1

Management Directive 715 Broad Based Deficiencies

and Recommended Actions

(Bureau Name)

This template is for your use to create your bureau State of the Agency briefing. This template is not all inclusive and can be altered/tailored to your bureau specific needs. Delete this box when editing

2

General Workforce Demographics

-3-

(Bureau Name) Workforce Demographic Data FY 20XX

* Civilian Labor Force (CLF): Data derived from the decennial census reflecting persons, 16 years of age or older who were employed or seeking employment, excluding those in the Armed Services. CLF data used is based on the 2000 Census.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

CLF 53.2% 46.8% 39.0% 33.7% 4.80% 5.70% 6.20% 4.50% 2.00% 1.80% 0.30% 0.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.80% 0.80%Treasury Workforce FY 06 36.0% 64.0% 25.8% 35.9% 5.47% 19.1% 2.54% 5.84% 1.75% 2.45% 0.26% 0.58% 0.01% 0.03% 0.13% 0.15%Treasury Workforce FY 05 35.8% 64.3% 25.8% 36.1% 5.48% 19.4% 2.58% 5.88% 1.63% 2.26% 0.25% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

M/T F/T WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF AIM AIF HPIM HPIF 2+M 2+F

M/T: Total Males F/T: Total Females

WM: White Males WF: White Females

BM: Black Males BW: Black Females

HM: Hispanic Males HF: Hispanic Females

AM: Asian Males AF: Asian Females

AIM: American Indian Males

AIF: American Indian Females

HPIM: Hawaiian Pacific Islander Males

HPIF: Hawaiian Pacific Islander Females

2+M: Two or More Races Males

2+F: Two or More Races Females

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-4-

(Bureau Name) Workforce Comparison to the Federal Workforce and CLF

GovernmentFY 2005

(Bureau Name)FY 2006

2000 CLF

% Men 57.0% 36.0% 53.2%% Women 43.0% 64.0% 46.8%% White Males 40.7% 25.8% 39.0%% White Females 26.2% 35.9% 33.7%% Hispanic Males 4.5% 2.5% 6.2%% Hispanic Females 2.9% 5.8% 4.5%% Black Males 7.8% 5.5% 4.8%% Black Females 10.4% 19.1% 5.8%% Asian Males 3.3% 1.75% 2.1%% Asian Females 2.5% 2.45% 1.9%% American Indian/ Alaskan Nat. Males

0.7% 0.26% 0.3%

% American Indian/Alaskan Nat. Females

0.9% 0.58% 0.3%

Boxes shaded in yellow indicate representation rates below the CLF.

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

5

Trigger or Deficiency:Example:

Potential Glass Ceiling for Females and Minorities

-6-

(Bureau Name) Participation Rates for Males and Females in General Schedule Grades

(Permanent Employees)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

GS-01 - GS-08 GS-09 - GS-12 GS-13 - GS 15 SES

MALES FEMALES

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-7-

(Bureau Name) Participation Rates for Minority Males and Females in General Schedules

(Permanent Employees)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

GS-01 - GS-08 GS-09 - GS-12 GS-13 - GS 15 SES

TOTAL WHITE MALES & FEMALES TOTAL MINORITY MALES & FEMALES

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-8-

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Example: Potential Glass Ceiling

• There appears to be a “glass ceiling” for females and minorities at the GS xx-xx pay grades.

• Unclear at this time if problem is in recruitment of (or) career development.

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues

-9-

• Recommendations– State your bureau specific recommendations

here on how to address the trigger/deficiency.

Develop… Provide… Identify… Establish…

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Potential Glass Ceiling

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues

10

Targeted Disability Participation Rates

-11-

Top Five Agencies In FY 2005 with Highest % of People with Targeted

Disabilities

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Annual Report, 2005 During FY 2006 Treasury’s participation rate for employees with Targeted disabilities decreased to 1.76% Federal workforce representation of employees with targeted disabilities was 0.96% in FY 2005

1.65%

1.70%

1.75%

1.80%

1.85%

1.90%

1.95%

2.00%

2.05%

2.10%

2.15%

2.20%

Targeted Disabilities 2.16% 2.10% 2.02% 2.00% 1.83%EEOC SSA DFAS DLA Treasury

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-12-

(Bureau Name) Permanent WorkforceDisability Demographic

Targeted Disability1.76%

Not Identified2.04%

Non Targeted Disability

7.65%

No Disability88.55%

• Agencies use the FY 2006 Federal high employment rate (_____%) of people with targeted disabilities as their benchmark. • In FY 20__ (Bureau Name) was below the Federal high with an employment rate of ____% with targeted

disabilities. • (Bureau Name) targeted disability representation rate of permanent and temporary employees decreased by ____% from FY 20__ , which equates to a loss/gain of ____ employees with targeted disabilities. Federal workforce representation of employees with targeted disabilities was ____% in FY 20___• Targeted disabilities includes deafness, blindness, missing limbs, partial paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of limb/spine.

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

FY 2004 2.27% 1.90%FY 2005 2.23% 1.83%FY2006 2.16% 1.76%

F. High TREAS

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-13-

• Recommendations– State your bureau specific recommendations

here on how to address the trigger/deficiency.

Develop… Provide… Identify… Establish…

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Low Representation –Targeted Disabilities

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues

14

Treasury Employee Separation Rates

-15-

Triggers/Deficiencies– Voluntary separations (____%) for White women

are at a rate greater than their overall representation (_____%).

– Involuntary separations (____%) for Hispanic women are at a rate greater than their overall representation (____%).

– Voluntarily separations (____%) for men are above their overall representation (____%).

– Voluntary separations (____%) and Involuntary separations (____%) for Hispanic males are at a rate greater than their overall representation (____%)

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Employee Separation Rates

-16-

Recommendations:– State your bureau specific recommendations here

on how to address the trigger/deficiency. Develop… Provide… Identify… Establish…

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Employee Separation Rates

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues

17

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

-18-

ADR Use in the Pre-Complaint & Formal Complaint Process

  Counseling/Complaints

ADR Offers ADR Participation

# # % # %FY 2005

Pre-Complaint Counseling

1259 1175 93.32% 286 22.71

FY 2006Pre-Complaint

Counseling

1,019 992 97.4% 314 30.8%

% Change FY 2005 to FY 2006

-19.06% -15.57% 9.79%

FY 2005 Formal Complaints*

613 168 27.41% 21 12.5%

FY 2006 Formal Complaints*

488 79 16.19% 12 15.19%

% ChangeFY 2005 to FY 2006

-20.39% -52.97 -9.89%

* ADR offers and participation rates are based on data reported in bureau 462 reports for FY 20___ and FY 20___

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-19-

• ADR participation rates in the informal process, has increased. However, the majority of the employees are declining ADR.

• There is a decrease in ADR participation during the formal complaint process.

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues

-20-

• Recommendations ––State your bureau specific

recommendations here on how to address the trigger/deficiency. Develop… Provide… Identify… Establish…

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues

21

Complaint Data

-22-

(Bureau Name) Formal Complaint TrendsFY 20__ through FY 20__

The number of complaints filed in the Federal Government have decreased by ___% from the number filed from the pervious year. (Bureau Name) has noted a decrease of ___% in the number of complaints filed in FY 20__ compared to FY 20__.

981904

804

613

488

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY05 FY06

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-23-

Average Investigation Processing Days

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Annual Report, 20__

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Processing Days 237 416Federal Treasury

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-24-

Agencies With the Highest % of Timely

Merit Decisions (No AJ)

Total Number %

Agency Work Force Issued Timely

*DCA 15,923 40 100%

USPS 800,742 2791 89.8%

NAVY 187,535 189 76.7%

TREASURY 123,454 224 64.3%

DOT 55,604 96 62.5%

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Annual Report, 20__ *Defense Commissary Agency

Replac

e Chart

with

curre

nt

data

-25-

Average Merit Decisions (No AJ) Processing Days

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Annual Report, 2005

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

Processing Days 191 224Federal TreasuryRep

lace C

hart w

ith burea

u

spec

ific data

if ap

plicab

le

-26-

Race & NO 26%

Gender17%

Disability16%

Age15%

Reprisal24%

Religion2%

Bases Raised in Discrimination Complaints in FY 20___

NOTE: Multiple bases may be raised in a complaint.

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-27-

Reasonable Accomodations

1%

Time and Attendance

5%

Training2%

Pay2%

Disciplinary Action6%

Duty Assignment5%

Terms /Condition of Employ

22%

Other7%

Evaluations/Appraisals

12%

Harrasment21%

Promotion11%

Reassignment4%

Termination2%

Note: “Other” category consists of Retirement (__%), Reinstatement (__%), Duty Hours (___%), Awards (__%), Conversion to Full Time (__%), Appointment/Hire (__%) and Other (__%) complaints. Multiple issues may be raised in a complaint.

Issues Raised in Discrimination Complaints in FY 20__

Replac

e Chart

with

bureau

spec

ific data

-28-

– State your bureau specific recommendations here on how to address the trigger/deficiency.

Develop… Provide… Identify… Establish…

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Efficiencies in Complaint Processing

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues

29

EEO/HR Collaboration

-30-

– State your bureau specific recommendations here on how to address the trigger/deficiency.

Develop… Provide… Identify… Establish…

Identified Deficiency/Trigger – Bureau Collaboration

Replac

e with

bureau

spec

ific is

sues