scientist
Total Applications
Received
#
89
52
37
8
3
30
28
5
2
5
4
0
0
1
0
3
0
Qualified
#
62
36
26
5
2
21
20
3
1
4
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
%
100%
58.06%
41.94%
8.06%
3.23%
33.87%
32.26%
4.84%
1.61%
6.45%
4.84%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.84%
0.00%
Selected
#
14
7
7
3
0
3
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
%
100%
50.00%
50.00%
21.43%
0.00%
21.43%
42.86%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.14%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.14%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Source: Monster
Date: 10/16/2018
106
-------
Table B9: SELECTIONS FOR INTERNAL COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS for Major Occupations by Disability
Table B9 Applicant Flow
Data for Disabilities
10/01/2017 to
09/30/2018
Total
Total by Disability Status
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01]
Disability [06-
Targ eted
Disability
Develop-
Disability [02]
Traumatic
Brain Injury
[03]
Serious
Difficulty
Hearina 1191
Blind or
Serious
Difficulty
Seeina I20I
Missing
Extremities
[31]
Signifies nt
Mobility
Impairment
[401
Partial or
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
#
648
342
277
29
13
0
0
3
3
0
2
0
1
1
5
0
1
%
100.00%
52.78%
42.75%
4.48%
2.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.46%
0.46%
0.00%
0.31%
0.00%
0.15%
0.15%
0.77%
0.00%
0.15%
Qualified
#
305
160
138
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100.00%
52.46%
45.25%
2.30%
0.66%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.66%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.33%
Selected
#
47
29
17
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
61.70%
36.17%
2.13%
2.13%
0.00%
0.00%
2.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant
Pool%
%
Series: 0301 Misc Administration and Program Specialist
Total Applications
Received
#
483
253
168
62
41
0
3
6
4
2
3
3
2
0
25
0
1
%
100.00%
52.38%
34.78%
12.84%
8.49%
0.00%
0.62%
1.24%
0.83%
0.41%
0.62%
0.62%
0.41%
0.00%
5.18%
0.00%
0.21%
Qualified
#
115
62
48
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
53.91%
41.74%
4.35%
2.61%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.87%
0.87%
0.87%
0.00%
0.87%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
32
19
10
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
59.38%
31.25%
9.38%
3.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.13%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant
Pool%
%
Series: 0343 Management/Program Analyst
Total Applications
Received
#
1591
821
640
130
66
1
14
8
7
1
12
4
5
2
31
0
1
%
100.00%
51.60%
40.23%
8.17%
4.15%
0.06%
0.88%
0.50%
0.44%
0.06%
0.75%
0.25%
0.31%
0.13%
1.95%
0.00%
0.06%
Qualified
#
505
282
205
18
9
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
6
0
0
%
100.00%
55.84%
40.59%
3.56%
1.78%
0.00%
0.00%
0.59%
0.20%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.20%
1.19%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
101
60
39
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
59.41%
38.61%
1.98%
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%
%
Series: 0401 General Biological Science (RESEARCH)
Total Applications
Received
#
997
484
462
51
26
1
0
7
3
0
2
1
1
1
13
1
%
100.00%
48.55%
46.34%
5.12%
2.61%
0.10%
0.00%
0.70%
0.30%
0.00%
0.20%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
1.3:
:::
0.10%
Qualified
#
554
244
293
17
8
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
5
0
0
%
100.00%
44.04%
52.89%
3.07%
1.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.18%
0.00%
0.90%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
99
51
45
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
51.52%
45.45%
3.03%
1.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant
Pool%
%
Series: 0819 Environmental Engineer
Total Applications
Received
#
412
239
168
5
4
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
%
100.00%
58.01%
40.78%
1.21%
0.97%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.24%
0.00%
0.49%
0.24%
0.00%
0.00%
0.24%
0.00%
0.00%
Qualified
#
207
120
85
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
57.97%
41.06%
0.97%
0.97%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.97%
0.48%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
59
39
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
66.10%
33.90%
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%
%
Series: 0905 Attorney
Total Applications
Received
#
23
7
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
30.43%
60.87%
8.70%
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%
Qualified
#
19
3
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
15.79%
73.68%
10.53%
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
#
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
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%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant
Pool%
%
Series: 1301 Physical Scientist/Environmental Scientist
Total Applications
Received
#
124
61
60
3
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
%
100.00%
49.19%
48.39%
2.42%
2.42%
0.00%
0.00%
0.81%
0.00%
0.81%
0.81%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
o.c:
:::
0 81
Qualified
#
83
41
39
3
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
100.00%
49.40%
46.99%
3.61%
3.61%
0.00%
0.00%
1.20%
0.00%
1.20%
1.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.20%
Selected
#
20
10
9
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
50.00%
45.00%
5.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant
Pool%
%
Source: Monster
Date: 10/16/2018
107
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For Period ( 201821)
Table A10: NON-COMPETITIVE PROMOTIONS - TIME IN GRADE - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Table A-10
Non Competitive
Promotions
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
TOTAL WORKFORCE
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanicor Latino
Non- Hispanicor Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
American Indian
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
#
983
421
562
37
53
290
344
46
95
34
57
0
1
7
7
6
3
%
100%
42.83%
57.17%
3.76%
5.39%
29.50%
34.99%
4.68%
9.66%
3.46%
5.80%
0.00%
0.10%
0.71%
0.71%
0.61%
0.31%
Time in grade in excess of miniumum
1-12 Months
#
59
25
34
2
3
16
16
5
8
0
7
0
0
0
0
2
0
%
100%
42.37%
57.63%
3.39%
5.08%
27.12%
27.12%
8.47%
13.56%
0.00%
11.86%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.39%
0.00%
13-24 Months
#
19
7
12
0
1
5
5
1
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
36.84%
63.16%
0.00%
5.26%
26.32%
26.32%
5.26%
21.05%
5.26%
10.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25 +months
#
24
13
11
2
0
8
9
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
54.17%
45.83%
8.33%
0.00%
33.33%
37.50%
12.50%
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
108
-------
EPA-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Pay Period 201821
Table B10- Non-Competitive Promotions
- Time in Grade - By Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail forTargeted Disabilities
Table B-10
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-
38)
Missing
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Non Competitive Promotions
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Partial
Total
Convulsi
ve
Mental
Mental
Distortio
n
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Retardation
Illness/
Limb-
Total Employees Eligible
#
983
804
61
118
15
1
1
0
2
0
2
0
9
0
for Career Ladder
%
100%
81.79%
6.21%
12.00%
1.53%
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.20%
0.00%
0.92%
0.00%
Time in Grade Excess of Minimum
#
59
42
2
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1-12 Months
%
100%
71.19%
3.39%
25.42%
1.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.69%
0.00%
#
19
16
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13-24 Months
%
100%
84.21%
5.26%
10.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
#
24
19
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
25 + Months
%
100%
79.17%
12.50%
8.33%
4.17%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.17%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
109
-------
Table A11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL POSITIONS (GS 13/14, GS 15, and SES) by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
Table A11
Total
RACE/ETHNICITY
By Grade Levels
Hispanic or Latino
Non- Hispanic or Latino
iu/u vatu to uy/au/Ana
White
Black or African
Asian
Native
American
Two or More Races
All
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
'13
Total Applications
#
1269
709
560
100
62
354
229
146
197
54
47
7
1
38
11
10
13
Received
%
r 100%
55.87%
44.13%
7.88%
4.89%
27.90%
18.05%
11.51%
15.52%
4.26%
3.70%
0.55%
0.08%
2.99%
0.87%
0.79%
1.02%
Qualified
#
415
205
210
29
23
111
102
36
50
19
29
4
1
6
3
0
2
%
" 100%
49.40%
50.60%
6.99%
5.54%
26.75%
24.58%
8.67%
12.05%
4.58%
6.99%
0.96%
0.24%
1.45%
0.72%
0.00%
0.48%
Selected
#
127
61
66
7
7
37
30
10
15
6
12
0
1
1
1
0
0
%
r 100%
48.03%
51.97%
5.51%
5.51%
29.13%
23.62%
7.87%
11.81%
4.72%
9.45%
0.00%
0.79%
0.79%
0.79%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
,A
14
Total Applications
#
1757
920
837
119
90
469
350
219
295
82
84
2
0
15
5
14
13
Received
%
r 100%
52.36%
47.64%
6.77%
5.12%
26.69%
19.92%
12.46%
16.79%
4.67%
4.78%
0.11%
0.00%
0.85%
0.28%
0.80%
0.74%
Qualified
#
801
360
441
37
47
200
216
76
126
36
45
2
0
5
2
4
5
%
r 100%
44.94%
55.06%
4.62%
5.87%
24.97%
26.97%
9.49%
15.73%
4.49%
5.62%
0.25%
0.00%
0.62%
0.25%
0.50%
0.62%
Selected
#
128
42
86
3
4
27
53
11
19
1
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
r 100%
32.81%
67.19%
2.34%
3.13%
21.09%
41.41%
8.59%
14.84%
0.78%
7.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.78%
0.00%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
15
Total Applications
#
784
471
313
62
42
274
152
98
96
21
14
0
0
6
5
10
4
Received
%
r 100%
60.08%
39.92%
7.91%
5.36%
34.95%
19.39%
12.50%
12.24%
2.68%
1.79%
0.00%
0.00%
0.77%
0.64%
1.28%
0.51%
Qualified
#
382
191
191
17
16
134
112
24
52
9
9
0
0
3
2
4
0
%
r 100%
50.00%
50.00%
4.45%
4.19%
35.08%
29.32%
6.28%
13.61%
2.36%
2.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.79%
0.52%
1.05%
0.00%
Selected
#
74
32
42
1
3
23
30
6
7
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
%
r 100%
43.24%
56.76%
1.35%
4.05%
31.08%
40.54%
8.11%
9.46%
1.35%
2.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.35%
0.00%
Relevant Applicant Pool %
Source: Monster
Date: 10/16/2018
110
-------
Table B11: INTERNAL SELECTIONS FOR SENIOR LEVEL (GS 13/14, GS 15, and SES) POSITIONS by Disability
Table B11
By Grade Levels
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
Total byDisabilityStatus
Detail for Targeted Disabilities
No Disability
[05]
Not Identified
[01]
Disability [06 -
98]
Targeted
Disability
Development
al Disability
[02]
Traumatic
Brain Injury
[03]
Deaf or
Serious
Difficulty
Hearing [191
Blind or
Serious
Difficulty
Seeing [201
Missing
Extremities
[31]
Significant
Mobility
Impairment
[401
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
Relevant
Applicant Pool %
%
Total Applications
Received
#
1660
890
616
154
79
0
15
15
7
1
12
3
4
4
37
0
2
%
100.00%
53.61%
37.11%
9.28%
4.76%
0.00%
0.90%
0.90%
0.42%
0.06%
0.72%
0.18%
0.24%
0.24%
2.23%
0.00%
0.12%
Qualified
#
544
298
224
22
14
0
0
4
0
0
4
1
1
1
7
0
2
%
100.00%
54.78%
41.18%
4.04%
2.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.74%
0.00%
0.00%
0.74%
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
1.29%
0.00%
0.37%
Selected
#
157
96
58
3
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
61.15%
36.94%
1.91%
1.91%
0.00%
0.00%
1.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.64%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Grade: 14
Relevant
Applicant Pool %
%
Total Applications
#
2385
1211
1074
100
49
2
8
7
3
0
11
4
4
0
26
0
2
Received
%
100.00%
50.78%
45.03%
4.19%
2.05%
0.08%
0.34%
0.29%
0.13%
0.00%
0.46%
0.17%
0.17%
0.00%
1.09%
0.00%
0.08%
Qualified
#
1062
544
500
18
13
0
0
3
0
0
3
1
1
0
6
0
0
%
100.00%
51.22%
47.08%
1.69%
1.22%
0.00%
0.00%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.28%
0.09%
0.09%
0.00%
0.56%
0.00%
0.00%
Selected
#
177
98
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
55.37%
44.63%
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%
Grade: 15
Relevant
Applicant Pool %
%
Total Applications
#
1033
510
473
50
32
3
4
4
7
1
6
2
0
0
24
0
4
Received
%
100.00%
49.37%
45.79%
4.84%
3.10%
0.29%
0.39%
0.39%
0.68%
0.10%
0.58%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
2.32%
0.00%
0.39%
Qualified
#
497
235
255
7
4
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
%
100.00%
47.28%
51.31%
1.41%
0.80%
0.00%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.40%
0.00%
0.20%
Selected
#
98
45
50
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100.00%
45.92%
51.02%
3.06%
1.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.02%
1.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Source: Monster
Date: 10/16/2018
111
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For Period ( 2017-10-01 TO 2018-09-30 )
Table A13 - Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Table A13-
Employee Recognition and
Awards
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
RACE/ETHNICITY
Hispanicor Latino
Non- Hispanic or
Latino
White
Black or
African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian
Other Pacific
American Indian
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
Total Time-Off Awards Given
#
3535
1638
1897
138
161
1175
1066
180
498
115
136
0
1
22
23
8
12
%
100%
46.34%
53.66%
3.90%
4.55%
33.24%
30.16%
5.09%
14.09%
3.25%
3.85%
0.00%
0.03%
0.62%
0.65%
0.23%
0.34%
Total Hours
24090
11233
12857
910
1015
8050
7334
1268
3376
796
906
0
8
158
131
51
87
Average Hours
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
0
8
7
6
6
7
Time-Off Awards - 9+ hours
Total Time-Off Awards Given
#
4148
1651
2497
93
167
1261
1535
184
588
94
153
2
1
10
29
6
23
%
100%
39.80%
60.20%
2.24%
4.03%
30.40%
37.01%
4.44%
14.18%
2.27%
3.69%
0.05%
0.02%
0.24%
0.70%
0.14%
0.55%
Total Hours
95352
37124
58228
1975
3866
28995
37421
3770
1199
1977
3699
36
16
255
640
106
579
Average Hours
23
22
23
21
23
23
24
20
20
21
24
18
16
26
22
18
25
Cash Awards - $100 - $500
Total Cash Awards Given
#
3183
1383
1800
86
123
1014
1095
159
435
106
117
1
1
11
15
5
14
%
100%
43.45%
56.55%
2.70%
3.86%
31.86%
34.40%
5.00%
13.67%
3.33%
3.68%
0.03%
0.03%
0.35%
0.47%
0.16%
0.44%
Total Amount
$1,079,079
$461,624
$617,45?
$30,583
$39,634
$337,948
$371,323
$51,799
$152,991
$35,963
$42,934
$250
$250
$3,500
$5,123
$1,381
$5,200
Average Amount
$339
$334
$343
$356
$322
$333
$339
$326
$352
$339
$367
$250
$250
$318
$342
$276
$371
Cash Awards - $501 +
Total Cash Awards Given
#
12707
6067
6640
411
504
4535
3952
605
1580
422
472
7
10
63
80
22
41
%
100%
47.75%
52.25%
3.23%
3.97%
35.69%
31.10%
4.76%
12.43%
3.32%
3.71%
0.06%
0.08%
0.50%
0.63%
0.17%
0.32%
Total Amount
$26,067,593
$12,783,034
$13,284,559
$862,785
$944,130
$9,745,968
$8,197,546
$1,146,45?
$2,977,958
$855,584
$915,461
$14,034
$20,590
$117,55
¦ $140,646
$38,404
$86,678
Average Amount
$2,051
$2,107
$2,001
$2,099
$1,873
$2,149
$2,074
$1,895
$1,885
$2,027
$1,940
$2,005
$2,059
$1,866
$1,758
$1,746
$2,114
Senior Executive Service Performance Awards
Total Cash Awards Given
#
197
114
83
6
2
94
69
10
10
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
%
100%
57.87%
42.13%
3.05%
1.02%
47.72%
35.03%
5.08%
5.08%
1.52%
1.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.51%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Total Amount
$2,708,256
$1,621,302
$1,086,954
$67,045
$21,000
$1,335,952
$905,718
$157,037
$129,438
$48,895
$30,798
$0
$0
$12,373
$0
$0
$0
Average Amount
$13,747
$14,222
$13,096
$11,174
$10,500
$14,212
$13,126
$15,704
$12,944
$16,298
$15,399
0
0
$12,373
0
0
0
Quality Step Increases(QSI)
Total QSIs Awarded
#
378
171
207
6
13
139
135
15
40
9
18
0
0
1
0
1
1
%
100%
45.24%
54.76%
1.59%
3.44%
36.77%
35.71%
3.97%
10.58%
2.38%
4.76%
0.00%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
0.26%
0.26%
Total Benefit
$1,250,880
$562,803
$688,077
$20,450
$41,544
$455,14
$456,575
$48,439
$128,765
$32,800
$57,961
$0
$0
$2,461
$0
$3,512
$3,232
Average Benefit
$3,309
$3,291
$3,324
$3,408
$3,196
$3,274
$3,382
$3,229
$3,219
$3,644
$3,220
0
0
$2,461
0
$3,512
$3,232
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
112
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For Period ( 2017-10-01 TO 2018-09-30 )
Table B13 - Employee Recognition and Awards - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Table B13 -
Employee Recognition and
Awards
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
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/
(64-69)
Partial
Paralysis
(71-79)
Total
Paralysis
-82
Convulsive
Disorder/
-90
Mental
Retardation
-91
Mental
Illness/
-92
Distortion
Limb-
Time-Off Awards - 1-9 hours
Total Time-Off Awards
Given
#
3535
3142
112
281
76
8
8
1
20
0
12
1
25
1
%
100%
88.88%
3.17%
7.95%
2.15%
0.23%
0.23%
0.03%
0.57%
0.00%
0.34%
0.03%
0.71%
0.03%
Total Hours
24090
21337
787
1966
523
51
64
8
143
0
67
8
174
8
Average Hours
7
7
7
7
7
6
8
8
7
0
6
8
7
8
Time-Off Awards - 9+ hours
Total Time-Off Awards
Given
#
4148
3679
130
339
74
3
11
1
29
0
6
1
23
0
%
100%
88.69%
3.13%
8.17%
1.78%
0.07%
0.27%
0.02%
0.70%
0.00%
0.14%
0.02%
0.55%
0.00%
Total Hours
95352
84423
3175
7754
1678
62
265
25
687
0
112
20
507
0
Average Hours
23
23
24
23
23
21
24
25
24
0
19
20
22
0
Cash Awards - $100 - $500
Total Cash Awards
Given
#
3183
2845
78
260
69
3
5
1
20
1
10
3
25
1
%
100%
89.38%
2.45%
8.17%
2.17%
0.09%
0.16%
0.03%
0.63%
0.03%
0.31%
0.09%
0.79%
0.03%
Total Amount
$1,079,079
$964,314
$26,710
$88,055
$24,344
$1,289
$1,800
$400
$6,680
$500
$3,650
$1,075
$8,550
$400
Average Amount
$339
$339
$342
$339
$353
$430
$360
$400
$334
$500
$365
$358
$342
$400
Cash Awards - $501 +
Total Cash Awards
Given
#
12707
11457
315
935
204
15
27
3
76
3
25
1
53
1
%
100%
90.16%
2.48%
7.36%
1.61%
0.12%
0.21%
0.02%
0.60%
0.02%
0.20%
0.01%
0.42%
0.01%
Total Amount
$26,067,593
$23,759,693
$609,292
$1,698,608
$364,207
$20,695
$58,310
$4,333
$135,618
$4,465
$47,364
$1,500
$90,613
$1,309
Average Amount
$2,051
$2,074
$1,934
$1,817
$1,785
$1,380
$2,160
$1,444
$1,784
$1,488
$1,895
$1,500
$1,710
$1,309
Senior Executive Service Performance Awards
Total Cash Awards
Given
#
197
181
6
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
100%
91.88%
3.05%
5.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Total Amount
$2,708,256
$2,496,131
$74,473
$137,652
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Average Amount
$13,747
$13,791
$12,412
$13,765
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quality Step Increases(QSI)
Total Cash Awards
Given
#
378
343
12
23
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
%
100%
90.74%
3.17%
6.08%
0.79%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
0.26%
0.00%
Total Amount
$1,250,880
$1,137,793
$40,018
$73,069
$10,444
$0
$4,493
$0
$0
$0
$3,232
$0
$2,719
$0
Average Amount
$3,309
$3,317
$3,335
$3,177
$3,481
0
$4,493
0
0
0
$3,232
0
$2,719
0
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
113
-------
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For Period ( 2017-10-01 TO 2018-09-30 )
Table A14- Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex - Permanent Workforce
Table A-14
Separations
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
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
Alaska Native
Two or more races
All
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
male
female
Voluntary
#
790
408
383
14
27
330
237
37
85
24
28
1
1
2
3
0
1
%
100%
51.65%
48.48%
1.77%
3.42%
41.77%
30.00%
4.68%
10.76%
3.04%
3.54%
0.13%
0.13%
0.25%
0.38%
0.00%
0.13%
Involuntary
#
22
10
13
1
2
5
5
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
%
100%
45.45%
59.09%
4.55%
9.09%
22.73%
22.73%
9.09%
18.18%
9.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
RIF
#
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
#
812
418
396
15
29
335
242
39
89
26
28
1
1
2
4
0
1
%
100%
51.48%
48.77%
1.85%
3.57%
41.26%
29.80%
4.80%
10.96%
3.20%
3.45%
0.12%
0.12%
0.25%
0.49%
0.00%
0.12%
EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For Period ( 2017-10-01 TO 2018-09-30)
Table B14- Separations by Type of Separation - Distribution by Disability - Permanent Workforce
Total by Disability Status
Detail forTargeted Disabilities
Table B-14
(04,05)
-1
(06-98)
Targeted
(16,19)
(21,23,25)
(28,30,32-
38)
Missing
(64-69)
(71-79)
-82
-90
-91
-92
Separations
10/01/2017 to 09/30/2018
Total
No
Not
Disability
Disability
Deafness
Blindness
Partial
Total
Convulsive
Mental
Mental
Distortion
Disability
Identified
Limbs/
Extremitie
Paralysis
Paralysis
Disorder/
Fnilensv
Retardation/
Severe
Illness/
Psvrhiatrir
Limb-Spine/
Dwarfism
#
791
672
28
91
26
0
0
1
16
0
1
0
7
1
Voluntary
%
100%
84.96%
3.54%
11.50%
3.29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.13%
2.02%
0.00%
0.13%
0.00%
0.88%
0.13%
#
23
13
2
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Involuntary
%
100%
56.52%
8.70%
34.78%
8.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.70%
0.00%
#
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RIF
%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
814
685
30
99
28
0
0
1
16
0
1
0
9
1
Total Separations
%
100%
84.15%
3.69%
12.16%
3.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
1.97%
0.00%
0.12%
0.00%
1.11%
0.12%
Source: Datamart
Date: 10/16/2018
114
------- |