As agreed with the Committee, the objectives of this study were to determine the representation of women and minorities at the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State and changes in the representation levels of these groups, particularly at the upper grade levels and in occupations that lead to those grades; evaluate whether the agencies’ affirmative employment program plans complied with EEOC’s instructions, particularly those that address factors affecting women and minority underrepresentation; and assess the adequacy of EEOC’s and OPM’s oversight of the affirmative employment and recruitment programs. The relative numbers of white women and minorities in the agencies’ workforces increased between 1984 and 1992. As seen in figures 2.1 through 2.3, this condition appears somewhat more pronounced for white and minority women than for minority men. However, as table 2.8 shows, white men continued to dominate the higher ranks of the agencies reviewed, accounting for 75 percent or more of the agencies’ top positions in 1992. The extent of underrepresentation, as discussed below, varied by agency and EEO group. Overall, agencies hired and promoted women and minorities at rates that would increase their share of the agencies’ workforces, but separation rates for certain EEO groups were high. In fiscal year 1992, women and minorities (1) were represented in lower relative numbers in the agencies’ key jobs and in State’s Foreign Service jobs than in the agencies’ total workforces, (2) were often underrepresented when compared to the CLF, and (3) remained less well represented in higher grades than in lower grades. Agencies’ Planning Program Analyses Efforts Did Not Fully Comply With EEOC Directives

Agencies’ affirmative employment planning program analyses efforts did not adhere to EEOC’s MD-714 directive in several ways. They said that senior officials and line managers did not actively participate in preparing the plans. Finally, the agency EEO officials we talked to said that senior officials and senior managers had little involvement in formulating their agencies’ multiyear affirmative employment plans and annual updates. OPM and EEOC Oversight of Agencies’ Affirmative Recruitment and Employment Program Performance

OPM and EEOC did not provide sufficient oversight to ensure that agencies’ affirmative recruitment and employment programs were effectively correcting imbalances in their workforces.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the representation of women and minorities at the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture (USDA), Navy, and State as compared to the agencies' total workforce and the nation's civilian labor force (CLF); (2) these agencies' compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) affirmative employment planning instructions; and (3) the extent of EEOC and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversight of the agencies' affirmative employment and recruitment programs.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) between 1984 and 1992, the relative number of women and minorities increased in each agency, but certain equal employment opportunity (EEO) groups were underrepresented overall, particularly in key and higher grade positions when compared to the CLF; (2) underrepresentation in key jobs was more pronounced for white and minority women than for minority men; (3) the underrepresented EEO groups varied by agency; (4) white men still occupied 75 percent or more of the agencies' senior executive service or equivalent positions; (5) although women and minorities were hired and promoted into key agency jobs in greater numbers than their workforce representation, they also separated from the agencies at higher rates; (6) the agencies' multiyear affirmative employment planning programs did not fully comply with EEOC directives because the agencies considered the directives to be only guidelines, they lacked certain personnel data, senior managers were not involved in the plans' preparation, the agencies did not take the plans seriously, and EEOC approved incomplete plans; (7) those agencies that set employment goals did not link them to any particular underrepresention problem; (8) there were no formal mechanisms to hold agency heads and senior managers accountable for their agencies' EEO programs; and (9) OPM and EEOC did not provide sufficient oversight to ensure that the agencies' affirmative employment programs effectively corrected their workforce imbalances.