U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in District Management-Level Positions
(Letter Report, 06/30/2000, GAO/GGD-00-142).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
representation of women and minorities in the Postal Service's (USPS)
Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS) management-level positions,
focusing on: (1) statistical information on the representation of women
and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26 in USPS nationwide for fiscal
year (FY) 1999; (2) the Chicago, IL, and Akron, OH, postal districts:
(a) representation of women and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26;
(b) initiatives implemented to promote diversity; and (c) lessons
identified by district officials that relate to increasing diversity;
and (3) equal employment opportunity (EEO) concerns at the Youngstown,
OH, postal site.
GAO noted that: (1) at the end of FY 1999, women and minorities in USPS'
districts represented a district average of about 49 percent of the EAS
16 through 26 workforce; (2) the representation of women and minorities
in EAS levels 16 through 26 in USPS' 83 districts ranged from about 22
percent to 95 percent; (3) in Chicago, women and minorities represented
about 93 percent of the EAS 16 through 26 workforce compared with their
overall workforce representation of 92 percent; (4) in Akron, the
representation of women and minorities in the district's EAS 16 through
26 workforce was about 41 percent compared with their overall workforce
representation of about 46 percent at the end of FY 1999; (5) in
Chicago, black men and women represented about 84 percent of the EAS 16
through 26 workforce in FY 1999--white, Hispanic, Asian, and Native
American men and women represented about 16 percent; (6) in Akron, white
men and women represented about 81 percent of the EAS 16 through 26
workforce in FY 1999--black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American men
and women represented about 19 percent; (7) both the Chicago and Akron
district offices are using the Associate Supervisor Program (ASP) to
increase the representation of women and minorities in EAS levels 16
through 26; (8) ASP has provided opportunities for a diverse group of
employees from lower grade levels to be trained and eventually promoted
into first-level supervisory positions; (9) to improve other aspects of
diversity, both districts are using a national alternative dispute
resolution program referred to as REDRESS (Resolve Employment Disputes,
Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly) to facilitate discussion between
managers and employees on individual EEO complaint issues; (10) Chicago
and Akron have also developed their own individual initiatives to
promote appreciation for cultural differences; (11) according to
district officials in Chicago and Akron: (a) management must demonstrate
its commitment to diversity; (b) training and career development
programs must be made available to provide opportunities for women and
minorities to ascend to supervisory and management-level positions; and
(c) an environment that encourages communications and cultural
appreciation between management and employees must be established; (12)
regarding the alleged EEO concerns at the Youngstown postal site,
district records show that race and sex discrimination were most often
cited as the bases for the complaints; and (13) management, union
representatives, and employees had different opinions about the source
of the problem.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-00-142
TITLE: U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in District
Management-Level Positions
DATE: 06/30/2000
SUBJECT: Women
Minorities
Postal service employees
Employee promotions
Fair employment programs
Employment of minorities
Labor statistics
Industrial relations
Human resources training
Dispute settlement
IDENTIFIER: Chicago (IL)
Akron (OH)
Youngstown (OH)
Los Angeles (CA)
USPS Associate Supervisor Program
USPS Resolve Employment Disputes, Reach Equitable
Solutions Swiftly Program
USPS Career Management Program
USPS Advanced Leadership Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
GAO/GGD-00-142
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on the Postal Service, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
June 2000
GAO/GGD-00-142
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Diversity in District Management-Level Positions
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. G100
(240378)
Contents
Page 301GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Management-Level
Positions
Letter 1
Appendix I 34
Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix II 37
Representation of Women
and Minorities in the
Service's Postal
Districts
Appendix III 41
Representation of Women
and Minorities in the
Chicago District Office
Appendix IV 44
Representation of Women
and Minorities in the
Akron District Office
Appendix V 47
Comments From the U.S.
Postal Service
Tables Table 1: Number and Nature of EEO 20
Complaints Filed in Youngstown,
Fiscal Years 1997 Through 1999
Table 2: Disposition of EEO Complaints 21
Filed in Youngstown, Fiscal Years
1997 Through 1999
Table II.1: Women and Minorities at 38
EAS Levels 16 Through 26 in 83
Districts Compared With Their
Representation in the Overall
District Workforce (Including EAS 16
through 26) and the CLF, Fiscal Year
1999
Table III.1: Chicago District Women 41
and Minority Representation at EAS
Levels 16 Through 26 Compared With
Their Representation in the District
Workforce (Excluding EAS Levels 16
Through 26), Fiscal Years 1995
Through 1999
Table III.2: Chicago District Women 43
and Minority Representation in the
District Workforce (Including EAS
Levels 16 Through 26) Compared With
Their Representation in the CLF,
Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Table IV.1: Akron District Women and 44
Minority Representation at EAS Levels
16 Through 26 Compared With Their
Representation in the District
Workforce (Excluding EAS 16 Through
26), Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Table IV.2: Akron District Women and 46
Minority Representation in the
District Workforce (Including EAS
Levels 16 Through 26) Compared With
Their Representation in the CLF,
Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Figures Figure 1: Women and Minorities 10
Represented About 93 Percent of the
682 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions in
the Chicago District at the End of
Fiscal Year 1999
Figure 2: Women and Minorities 12
Represented About 41 Percent of the
566 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions in
the Akron District at the End of
Fiscal Year 1999
Abbreviations
ALP Advanced Leadership Program
ASP Associate Supervisor Program
CLF civilian labor force
CMP Career Management Program
EAS Executive and Administrative Schedule
EEO equal employment opportunity
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
P&DC processing and distribution center
REDRESS Resolve Employment Disputes, Reach
Equitable Solutions Swiftly
B-284782
Page 20GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Manage
ment-Level Positions
B-284782
June 30, 2000
The Honorable Chaka Fattah
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Fattah:
This report supplements our previous report1
to you in response to your request for information
on the representation of women and minorities in
the Executive and Administrative Schedule (EAS)
management-level positions in the U.S. Postal
Service (Service). The EAS workforce consists
primarily of employees in EAS levels 11 through 26
positions. EAS management-level positions
generally start at EAS 16 and include such
positions as postmaster, manager of customer
services, and manager of postal operations. This
report focuses on EAS levels 16 through 26.
Based on discussions with your office, our
objectives were to (1) provide statistical
information on the representation of women and
minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26 in the
Service nationwide for fiscal year 19992 and (2)
describe for the Chicago, IL, and Akron, OH,
postal districts (a) the representation of women
and minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26, (b)
initiatives implemented to promote diversity, and
(c) lessons identified by district officials that
relate to increasing diversity. As requested, we
are also providing information on alleged equal
employment opportunity (EEO) concerns at the
Youngstown, OH, postal site.3 The Chicago and
Akron postal districts were selected because you
were interested in knowing why the Chicago
district office has reportedly achieved a high
level of success in the representation of women
and minorities and why the Akron district office
has reportedly not been as successful.
When considering the information presented in
this report, it is important to recognize that
certain conditions or challenges exist in each
district that may have an impact on that
district's diversity representation and may not be
reflected in the information presented. For
example, these conditions or challenges may
include the diversity (e.g., race, ethnic origin,
or sex) of the local civilian labor force (CLF),4
the pool from which the district generally draws
its employees. The CLF may be more diverse in a
metropolitan area than in a rural area. In
addition, cultural considerations may prevent
certain minorities who are present in large
numbers in the surrounding population from seeking
Service employment. Also, the Service does not
establish quotas that must be met to increase its
representation of women and minorities, and hiring
is to be based on merit.
In addition, according to the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) standard,
the comparison of the percentage rate at which an
EEO group is represented in an agency's workforce
to the percentage rate at which the group is
represented in the CLF, as identified in the most
recent census,5 determines whether
underrepresentation exists for an EEO group in
that workforce. The Service also defines
underrepresentation of EEO groups in its workforce
in the same manner.
We do not believe that it is appropriate to
compare the representation of women and minorities
or EEO group representation in EAS levels 16
through 26, which are generally management-level
positions, in the Service with the CLF because CLF
data are not broken down into an appropriate pool
of employees for such comparisons. We compared the
representation of women and minorities in EAS
levels 16 through 26 in the Chicago and Akron
district offices with the overall postal district
workforce (excluding 16 through 26). However,
because the Service states that one of its
diversity goals is to have its districts achieve
parity with the CLF, we also compared the district
workforce (including EAS levels 16 through 26)
with the CLF in Chicago and Akron. Further, to
provide additional context for the case studies of
Chicago and Akron, we provided similar information
on the representation of women and minorities for
83 of the Service's 85 postal districts.6
Results in Brief
At the end of fiscal year 1999, women and
minorities in the Service's districts represented
a district average of about 49 percent of the EAS
16 through 26 workforce compared with their
average representation of about 56 percent across
all district workforces (excluding EAS levels 16
through 26).7 The representation of women and
minorities in EAS levels 16 through 26 in the
Service's 83 districts ranged from a low of about
22 percent in the Middlesex-Central district
office to a high of 95 percent in the Los Angeles
district office. Additionally, the representation
of women and minorities was higher than the CLF in
over one-third of the Service's 83 district
offices and lower than the CLF in the remaining
two-thirds of the Service's district offices.
Concerning the representation of women and
minorities in the Chicago and Akron district
offices, we found that, at the end of fiscal year
1999, the representation of women and minorities
in EAS levels 16 through 26 in the Chicago
district office was the second highest among the
Service's 83 district offices. In Chicago, women
and minorities represented about 93 percent of the
EAS 16 through 26 workforce compared with their
overall workforce representation of 92 percent. In
addition, from fiscal years 1995 through 1999,
Chicago's women and minority representation at EAS
levels 16 through 26 increased by about 1
percentage point. In Akron, the representation of
women and minorities in the district's EAS 16
through 26 workforce was about 41 percent compared
with their overall workforce representation of
about 46 percent at the end of fiscal year 1999-a
difference of about 5 percentage points. The
representation of women and minorities at EAS
levels 16 through 26 is relatively close to their
representation in the Akron district's workforce,
the pool from which EAS 16 through 26 employees
are generally selected. In addition, from fiscal
years 1995 through 1999, Akron's women and
minority representation at EAS levels 16 through
26 increased by about 2 percentage points.
Among EEO groups, representation in EAS
levels 16 through 26 varied in both Chicago and
Akron. In Chicago, black men and women represented
about 84 percent of the EAS 16 through 26
workforce in fiscal year 1999; white, Hispanic,
Asian, and Native American men and women
represented about 16 percent. In Akron, white men
and women represented about 81 percent of the EAS
16 through 26 workforce in fiscal year 1999;
black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American men
and women represented about 19 percent.
Although Chicago has had greater management
stability in recent years than has Akron, and
began some of its diversity-related initiatives
sooner than did Akron, both districts have
implemented several diversity-related initiatives.
For example, both the Chicago and Akron district
offices are using various training programs,
including national programs such as the Associate
Supervisor Program (ASP), to increase the
representation of women and minorities in EAS
levels 16 through 26. According to Chicago and
Akron district officials, ASP, which had started
in both districts by fiscal year 1998, has
provided opportunities for a diverse group of
employees from lower grade levels (e.g., mail
handlers or carriers) to be trained and eventually
promoted into first-level supervisory positions.
From the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998
through the second quarter of fiscal year 2000,
women and minorities accounted for about 91
percent of the 85 ASP graduates in Chicago and
about 68 percent of the 72 ASP graduates in Akron.
In addition, to improve other aspects of
diversity, such as workplace communications, both
districts are using a national alternative dispute
resolution program referred to as REDRESS (Resolve
Employment Disputes, Reach Equitable Solutions
Swiftly) to facilitate discussion between managers
and employees on individual EEO complaint issues.
Locally, Chicago and Akron have also developed
their own individual initiatives to improve
communications among all employees or to promote
appreciation for cultural differences, which are
considered integral aspects of diversity.
Officials in both the Chicago and Akron
districts identified several lessons that are
related to increasing diversity in their EAS 16
through 26 workforce. According to district
officials in Chicago and Akron, (1) management
must demonstrate its commitment to diversity; (2)
training and career development programs must be
made available to provide opportunities for women
and minorities to ascend to supervisory and
management-level positions; and (3) an environment
that encourages communications and cultural
appreciation between management and employees must
be established.
Finally, regarding the alleged EEO concerns
at the Youngstown postal site, although the number
of EEO complaints increased between fiscal years
1997 and 1999, it is not clear whether the
complaints stemmed from alleged discrimination,
lack of communications, or labor/management
problems. District records show that the number of
EEO complaints in Youngstown increased from 16 in
fiscal year 1997 to 23 in fiscal year 1999, and
that race and sex discrimination were most often
cited as the bases for the complaints. The issues
surrounding the EEO complaints included assignment
of duties, harassment, and terminations.8 However,
as of May 2000, 51 of the 57 complaints filed were
closed. Of these, one resulted in a finding of
discrimination. Management, union representatives,
and employees had different opinions about the
source of the problem. In June 1998, in response
to concerns about EEO complaints in Youngstown,
the Allegheny Area Office surveyed about 50
Youngstown processing and distribution center
(P&DC) employees. It found that there was a
perception among some of those employees that
diversity problems existed, particularly in the
areas of race and, to a lesser degree, sex.
In contrast, according to some district and
union officials, EEO complaints in Youngstown were
based little, if at all, on discrimination, but
rather on poor communications among managers,
supervisors, and employees or poor
labor/management relations. Additionally, although
some union representatives have expressed
reservations about the REDRESS program, managers
in Youngstown and Akron believed that the program
has fostered better communications and has been
effective in addressing and resolving EEO
complaints.
We are recommending in this report that the
Service reassess the EEO situation in Youngstown
to determine what the issues are with respect to
the workplace environment, such as discrimination,
communications, or labor/management relations; and
what additional actions, if any, are warranted to
address any concerns identified.
Background
The Service had 796,535 career employees at
the end of fiscal year 1999. Service employees
include craft employees, the largest group, which
include letter carriers and mail handlers; EAS
employees; the Postal Career Executive Service;
and others, such as inspectors for the Postal
Inspection Service. The EAS workforce consists
primarily of employees in EAS levels 11 through
26. EAS management-level positions generally begin
at EAS level 16 and include such positions as
postmaster, manager of customer services, and
manager of postal operations. For purposes of this
review, we focused on the EAS 16 through 26
workforce.
Currently, the Service has 11 postal areas
located throughout the United States. The 11 areas
include 85 performance clusters. Each of the
performance clusters includes a district office
and a large P&DC. Generally, each district office
oversees the work performed by employees in post
offices, stations, and branches. The Chicago
district office, which is part of the Great Lakes
Area and is located in a large metropolitan area,
had about 12,000 employees at the end of fiscal
year 1999. Also, the Chicago district office
includes two main postal facilities-the district
office (including a P&DC) located in the Chicago
metropolitan area as well as another P&DC located
outside of the city. The Akron district office,
which is part of the Allegheny Area, is more
geographically dispersed and includes both urban
and rural communities. The Akron district includes
5 postal facilities-Canton, Mansfield, Toledo,
Youngstown, and Akron-and has over 455 post
offices. This district employed about 8,000 people
at the end of fiscal year 1999. The Youngstown
postal facility includes a P&DC, post offices, and
customer service centers.
The Service defines diversity as a mixture of
differences and similarities of its employees,
customers, and suppliers. According to the
Service, its organizational mission for diversity
is "to create an inclusive organization by
promoting change and growth so that the diverse
needs of our employees, customers, and suppliers
are integrated into how we do business." To
achieve this mission, the Service is to focus on
"recruitment, retention, and selection of
employees-developing succession plans and
providing promotional opportunities that strongly
support diversity; thereby creating an even
playing field for all employees."
According to the Service, one of its
corporate goals is a commitment to employees,
which includes an effort to provide equal
employment opportunities to all employees, take
advantage of its diverse workforce, and compete
effectively in the communications marketplace. To
that end, the Service created its Diversity
Development Department in headquarters in 1992, to
foster an all-inclusive business environment. The
Vice President of Diversity reports to the Vice
President of Human Resources. The Department is
responsible for, among other things, actively
supporting the recruitment, retention, and upward
mobility of women and minorities. In addition, the
Service's 2000 Annual Performance Plan includes
achieving a diverse workforce as one of its goals.9
The Service has also developed preliminary
indicators for two diversity-related subgoals for
fiscal year 2001; that is, ensure an inclusive and
fair environment with opportunities for all
employees and ensure that all employees are given
the knowledge, tools, training, and encouragement
to successfully meet the expectations for their
positions.10
Under a variety of statutes, federal
employees, including postal workers, can file a
complaint alleging unlawful employment
discrimination. Each discrimination complaint
contains two key elements that provide information
about the nature of the conflict. The first is the
"basis" of the allegation under antidiscrimination
law. An employee can allege discrimination on any
of eight bases: race, color, national origin, sex,
religion, age, disability, and retaliation. An
employee may, under some circumstances, claim more
than one basis when filing an EEO complaint.11 The
second element is the "issue," which refers to the
specific condition or event that is the subject of
the complaint. Issues that employees can file
complaints about include nonsexual and sexual
harassment; nonselection for promotion; duties
that are assigned to them; and disciplinary
actions, such as reprimand or suspension.
We performed our work from January to May,
2000, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. We requested
comments on a draft of this report from the
Postmaster General. The Service's comments are
discussed near the end of this letter and
reprinted in appendix V. For further information
on our objectives, scope, and methodology, see
appendix I.
Overall Representation of Women and Minorities in
the Service
Among the Service's 83 districts, at the end
of fiscal year 1999, the representation of women
and minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 varied,
ranging from a low of about 22 percent in
Middlesex-Central to a high of 95 percent in Los
Angeles, with an average representation of about
49 percent across all districts, as shown in
appendix II.
The overall average district representation
of women and minorities among the 83 districts'
EAS 16 through 26 workforces was about 49 percent
compared with a district average of about 56
percent across the district workforces (excluding
EAS levels 16 through 26). In the Chicago
district, women and minorities represented about
93 percent of Chicago's EAS 16 through 26
workforce and about 92 percent of the district
workforce. In the Akron district, women and
minorities represented about 41 percent of Akron's
EAS 16 through 26 workforce and about 46 percent
of the district workforce.
In additional analyses, as shown in appendix
II, we computed two representation indexes. The
first index indicates the extent to which women
and minorities are represented in EAS levels 16
through 26 compared to their representation in the
district's workforce (excluding EAS levels 16
through 26). The second index indicates the extent
to which women and minorities are represented in
the district workforce (including EAS levels 16
through 26) as compared with their representation
in the local CLF. The Service states that one of
its diversity goals is to have its districts
achieve parity with the CLF. With respect to the
first index, 1.00 indicates a representation equal
to the district's workforce; greater than 1.00
indicates a representation that is greater than
the district's workforce; and less than 1.00
indicates a representation that is less than the
district's workforce. The second index operates
similarly when comparing women and minority
representation in the district workforce
(including EAS levels 16 through 26) with the
local CLF.
For the first index, of the 83 districts, 1
district's representation of women and minorities
at EAS levels 16 through 26 workforce equaled the
district workforce; 4 districts' EAS 16 through 26
representation of women and minorities was greater
than their district workforces; and 78 districts'
EAS 16 through 26 representation of women and
minorities was less than their district
workforces. Using this index, scores ranged from
1.14 to 0.66. With respect to the Chicago and
Akron districts, Chicago's score was 1.01 and
Akron's was 0.90.
For the second index, of the 83 districts, 2
districts' representation of women and minorities
in its workforce equaled its representation in the
local CLF; 29 districts' representation of women
and minorities was greater than the local CLF
representation; and 52 districts' representation
of women and minorities was less than the local
CLF representation. Using this index, scores
ranged from 1.39 to 0.57. With respect to the
Chicago and Akron districts, Chicago's score was
1.39 and Akron's was 0.94.
Appendix II provides information, for fiscal
year 1999, on
� the representation of women and minorities in
EAS levels 16 through 26 in 83 of the Service's 85
postal districts compared with the district
workforce (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) and
� the overall district workforce (including EAS
levels 16 through 26) compared with the local CLF.
Representation of Women and Minorities in EAS
Levels 16 Through 26 in the Chicago District
The representation of women and minorities in
EAS levels 16 through 26 in Chicago was higher
than the district average representation of 49
percent. Specifically, in the Chicago district,
women and minorities represented about 93 percent,
or 634 of the district's 682 EAS 16 through 26
positions, and white men represented about 7
percent, as shown in figure 1.
As shown in figure 1, the representation of
specific EEO groups at EAS levels 16 through 26
varied. For example, of the 682 EAS 16 through 26
positions, black women represented about 48
percent; black men, about 36 percent; white women
about 3 percent; Hispanic men, about 2 percent;
and Hispanic women, about 2 percent. The remaining
groups-Asian and Native American men and
women-collectively represented about 2 percent.
Certain EEO groups were not fully represented when
comparing their representation in EAS levels 16
through 26 with their representation in the
Chicago district workforce. For example, as shown
in table III.1 in appendix III, Hispanic men
represented 4.21 percent of the district workforce
and 2.49 percent of EAS levels 16 through 26.
Figure 1: Women and Minorities Represented About
93 Percent of the 682 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions
in the Chicago District at the End of Fiscal Year
1999
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: Service workforce data, fiscal year 1999.
During fiscal years 1995 through 1999, women and
minority representation among EAS levels 16
through 26 increased about 1 percentage point in
the Chicago district. The number of employees and
the percentage of representation of the different
EEO groups in each fiscal year are provided in
appendix III.
We believe that a comparison of the
representation of women and minorities in the
Chicago district's overall workforce with the
local CLF provides an additional context in which
to consider the results of our analysis. In fiscal
year 1999, the representation of women and
minorities in the Chicago workforce was higher
than that in the local CLF, as shown in appendix
III. Women and minorities represented about 93
percent of the EAS 16 through 26 workforce, about
92 percent of Chicago's overall workforce
(including EAS levels 16 through 26), and about 66
percent of the local CLF. We also found that when
comparing the representation of specific EEO
groups in the district's overall workforce with
that in the local CLF, as of the end of fiscal
year 1999, as shown in appendix III, the
representation of black men and women was higher
than that in the local CLF, and white men and
women's representation was lower.
According to Chicago's district manager, one
of the goals of diversity is to have the district
workforce achieve parity with the CLF. However,
certain challenges and limitations may have an
effect on a district's efforts to improve its
diversity representation. For example, according
to one district official, in Chicago it was
difficult to recruit Hispanics because postal
requirements that new postal employees often must
work on the evening workshift conflicted with
Hispanic culture that the family should be
together in the evening. The official added that
white women are also sometimes difficult to
recruit because they are reluctant to work on an
evening shift.
Representation of Women and Minorities in EAS
Levels 16 Through 26 in the Akron District
In Akron, women and minorities represented
about 41 percent of the district's EAS 16 through
26 workforce compared with their overall workforce
representation (excluding EAS levels 16 through
26) of about 46 percent at the end of fiscal year
1999-a difference of about 5 percentage points.
The representation of women and minorities at EAS
levels 16 through 26 is relatively close to their
representation in the Akron district's overall
workforce, the pool from which EAS levels 16
through 26 employees are generally selected.
As shown in figure 2, the representation of
specific EEO groups at EAS levels 16 through 26
varied. For example, of the 566 EAS level 16
through 26 positions, white women represented
about 23 percent, black women represented about 9
percent, and black men represented about 7
percent. The remaining groups-Hispanic, Asian, and
Native American men and women-represented about 3
percent. In addition, white men represented about
59 percent. Certain EEO groups were not fully
represented when comparing their representation in
EAS levels 16 through 26 with their representation
in the district workforce. For example, white
women represented 34.76 percent in the district
workforce and 22.79 percent in EAS levels 16
through 26.
Figure 2: Women and Minorities Represented About
41 Percent of the 566 EAS 16 Through 26 Positions
in the Akron District at the End of Fiscal Year
1999
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: Service workforce data, fiscal year 1999.
We found that during fiscal years 1995
through 1999, women and minority representation
among EAS levels 16 through 26 increased by about
2 percentage points in the Akron district. The
number of employees and the percentage of
representation of the different EEO groups in each
fiscal year are provided in appendix IV.
We believe that a comparison of the
representation of women and minorities in the
Akron district's overall workforce with that in
the local CLF provides an additional context in
which to consider the results of our analysis. In
fiscal year 1999, the representation of women and
minorities in the Akron workforce was lower than
their representation in the local CLF, as shown in
appendix IV. Women and minorities represented
about 41 percent of Akron's EAS 16 through 26
workforce, 46 percent of Akron's overall
workforce, and 49 percent of the local CLF.
Finally, as shown in appendix IV, when
comparing the representation of specific EEO
groups in the district's overall workforce at the
end of fiscal year 1999 with their representation
in the local CLF, the representation of white men,
black men and women, Hispanic women, and Native
American men and women was higher; while that of
white women and Asian men and women was lower.
With respect to Youngstown, women and
minorities represented about 37 percent of the
site's EAS 16 through 26 workforce compared with
the site's overall workforce representation
(excluding EAS levels 16 through 26) of about 40
percent at the end of fiscal year 1999. In
addition, to provide further context, in
Youngstown, women and minorities represented about
39 percent of the site's overall workforce
(including EAS levels 16 through 26) compared with
their representation of about 64 percent in the
local CLF at the end of fiscal year 1999.
Chicago and Akron Have Implemented Various
Initiatives to Differing Degrees to Promote
Diversity
Although Chicago has had greater management
stability in recent years than has Akron and began
some of its diversity-related initiatives sooner
than did Akron, both districts have implemented
several diversity-related initiatives. For
example, both the Chicago and Akron district
offices are using various training programs to
increase the representation of women and
minorities in EAS 16 through 26 positions. These
included national training programs, such as ASP;
district-initiated programs; and an alternative
dispute resolution program to improve district
communications. In addition, to establish
accountability for diversity and diversity-related
activities among its executives, including those
at the district level, the Service now requires
all executives to set indicators in their
performance evaluations for the activities they
undertake to promote diversity. Achievement of
diversity goals, along with other goals, are
factors that are to be considered collectively
when a determination is made concerning
executives' overall performance and whether they
are to be awarded salary increases.
Also, to create a greater diversity focus in
the selection process for promotions to EAS
positions, the Service now requires (1) mandatory
use of review committees in the selection of
candidates for EAS positions when there are five
or more applicants and (2) training in personnel
selection methods for committee members. According
to the Service, both district managers have set
such diversity-related indicators; and according
to district officials, review committees are being
used as required.
Chicago's Efforts to Promote and Improve Diversity
The Chicago district has actively used three
key national training programs-ASP, the Career
Management Program (CMP), and the Advanced
Leadership Program (ALP)-to train, promote, and
prepare its employees for EAS levels 16 through 26
and higher level positions. It is also using other
methods, such as detail assignments (e.g.,
employees assigned to positions for specific
periods to gain experience), to prepare its
employees for higher levels of responsibility as
well as an alternative dispute resolution process,
called REDRESS, to improve district
communications.
One of the key national training programs is
ASP, which was implemented in Chicago in fiscal
year 1998. From the fourth quarter of fiscal year
1998 through the second quarter of fiscal year
2000, 85 employees had graduated from ASP, of
which 77, or 91 percent, were women and
minorities. ASP is a 16-week training program,
which targets employees, such as mail handlers and
carriers, for first-line supervisory positions.
According to Chicago officials, ASP has provided
opportunities for qualified diverse employees from
lower levels in the Service, as well as applicants
from outside the Service,12 to be trained and
promoted into first-line supervisory positions
using an objective application process that is
available to all EEO groups.
The Chicago district office also uses CMP and
ALP to foster diversity in EAS 16 through 26
positions by providing training opportunities for
eligible employees in all EEO groups. CMP was
started in the Chicago district in 1999 and
targets EAS levels 15 through 22 employees and
provides training in areas identified as critical
for successful supervisor and manager performance,
such as supervisory and managerial skills
training. Similarly, ALP was started in Chicago at
the beginning of 1999 and seeks to develop a
highly competent managerial base from which future
organizational leaders will emerge, according to
the Service. As of October 22, 1999, 21 employees
had participated in CMP, and as of November 5,
1999, 12 employees had participated in ALP
training.
Chicago has also developed its own individual
initiatives that are designed to promote
diversity. For example, Chicago district officials
stated that in 1997, they started a local training
program referred to as "Roadmaps," which
established a multiyear, structured training plan
designed to improve the overall effectiveness of
every EAS employee in the district. The training
plan, or Roadmap, was intended to include courses,
in consultation with the employee's manager, that
are necessary to make the employee a better
employee. In addition, in conjunction with
Roadmaps, the Chicago district offers a tuition
reimbursement program that is available to all EAS
employees in the district. As part of the tuition
reimbursement program, when an employee registers
for nonpostal training at an accredited college or
university that would benefit both the employee
and the Service from a career development
standpoint, the employee can apply for
reimbursement provided the employee receives a
grade of B or higher.
According to Chicago district officials,
other initiatives under way include developmental
assignments, such as detail assignments, which
involve employees being assigned to positions for
specific periods to gain experience, and officer-
in-charge assignments, which train employees for
some of the district's executive positions and
contribute toward district succession planning.
To encourage communications between
management and employees, the Chicago district has
implemented certain programs, one of which is
called "Speak Out." According to a district
official in Chicago, Speak Out was started in
fiscal year 1998 and is a process that allows all
employees the opportunity to voice their concerns
(using a toll-free telephone number) directly to
higher level managers who review the employees'
concerns and offer suggestions for resolving the
concerns. The district also implemented
"Roundtable" in 1994, which according to the
district, is a forum by which selected employees
are given an opportunity to discuss issues of
concern with top management staff who can provide
solutions to those issues. In addition, the
district manager has addressed communications
issues related to employees who have hearing
challenges by sending four employees to school to
become state-certified as interpreters. Also, the
district has provided sign language training since
1997, which, according to the district diversity
specialist, has facilitated communications by
eliminating a lot of writing between hearing and
deaf employees and managers, thereby creating a
more efficient, inclusive operation.13
The district also has held numerous cultural
appreciation programs, including Black History
Month, Asian-American New Year, Cinco de Mayo, and
an International Fair, to improve the workplace
environment. The district also has a full-time
diversity specialist who, along with other duties,
takes part in and coordinates diversity training14
and cultural celebrations at the district. The
diversity specialist is also a mandatory
participant on all promotion review committees at
the district to address diversity issues, while
the district's Hispanic program specialist
participates on all ASP boards.
Finally, to improve workplace communications,
the Chicago district is using REDRESS, a national
alternative dispute resolution program of the
Service, to facilitate discussion between managers
and employees regarding issues related to EEO
complaints. REDRESS was started in the Chicago
district at the end of fiscal year 1998. According
to the Service, REDRESS is a Service mediation
program that provides an informal and speedy
alternative to the traditional EEO complaint
process; employees have the option of mediation
instead of counseling, as is the case under the
traditional EEO complaint process. Under REDRESS,
the employee and his or her supervisor meet face-
to-face to discuss the dispute, and the employee
is allowed to bring a representative of his or her
choice to the mediation. If a settlement is
reached, it is to be binding on the parties, and
the EEO complaint will be withdrawn. If no
settlement is reached, the employee has the option
of continuing with the EEO complaint process
(i.e., filing a formal complaint). According to
district officials and employees, this process is
improving communications at the district because
it allows open discussions between the employee
and manager and is resolving some disputes so that
they do not become formal EEO complaints.
Akron's Efforts to Promote and Improve Diversity
Similar to Chicago, Akron has also recently
implemented various initiatives related to
improving diversity. However, unlike Chicago, the
Akron district, over the last 1-� years, has
experienced turnover in the positions of district
manager, diversity development specialist, and
manager of human resources. Nevertheless, the
Akron district office has implemented several
programs, including ASP, developmental details,
and the REDRESS program, to improve diversity,
particularly in areas of training, advancement,
and communications.
In fiscal year 1997, the Akron district
started using ASP to train, promote, and prepare
its employees for first-line supervisory
positions. From the fourth quarter of fiscal year
1998 through the second quarter of fiscal year
2000, 72 employees had graduated from ASP, of
which 49, or about 68 percent, were women and
minorities. As previously stated, ASP is a 16-week
training program, which targets employees, such as
mail handlers and carriers, for first-line
supervisory positions. According to Akron
officials, ASP has provided opportunities for a
qualified, diverse group of employees from lower
levels in the Service to be trained and promoted
into first-line supervisory positions using an
objective application process that is available to
all employees.
In addition, to improve diversity, the Akron
district also uses developmental assignments, such
as details and officer-in-charge assignments.
According to an Akron diversity official,
developmental details provide important training
opportunities for employees. According to this
official, officer-in-charge assignments are used
significantly in the district and provide
opportunities for postal employees to temporarily
substitute for postmasters who are on temporary
assignments.
The Akron district also implemented a
Networking Conference in fiscal year 2000, which
is to be held quarterly and allow district
employees to meet the district leadership team and
ask questions concerning the different functional
areas. During this time, employees may discuss
their career goals and how they can achieve them.
Also included are opportunities for employees to
participate in mock interviews and workshops on
the ASP program, prepare an application for
promotion (Form 991), and obtain information on
training and developmental programs. According to
Akron's district manager, the Networking Program
will allow both management and employees to better
appreciate the capabilities of each other.
In addition, the district manager plans to
introduce a districtwide succession-planning
program in the future, which he described as a
tailored version of the Service's succession-
planning program. Under the succession-planning
program, employees in EAS levels 22 through 26
positions from each postal facility are to be
identified by different management groups as ready
or trainable for promotion. Once identified, each
employee is to be monitored by the management
group that identified him or her. The district
manager said that the essence of the succession
planning is to ensure that employees selected for
succession planning will have the necessary skills
for management positions as such positions become
available. The district also has various other
initiatives, such as its "Plan-5 Talks," in which
the supervisor and employees meet daily for 5
minutes to discuss the unit's accomplishments,
challenges, and other issues related to the
Service.
Similar to Chicago, Akron has also held
cultural appreciation programs, such as Black
History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, with
the latter being celebrated for the first time in
the Akron district this year. The district also
plans to hold multicultural fairs for its
employees, which are to be held on Sundays in the
Youngstown, Akron, and Toledo areas. In addition,
since February 1999, the district has had a full-
time diversity specialist who is devoted solely to
the Akron district office and who reports to the
district manager. Previously, an acting diversity
specialist had worked in the district for about 4
months, and before that the district had a
diversity specialist who had been responsible for
both the Akron and Cleveland districts. The
district's current diversity specialist works with
various groups who provide her with information on
district diversity representation and diversity
needs within the district. Among other duties, she
takes part in and coordinates employee
recruitment, training, new programs, and cultural
celebrations at the district.
Finally, to improve workplace communications,
the Akron district is also using REDRESS to
facilitate discussion between managers and
employees of issues related to EEO complaints.
According to a district EEO official, REDRESS was
started in the Akron district in June 1999, and
the participation rate is steadily rising.
Employees are told of the availability of REDRESS
as soon as they contact an EEO counselor for
precomplaint counseling. According to this
official, the EEO environment at the district has
improved over the last year in that formal
complaints are decreasing.
Chicago and Akron Officials Identified Several
Lessons Related to Increasing Diversity
Officials in both the Chicago and Akron
districts identified several lessons that are
related to increasing diversity in their EAS 16
through 26 workforce. The lessons identified by
Chicago and Akron district managers can be grouped
into three major themes. One, management must be
committed to diversity. Two, training and career
development programs must be made available to
provide opportunities for women and minorities to
ascend to supervisory and management-level
positions. Three, an environment that encourages
communications and cultural appreciation between
management and employees must be established.
Chicago's district manager commented that
achieving a diverse workforce takes a personal
commitment from the leadership and that managers
should be held accountable for achieving
diversity. In the area of training and career
development, Chicago's district manager pointed to
a number of initiatives that he believed were key
to improving diversity. As part of its ASP,
Chicago established an approach referred to as
"Callback," whereby program administrators provide
feedback and coaching to employees who were
unsuccessful in completing one or more parts of
the requirements for ASP. The district manager in
Chicago also pointed out the importance of
programs such as "Roundtable," which gives all
employees the opportunity to discuss workplace
concerns directly with the district's managers at
a general meeting held quarterly. He believes that
these types of programs are helpful in improving
communications between management and employees.
Similarly, Akron's district manager commented
that the initiatives described above, coupled with
management's commitment to diversity, are
important tools in achieving diversity. For
example, he pointed out that when he became
district manager in December 1999, he changed the
format of his weekly manager's meetings so that
the diversity specialist could provide an update
of diversity at the beginning of the meeting
rather than at the end of the meeting. He believes
that this approach helps managers to understand
that diversity is an important part of the
district's operations and should not be taken for
granted. In addition, he believes that it is
equally important to create a workplace
environment that encourages communications and
cultural appreciation between management and
employees. Akron's district manager said that he
attends and encourages his managers to attend the
various cultural appreciation programs, such as
Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month.
Unclear Whether EEO Concerns at the Youngstown
Facility Represented Alleged Discrimination,
Communications, or Labor/Management Problems
Although the number of EEO complaints in
Youngstown increased from fiscal year 1997 to
fiscal year 1999, it is not clear whether alleged
sex, race, and disability discrimination; lack of
communications; or labor/management relations were
the problem. We believe that the lack of clarity
exists because of the inconclusive resolution of
many of the EEO complaints and the differing views
of employees and their managers and union
representatives in Youngstown.15 In addition, it is
unclear why the number of EEO complaints
increased.
Concerning the disposition of the 57 EEO
complaint cases that were filed during fiscal
years 1997 through 1999, in 34, or about 60
percent, the complaints either were dismissed or
decided on the merits, with no discrimination
being found. In the remaining 40 percent of the
cases, discrimination was found in 1 complaint, 16
were settled or withdrawn, and 6 were at EEOC
pending a hearing (see table 2).
EEO Complaints in Youngstown Increased Between
Fiscal Years 1997 and 1999
District records indicated that the number of
EEO complaints in Youngstown increased from 16 in
fiscal year 1997 to 23 in fiscal year 1999. As
noted in the Background section of this report,
the nature of EEO complaints involves two
elements-bases and issues. As shown in table 1,
sex and race were cited most often as the bases
for EEO complaints filed in Youngstown.
Over the 3-year period, sex was the basis
most often cited-in 10 of 16 complaints in 1997,
in 10 of 18 complaints in 1998, and in 16 of 23
complaints in 1999. Race was cited as the basis in
5 complaints in 1997, 7 complaints in 1998, and 10
complaints in 1999. Assignment of duties was the
most frequently cited issue in 1997, harassment
(nonsexual) in 1998, and termination and
assignment of duties in 1999.
Table 1: Number and Nature of EEO Complaints Filed
in Youngstown, Fiscal Years 1997 Through 1999
Fiscal year Number of Number of Most frequently Most frequently
complainant formal cited bases: cited issues:
s complaints (times cited) (times cited)
basisa issue
1997 16 16 (10) Sex (4) Assignments
(5) Race (3) Suspension
(5) Physical (2) Harassment
disability
(2) Reprimand
1998 15 18 (10) Sex (6) Harassment
(7) Race (3) Promotion
(7) Age (2) Detail
(2) Working
conditions
1999 19 23 (16) Sex (6)
Terminations
(10) Race (6) Assignments
(7) (4)
Retaliation Reassignments
Total 50b 57
a In filing a complaint at the Service, an
employee may cite more than one of eight bases.
bAdding the number of complainants for the 3 years
results in a total of 50; however, the actual
total number of employees filing complaints over
the 3 years is less than 50 because at least 1
employee filed 1 or more complaints in more than 1
of the 3 years from 1997 through 1999.
Source: Data compiled from district EEO database
by Service EEO official, fiscal years 1997-99.
According to the Service's data, with respect
to the disposition of the 57 EEO complaint cases
that were filed during fiscal years 1997 through
1999, in 34, or about 60 percent, the complaints
either were dismissed or decided on the merits,
with no discrimination being found. As shown in
table 2, when 19 complaints were dismissed, such
complaints had not reached the point where any
determination of discrimination could be made.
When these 19 complaints are combined with the 15
in which no discrimination was found on the merits
of the complaints, the 34 complaints represent
about 60 percent of the total number of complaints
filed. In the other 40 percent of the EEO
complaints, 1 resulted in a finding of
discrimination, 14 were settled, 2 were withdrawn,
and 6 were at the EEOC pending a hearing.
Table 2: Disposition of EEO Complaints Filed in
Youngstown, Fiscal Years 1997 Through 1999
Fiscal Number of Disposition of complaints
year formal
complaints
Complaints No Discriminat Settled/ At EEOC
dismisseda discrimati ion foundb Withdrawnc pending
on foundb hearingd
1997 16 4 7 1 4 0
1998 18 7 4 0 6 1
1999 23 8 4 0 6 5
Total 57 19 15 1 16 6
aThese complaints are part of the procedural final
agency decisions. In these decisions, the
complaint had been through the informal,
precomplaint stage of the process, and the
complainant had filed a formal EEO complaint of
discrimination. In accordance with 29 C.F.R.
1614.107, the Service dismissed the complaint for
various reasons, such as the complaint was
untimely, or it failed to state a claim.
bThese complaints represent the results of merit
final agency decisions. In such decisions, when
the complaint had been through the investigative
stage of the complaint process, the employee could
request a hearing before an EEOC administrative
judge, who would issue a recommended decision that
the employee's agency could accept, reject, or
modify.
cAccording to a Service official, "settled" means
any agreement between the parties (e.g., removal
of disciplinary action) and "withdrawn" means the
complainant withdrew the complaint and processing
ceased. Of the 16 complaints, 2 were withdrawn-1
in 1997 and 1 in 1998.
d"At EEOC pending hearing" refers to cases that
have gone through the investigative stage of the
complaint process and the complainant requested an
oral hearing before an EEOC administrative judge,
and the case was still pending as of May 2000.
Source: Data compiled from district EEO database
by Service EEO official, fiscal years 1997-99.
In filing an EEO complaint at the Service, an
employee may cite one or more of eight bases-race,
color, sex, religion, national origin, age,
disability, or retaliation-because the employee
may believe that more than one basis of
discrimination led to an action that the employee
believed to be discriminatory to him or her.
Moreover, the number of complaints raised in
a year is not necessarily indicative of the number
of people who complained within that year because
any one employee may have raised several
complaints in that time. Several complaints by one
employee can generate the appearance, but perhaps
not the reality, that an increase in the number of
complaints is indicative of more widespread
workplace conflict. For example, table 1 shows
that in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the number of
complaints exceeded the number of complainants,
meaning that one or more employees each filed more
than one complaint in those years. Multiple
filings by any employee could help account for
some of the rise in the number of complaints.
The November 1998 public forum and the class
complaint filed by some Youngstown employees and
others in August 1999 raised concerns that a
considerable amount of discrimination existed,
particularly with respect to race, sex, and
disability at the Youngstown site. Some Akron
district employees and members of groups outside
the postal district, such as the Urban League, the
local chapter of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, a congressional
staff member, and others organized the public
forum, held in Youngstown to discuss EEO-related
issues. At the public forum, several current and
former employees discussed issues raised in EEO
complaints that they had previously filed.
Management officials also attended the forum from
the Akron district to try to answer questions that
might be raised. After the Youngstown forum, the
previous district manager, along with several
other Akron managers, held several meetings with a
group called the Citizen's Action Committee, which
was organized pursuant to the forum to represent
employees in the Akron district.
The class complaint was filed in August of
1999 by two Akron district employees who had
previously filed EEO complaints alleging
discrimination against Youngstown postal managers.
The class complaint alleged discriminatory hiring
practices and included temporary employees and
people outside the Service who had taken the
postal entrance exam and aspired to be postal
employees. Currently, the complaint is at the EEOC
for a decision as to whether those in the class
complaint should be certified as a single class.
Results of Employee Climate Survey
In June 1998, the Allegheny Area Office
conducted on-site personal interviews with 50
employees at the Youngstown P&DC.16 The employees
were randomly selected to include management and
craft employees in all functional areas. Of the 50
employees, 8 were from the EAS level and 42 were
from the craft level. According to Service
officials, the purpose of the survey was to get an
overall sense of the employees' perceptions about
working in the Center. In the survey, employees
were asked to comment on issues, such as
diversity, management, and communications.
The results of the climate survey showed that
the employees identified several issues; however,
the extent to which these issues were perceived as
significant varied among the employees. For
example, according to the rating scale used in the
survey, a "highly significant issue" was one in
which 75 percent or more of the employees
indicated that a concern was an issue; a "very
significant issue" was one in which 50 to 74
percent of the employees indicated a concern was
an issue; and a "significant issue" was one in
which 25 to 49 percent of the employees indicated
a concern was an issue. The issue of tools and
resources, specifically staffing and forced
overtime, was identified as very significant. The
issues of management, communications, and
diversity each received enough employee comments
to be considered a significant issue.
Concerning diversity, 18 of the 50 employees
made comments concerning their perceptions of race
and sex discrimination. More specifically, 12 of
the 18 employees made comments about racial
discrimination as the reason for diversity
problems, and 6 employees made comments about sex
discrimination as a reason for diversity problems.
For example, with respect to racial
discrimination, five employees felt that black
employees were treated unfairly while four other
employees felt that white employees were treated
unfairly.
To address problems related to diversity at
the Youngstown P&DC, Allegheny Area officials
recommended that to remain fair and consistent
with all employees, regardless of their
differences, managers and supervisors communicate
performance expectations to all employees in terms
of productivity, attendance, and work habits as
well as consequences for nonperformance. The
acting vice president for Allegheny area
operations also required Youngstown officials to
provide him with a copy of their plan of action to
address the areas of concern they believed to be
the most significant and provide quarterly
progress reports thereafter. We obtained and
reviewed copies of the plan and follow-up status
reports of actions taken on the plan, including
those in the area of diversity, to see whether
district officials were taking action on the plan,
which, according to the status reports, they were.
Although the climate survey showed that
employees had concerns about racial and gender
discrimination, the survey report had no analysis
that connected these concerns to communications
problems or the recommendation that managers
better communicate performance expectations.
Some Officials Believed That the Lack of
Communications or Labor-Management Relations, Not
Discrimination, Were the Problem in Youngstown
Some management and union officials in
Youngstown and Akron believed that the lack of
communications among managers, supervisors, and
employees or labor management relations were the
problem in Youngstown. These officials did not
believe that race, sex, or disability
discrimination was a problem in Youngstown.
One Akron manager believed that the
Youngstown situation, in which employees
complained about managers not dealing with their
EEO complaints in a way that satisfied them, was
an illustration of poor communications between
managers and employees. A Youngstown manager said
that he believed that the level of EEO complaints
was not high and that such complaints were based
less on discrimination than on labor/management
relations in general. Another district official
said that she had worked in another postal
district where the number of EEO complaints was
much higher than in Youngstown or Akron. In
addition, another manager commented that she did
not think that the Youngstown or the Akron
district had more EEO problems than did other
postal districts. She believed that that the news
coverage of the public forums and the class
complaint caused the EEO concerns in Youngstown to
be viewed as more than what they were, that is,
workplace environment issues. According to this
manager, the previous Akron district manager at
the time of the public forums attempted to address
the EEO concerns raised in the public forums by
holding periodic meetings with a committee
representing the employees. However, the district
manager and his representatives could not readily
determine if the past EEO complaints discussed at
the forum involved discrimination because many of
the complaints occurred in the 1980s, and the
records were no longer available.
Similarly, one union official in Youngstown
commented that while he thought that management
treated employees badly, he thought that the bad
treatment was directed toward all employees and
was not based on discrimination. Another union
official in Youngstown generally agreed with this,
but noted that two pregnant women in separate
instances may have experienced sex or disability
discrimination while attempting to work light
duty.
EEOC, which is responsible for reviewing EEO
complaints, also has shared the view that
communications issues could be at the heart of
many EEO complaints.17 According to fiscal year
1998 EEOC data, about 50 percent of the cases it
reviewed were from the Service. In 1996, EEOC said
that a sizable number of complaints governmentwide
might not have involved discrimination issues but
instead reflected basic communications problems in
the workplace. According to EEOC, of all the
complaints decided by EEOC administrative judges
in 1997 and 1998, less than 10 percent resulted in
a finding of discrimination.
REDRESS Appears to Help Reduce the Number of EEO
Complaints
According to EEO data on Youngstown, since
the implementation of REDRESS toward the end of
fiscal year 1999, the rate at which EEO complaints
are filed in Youngstown has dropped by about 50
percent. For example, the number of complaints in
Youngstown in fiscal year 1999 totaled 23, a rate
of about 2 complaints per month. In the first 6
months of fiscal year 2000, complaints were being
filed at the rate of 1 complaint per month; if
sustained throughout the year, this would result
in 12 complaints, or about one-half of the total
filed in fiscal year 1999.
Under REDRESS, employees have the option of
using mediation to resolve their EEO complaints
before a formal complaint process is implemented.
REDRESS handles only EEO cases-not labor
complaints. The process allows a neutral mediator
from outside the Service to facilitate discussion
between the disputing parties during the
precomplaint phase.
During the precomplaint phase, an employee
discusses his or her issues with an EEO counselor
who advises the prospective complainant about what
options are available. At this point, REDRESS is
offered to the employee, before he or she elects
to file a formal complaint. If the employee elects
REDRESS and the employee's issues are resolved in
REDRESS, no formal complaint can be filed. If the
issue is not resolved, the employee may elect to
file a formal complaint, and begin the EEO
complaint process.
Management officials in Youngstown and Akron
were proponents of the REDRESS process because
they believed it fostered better communications
among employees, supervisors, and managers and has
been effective in addressing and resolving EEO
complaints. For example, one manager in Youngstown
said that an employee who had an EEO complaint
discussed his issue in the REDRESS process with
his supervisor. Although the employee did not get
what he wanted, the communications with his
supervisor allowed him to understand his
supervisor's situation and, as a result, he
decided not to file a formal EEO complaint or
grievance.
Alternatively, union officials believed that
there were some limitations in the REDRESS process
and were not as enthusiastic about it. One union
official commented that in REDRESS, issues of
compensation cannot be addressed and that
representatives of management who come to REDRESS
sessions often do not have the authority to settle
the issues involved without later checking with
higher management. However, another union official
commented that REDRESS probably produces better
results than does the EEO complaint process and
thought that the Service tries very hard to obtain
resolution about the issues addressed in REDRESS
to avoid union involvement in them.18
Conclusions
In fiscal year 1999, the overall
representation of women and minorities in EAS
levels 16 through 26 in the Service varied among
the Service's 83 districts; it averaged about 49
percent compared with the average representation
of about 56 percent in the Service's overall
workforce (excluding EAS levels 16 through 26).
With respect to the Chicago district office,
it appears that a number of factors may have
contributed to its high representation-about 93
percent-of women and minorities in EAS levels 16
through 26. First, women and minorities
represented a high percentage-about 92 percent-of
the Chicago district's overall workforce, thereby
providing a large pool of women and minorities to
draw from. Second, Chicago's management team has
been in position for several years, allowing for a
more stable managerial environment and an
opportunity to focus on implementing some of its
diversity-related initiatives earlier than has
Akron.
In contrast, Akron's management team that
deals with diversity issues has been in position
for less than 1-� years and is in the process of
implementing new programs related to diversity,
such as REDRESS and its Networking program.
Nevertheless, the Akron district has made some
progress. From fiscal years 1995 through 1999,
women and minority representation at EAS levels 16
through 26 increased by about 2 percentage points.
More specifically, at the end of fiscal year 1999,
women and minorities represented about 41 percent
of the EAS 16 through 26 workforce compared with
their overall district workforce representation of
about 46 percent-a difference of about 5
percentage points.
Although the number of EEO complaints in
Youngstown increased from 16 in fiscal year 1997
to 23 in fiscal year 1999, it is not clear to us
whether the EEO complaints stemmed from
discrimination, lack of communications, or
labor/management problems because of the
inconclusive resolution of many of those
complaints, and the conflicting views of employees
and their managers and union representatives. On
the one hand, of the 57 EEO complaints filed
during this 3-year period, 34, or about 60
percent, of the complaints either were dismissed
or decided on the merits, with no discrimination
being found. On the other hand, of the remaining
40 percent of the cases, discrimination was found
in 1 case, 2 complaints were withdrawn, 14 were
settled, and 6 were not resolved, as of May 2000.
Moreover, the conflicting views of employees
and their managers and union representatives make
it difficult to determine the causes of the EEO
complaints and the perceptions of Youngstown
employees who had expressed concerns about
discrimination in the climate survey and in the
public forum held in November 1998. In contrast,
the survey report's recommendation indicated and
postal managers and union representatives we
interviewed believed that poor communications or
labor/management problems in general were the
primary causes of the employee concerns rather
than discrimination.
Several changes have taken place recently in
the Akron district that could have an effect on
employees' perceptions about diversity and
workplace conflict. These changes included the
appointment of a new district manager and a full-
time diversity specialist as well as the
implementation of several diversity-related
initiatives within the last year, such as REDRESS
and the Networking program. We believe that, based
on the recent changes in management and the
implementation of initiatives within the Akron
district office, a follow-up review could provide
additional information on the causes of employee
concerns at the Youngstown postal site and is
warranted. We also believe that it would be
beneficial to conduct such a follow-up review
within the next 6 to 12 months, to allow time for
the new management team's efforts and the
district's diversity initiatives to have an impact
on the workplace environment and employees'
perceptions of that environment.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Vice President of
Operations for the Allegheny Area Office (1)
reassess whether EEO concerns are a problem in
Youngstown by conducting a follow-up review of
Youngstown P&DC employees within the next 6 to 12
months to determine what the employees believe the
issues are with respect to the workplace
environment, such as discrimination,
communications, or labor/management relations; and
(2) based on the results of the review, determine
what actions are needed to address any issues
identified.
Agency Comments
On June 13, 2000, the Postal Service provided
us with written comments on a draft of this
report. The Service's Senior Vice President of
Human Resources commented that the report
reflected the commitment of the Service to foster
diversity at all levels of the organization as
well as the progress being made and efforts to
identify and address diversity issues. He also
noted that the Service had recently been
recognized for the success of its diversity
efforts by its having received the National
Partnership for Reinventing Government Hammer
Award. However, he said that the Service
recognized that it could continue to make progress
in the representation of women and minorities
among its first-level supervisors and mid-level
managers, and that there remained much to achieve
in the area of diversity.
On June 15, 2000, the Allegheny Area Offices'
Managing Counsel told us that the Area Office
concurred with our recommendations and intended to
implement them. We also received oral technical
comments on a draft of this report from various
Postal program officials, which we have
incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to
Representative John McHugh, Chairman, Subcommittee
on the Postal Service, House Committee on
Government Reform; Mr. William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General; and other interested parties.
Copies will also be made available to others on
request.
If you have any questions about this report,
please contact me on
(202) 512-8387. Key contributors to this
assignment were Tammy Conquest, Gary Lawson, Hazel
Bailey, and William Chatlos.
Sincerely yours,
Bernard L. Ungar
Director, Government Business
Operations Issues
_______________________________
1 See U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in the
Postal Career Executive Service (GAO/GGD-00-76,
Mar. 30, 2000).
2 The dates that Service fiscal years end vary by
year and conform to the Service's 13-period
accounting year. Its fiscal year 1999 ended on
September 10, 1999. Our use of the term "fiscal
year" in this report refers to the appropriate
Service fiscal year.
3 The Youngstown postal site includes the
processing and distribution center, post offices,
and customer service centers.
4 The CLF includes persons aged 16 or older,
excluding those in the armed forces, who are
employed or seeking employment.
5 The census data used in this report are from the
1990 Decennial Census. The 2000 Census data, which
may change the diversity picture, were not yet
available.
6 The Service has 85 postal districts. However, we
are not including two district offices-San Juan
and Honolulu-in our report because they were
missing significant amounts of data on sex and/or
race/ethnic origin.
7 We recognize that women and minorities may serve
in lower level EAS management positions. However,
as previously stated, this report focuses on women
and minorities in high-level management positions
at EAS levels 16 through 26.
8 See the Background section of this report for a
discussion of bases and issues.
9 USPS Annual Performance Plan, fiscal year 2000.
10 U.S. Postal Service 1999 Comprehensive Statement
on Postal Operations, Preliminary 2001 Annual
Performance Plan, p. 92.
11 For example, an employee complaining about
nonselection for a promotion can allege (1) race
discrimination if the person selected was of a
different race, (2) sex discrimination if the
person selected was of the opposite sex, (3) age
discrimination if the person selected was under 40
years old while the complainant was 40 years of
age or older, and (4) disability discrimination if
the person selected was not disabled but the
complainant was.
12 According to a Service official, the Chicago
district has recently recruited externally for ASP
candidates in an effort to address certain
underrepresented groups in the district; 118 of
228 applicants passed the examination and are
awaiting interviews.
13 According to this official, since 1997, the
district has had 2 supervisors (1 deaf and 1
hearing impaired) who have taught employees basic
and advanced sign language, and 122 employees have
been trained to date.
14 One program, called the Community Partnership
Program, involved the diversity specialist and
managers working with, for example, the visually
challenged as well as abused women and children,
for 5 weeks through the United Way Agencies, which
made these officials more sensitive to these
issues, according to a Chicago district official.
15 We did not attempt to verify information
supporting the views of any management or union
official or employee that we interviewed or that
were surveyed.
16 We did not determine whether the results from
the number of employees surveyed were projectable
to all of the employees at the P&DC.
17 Under EEO regulations in effect during fiscal
years 1997 through 1999, after an employee's EEO
complaint was investigated, the employee could
request a hearing before an EEOC administrative
judge, who would issue a recommended decision that
the employee's agency could accept, reject, or
modify. After November 1999, regulations provided
that administrative judges would issue decisions
on all complaints referred to them for hearings.
18 Postal workers can simultaneously file an EEO
complaint under the administrative process for
federal employees and an EEO grievance under their
collective bargaining agreement.
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 36GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Manage
ment-Level Positions
This report supplements our previous work on
diversity in the Postal Service's high-level
management positions in the Postal Career
Executive Service.1 We were asked to (1) provide
statistical information on the representation of
women and minorities in Executive and
Administrative Schedule (EAS) levels 16 through 26
across all district offices nationwide for fiscal
year 1999 and (2) describe for the Chicago, IL,
and Akron, OH, postal districts (a) the
representation of women and minorities in EAS
levels 16 through 26; (b) initiatives implemented
to promote diversity; and (c) lessons identified
by district officials that relate to increasing
diversity. We also were asked to provide
information on alleged EEO concerns in the
Youngstown, OH, postal site.
With respect to our first objective, we
provided statistical information on the overall
representation of women and minorities at EAS
levels 16 through 26 in the Service's district
offices for fiscal year 1999. We obtained
personnel and accounting data from the Service's
Diversity Reporting System and the Personnel
Master Files from the Diversity Development
Department and the Minneapolis data center to show
the representation of women and minorities at EAS
levels 16 through 26 at 83 of the 85 postal
districts. This information was as of the last pay
period of each fiscal year between 1995 and 1999.
Two districts-San Juan and Honolulu-were not
included because data on race/ethnic origin were
missing or coded differently. We did not verify
these data. However, in 1996, Aguirre
International, as a part of a contracted study of
diversity of the Service, estimated a 97-percent
accuracy rate on minority codes in the Diversity
Reporting System.
We analyzed and presented these data on the
basis of the percentage of women and minorities in
the district workforce, EAS 16 through 26 and the
civilian labor force (CLF). We also computed two
ratios to compare (1) the representation of women
and minorities at EAS levels 16 through 26 with
the district's workforce (excluding EAS levels 16
through 26) and (2) the representation of women
and minorities in the overall district workforce
(including EAS levels 16 through 26) with the CLF.
Our second objective was to describe, for the
Chicago and Akron districts (a) the representation
of women and minorities at EAS levels 16 through
26, (b) initiatives implemented to promote
diversity, and (c) lessons identified by district
officials that relate to increasing diversity.
Accordingly, we obtained information from the
Diversity Development Department and the
Minneapolis data center to show the representation
of women and minorities in specific equal
employment opportunity (EEO) groups at the Akron
and Chicago districts as of the last pay period
from fiscal years 1995 through 1999. We analyzed
data on employees' positions at EAS levels 16
through 26 and on 10 EEO groups identified on the
basis of gender and race/ethnic origin. We did
this to show trends in the representation of the
10 EEO groups in the Akron and Chicago districts
over a 5-year period, from fiscal years 1995
through 1999. The 10 EEO groups include white men
and women, black men and women, Hispanic men and
women, Asian men and women, and Native American
men and women. We also compared the representation
of those in EAS levels 16 through 26 with the
Service workforce (excluding EAS 16 through 26)
for each district, and compared representation in
the overall Service workforce with the CLF. We did
not compare the different EEO groups'
representation in positions at EAS levels 16
through 26 in the Service, which are generally
management positions, with the overall CLF.
Because CLF data are not broken down into an
appropriate pool for comparison (i.e., similar
positions or levels of individuals with relevant
qualifications), we believe such a comparison
would not be appropriate.
To obtain information on the diversity-
related initiatives being used in the Akron and
Chicago districts and lessons learned concerning
efforts designed to increase diversity, we
interviewed management officials at Service
headquarters, area offices, and the Akron and
Chicago districts who have participated in
diversity-related efforts. We also held focus
groups with employees who were chosen on the basis
of different geographical locations in the
districts and considerations of diversity, such as
race and gender. We also met with union officials
to obtain their views on efforts to improve
diversity in Chicago and Akron. In addition, we
obtained and reviewed Service documents that
related to diversity in the Akron and Chicago
districts.
To address our third objective, to provide
information on alleged EEO concerns at the
Youngstown postal site, we obtained data from
Service headquarters and from the Akron district
on the number and nature of EEO complaints filed
between fiscal years 1997 and 1999 at the
Youngstown site and the representation of women
and minorities in fiscal year 1999. Additionally,
we obtained and reviewed the results of a 1998
Allegheny Area Office employee climate survey at
the Youngstown site to determine whether employees
believed that sex, race, and disability
discrimination existed at the Youngstown facility.
We also interviewed district officials, including
managers and union officials, about EEO concerns
in Youngstown, specifically in the Akron district.
These officials included for Akron, the district
manager; the diversity specialist; the human
resource manager; the EEO complaints manager; and
the labor relations manager. In Youngstown and
Canton, OH, we interviewed plant managers and
postmasters as well as union officials
representing the American Postal Workers Union and
the National Association of Letter Carriers. We
also interviewed two Allegheny Area diversity
specialists, one of whom helped conduct the
Youngstown employee climate survey.
We performed our work from January through
May, 2000, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
_______________________________
1 U.S. Postal Service: Diversity in the Postal
Career Executive Service (GAO/GGD-00-76, Mar. 30,
2000).
Appendix II
Representation of Women and Minorities in the
Service's Postal Districts
Page 40GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Manage
ment-Level Positions
The following table shows for each of 83 of
the Service's 85 postal districts a comparison of
the representation of women and minorities at EAS
levels 16 through 26 with their representation in
the overall district workforce (excluding EAS
levels 16 through 26) during fiscal year 1999.
Information on the representation of women and
minorities in each district's total workforce
(including EAS levels 16 through 26) and its local
CLF are also included for additional context.
Several points need to be considered in
connection with the information presented. First,
when considering a district's women and minority
representation, it is important to recognize that
conditions or challenges that exist in each
district may have an impact on that district's
diversity representation that may not be reflected
in the information presented. For example, the
makeup of a district's local population, or the
CLF, the pool from which it generally draws its
employees, could have an impact on the extent to
which diversity is achieved within that district.
Moreover, certain cultural considerations could
prevent some minorities from seeking Service work
even though they may be present in relatively
large numbers in the district's surrounding
population.
Other factors such as competition from
surrounding industries for potential Service
employees, the local unemployment rate, and the
general education level of the surrounding
population could also have an impact on the
district's diversity representation. Also, when
looking at diversity representation as a whole for
each district, differences in the representation
of individual EEO groups may not be apparent. For
example, a district with a large representation of
women and minorities in its overall workforce, the
pool for EAS 16 through 26 positions, could have a
large percentage of one or more EEO groups with a
lesser percentage of the remaining groups,
relative to these groups' representation in that
district's CLF.
Finally, the Service's policy regarding the
recruitment and movement of women and minorities
has certain limitations, some of which are
required by law. For example, only the best-
qualified applicants are to be selected for
positions, and although certain EEO groups could
be targeted for such things as training and
development, the Service does not establish quotas
that must be met to increase its representation of
women and minorities.
Table II.1: Women and Minorities at EAS Levels 16
Through 26 in 83 Districts Compared With Their
Representation in the Overall District Workforce
(Including EAS 16 through 26) and the CLF, Fiscal
Year 1999
District Percen District workforce EAS 16 through 26 workforce
tage
of
women/
minori
ties
1990
CLF
Number Percent Percent Ratio: Number Percen Percen Ratio:
of age of age of Overall of tage tage EAS 16
employe white women/ distric employ of of through
es males minorit t ees white women/ 26 to
ies workfor males minori district
cea ties (Excludi
to the ng EAS
CLF 16
through
26)
Akron 48.56% 7,907 54.45% 45.55% 0.94 566 58.66% 41.34% 0.90
Alabama 56.92 8,771 39.49 60.51 1.06 661 49.77 50.23 0.82
Albany 48.96 8,186 62.94 37.06 0.76 589 72.16 27.84 0.74
Albuquerqu 70.10 4,061 28.37 71.63 1.02 267 38.20 61.80 0.85
e
Anchorage 55.34 2,007 40.96 59.04 1.07 170 48.24 51.76 0.87
Appalachia 48.59 6,656 59.83 40.17 0.83 478 69.46 30.54 0.75
n
Arkansas 53.35 5,555 52.58 47.42 0.89 392 58.67 41.33 0.86
Atlanta 58.84 12,516 27.21 72.79 1.24 785 35.03 64.97 0.89
Baltimore 61.81 9,651 34.61 65.39 1.06 588 42.01 57.99 0.88
Billings 48.54 2,407 55.34 44.66 0.92 172 69.19 30.81 0.67
Boston 53.35 8,823 69.72 30.28 0.57 528 74.81 25.19 0.82
Capital 66.77 12,404 16.25 83.75 1.25 786 23.41 76.59 0.91
Central 55.98 9,426 50.36 49.60 0.89 651 52.38 47.62 0.96
Florida*
Central 59.68 13,198 40.93 59.07 0.99 767 47.72 52.28 0.88
Illinois
Central 49.81 10,125 56.61 43.39 0.87 626 60.22 39.78 0.91
Plains
Chicago 66.39 11,574 8.04 91.96 1.39 682 7.04 92.96 1.01
Cincinnati 50.05 10,478 56.27 43.72 0.87 665 59.70 40.15 0.91
*
Cleveland 48.03 7,757 41.21 58.79 1.22 444 33.33 66.67 1.14
Cntrl New 54.84 10,099 52.80 47.19 0.86 666 68.02 31.98 0.66
Jersey*
Columbia 60.79 6,417 38.16 61.84 1.02 484 42.56 57.44 0.92
Columbus 49.08 6,362 53.79 46.21 0.94 399 52.38 47.62 1.03
Connecticu 53.15 11,837 55.31 44.69 0.84 773 64.17 35.83 0.79
t
Dakotas 48.16 4,346 59.73 40.27 0.84 260 65.77 34.23 0.84
Dallas 59.13 12,351 34.38 65.62 1.11 732 42.35 57.65 0.87
Denver 54.26 14,161 44.91 55.09 1.02 815 51.78 48.22 0.87
Detroit 55.94 10,359 23.53 76.47 1.37 567 29.81 70.19 0.91
Erie 47.21 3,954 64.26 35.74 0.76 278 68.71 31.29 0.87
Fort 59.45 8,393 45.55 54.44 0.92 548 55.29 44.71 0.81
Worth*
Gateway 51.45 12,968 45.17 54.83 1.07 774 47.42 52.58 0.96
Greater 50.48 13,198 45.89 54.11 1.07 804 48.76 51.24 0.94
Indiana
Greater 50.09 9,280 52.23 47.77 0.95 580 60.17 39.83 0.82
Michigan
Greensboro 58.78 8,789 42.12 57.87 0.98 630 49.05 50.95 0.87
*
Harrisburg 47.81 7,662 64.24 35.76 0.75 548 71.35 28.65 0.79
Hawkeye 48.00 8,772 60.72 39.28 0.82 550 65.64 34.36 0.87
Houston 63.72 14,225 18.94 81.06 1.27 827 21.52 78.48 0.97
Kentucky* 48.77 8,904 55.99 44.01 0.90 614 62.70 37.30 0.84
Lancaster* 49.08 6,387 58.99 40.99 0.84 445 65.39 34.61 0.83
Las Vegas* 54.14 4,742 44.88 55.10 1.02 315 46.67 53.33 0.97
Long Beach 71.34 8,502 17.07 82.93 1.16 532 27.44 72.56 0.87
Long 52.76 9,638 60.01 39.99 0.76 641 68.64 31.36 0.77
Island
Los 74.86 10,193 4.99 95.01 1.27 617 4.86 95.14 1.00
Angeles
Maine 47.28 3,874 63.27 36.73 0.78 268 72.76 27.24 0.73
Mid 57.49 8,208 44.35 55.64 0.97 599 47.25 52.75 0.94
Carolinas*
Mid- 50.12 10,991 52.49 47.51 0.95 730 62.05 37.95 0.79
America
Middlesex- 51.02 7,010 69.26 30.74 0.60 484 77.89 22.11 0.70
Central
Milwaukee 49.57 12,765 56.76 43.24 0.87 760 61.97 38.03 0.87
Mississipp 61.91 4,750 44.40 55.60 0.90 384 57.81 42.19 0.74
i
New 47.84 3,489 62.68 37.32 0.78 263 68.82 31.18 0.82
Hampshire
New 59.88 10,182 32.15 67.85 1.13 668 42.51 57.49 0.84
Orleans
New York 69.68 16,805 19.05 80.95 1.16 990 28.08 71.92 0.88
North 55.68 8,112 46.13 53.87 0.97 590 47.63 52.37 0.97
Florida
North 61.35 12,541 40.12 59.88 0.98 721 53.81 46.19 0.76
Illinois
Northern 60.62 13,641 39.65 60.35 1.00 907 57.66 42.34 0.69
NJ
Northern 57.43 7,413 34.52 65.48 1.14 485 41.24 58.76 0.89
Virginia
Northland 48.57 15,852 63.34 36.66 0.75 980 68.47 31.53 0.85
Oakland 64.24 9,891 14.55 85.45 1.33 563 17.05 82.95 0.97
Oklahoma 54.08 7,897 52.21 47.79 0.88 515 54.17 45.83 0.96
Philadelph 57.67 11,805 44.85 55.15 0.96 729 51.17 48.83 0.88
ia
Phoenix 58.81 11,390 44.20 55.80 0.95 632 47.78 52.22 0.93
Pittsburgh 48.06 8,415 66.50 33.50 0.70 577 70.54 29.46 0.87
Portland 49.49 8,998 56.39 43.61 0.88 552 66.12 33.88 0.77
Providence 52.34 8,022 67.20 32.80 0.63 572 75.35 24.65 0.74
Richmond 60.11 8,883 31.33 68.67 1.14 580 34.48 65.52 0.95
Royal Oak 55.91 7,950 38.38 61.62 1.10 430 46.98 53.02 0.85
Sacramento 60.76 8,605 40.46 59.52 0.98 534 49.81 50.19 0.83
*
Salt Lake 48.82 4,198 59.70 40.30 0.83 308 71.43 28.57 0.69
City
San 71.51 13,110 30.37 69.63 0.97 828 28.26 71.74 1.03
Antonio *
San Diego 70.75 11,202 31.57 68.43 0.97 699 38.34 61.66 0.90
San 63.36 11,959 19.01 80.99 1.28 675 21.63 78.37 0.97
Francisco*
San Jose * 70.45 7,888 26.32 73.67 1.05 522 33.72 66.28 0.89
Santa Ana 69.47 10,365 27.35 72.65 1.05 615 35.45 64.55 0.88
Seattle * 51.89 11,002 42.86 57.12 1.10 737 52.37 47.63 0.82
South 70.28 10,980 25.07 74.93 1.07 627 27.59 72.41 0.96
Florida
South 62.96 5,432 41.22 58.78 0.93 405 50.62 49.38 0.83
Georgia
South 55.05 7,025 51.06 48.94 0.89 491 59.88 40.12 0.81
Jersey
Spokane 50.07 4,559 58.06 41.94 0.84 334 67.66 32.34 0.76
Springfiel 49.94 6,314 63.94 36.06 0.72 450 74.67 25.33 0.69
d
Suncoast 54.56 11,949 53.19 46.81 0.86 793 57.12 42.88 0.91
Tennessee* 53.20 12,506 48.76 51.23 0.96 889 56.36 43.64 0.84
Tri-Boro* 71.20 12,470 34.82 65.17 0.92 766 45.04 54.96 0.83
Van Nuys 71.35 9,464 28.85 71.15 1.00 547 38.57 61.43 0.86
Westcheste 63.30 7,258 47.64 52.36 0.83 490 59.18 40.82 0.77
r
Western NY 50.90 8,546 61.81 38.19 0.75 561 71.12 28.88 0.74
Note 1: Of the 85 districts, 2-San Juan and
Honolulu-were excluded due to large percentages of
missing gender and/or race/ethnic origin data.
Note 2: Ratios (comparison group percentage
divided by base group percentage) as used in this
table show the relative percentage of each
district's women and minority representation as a
group (1) in EAS levels 16 through 26 compared
with their percentage of representation in the
district's workforce (minus EAS levels 22 through
26, but including the small number of executives)
and (2) compared with their percentage of
representation in the local CLF. For example, a
ratio of 1.00 would indicate that the group's
representation in the district's EAS level 16
through 26 workforce equaled their representation
in the district's overall workforce (excluding EAS
levels 16 through 26). A ratio of 1.01 or higher
would indicate that women and minority
representation was greater at EAS levels 16
through 26 than was their representation in the
district's workforce (minus EAS levels 16 through
26), whereas a ratio of 0.99 or lower would
indicate that the group's EAS 16 through 26
representation was lower.
aIncludes EAS levels 16 through 26.
*District had anywhere from one to four employees
with unknown gender and ethnic origin data. These
employees are included in the total number of
employees and in the computation of percentages.
In these cases, percentages may not add to 100 due
to rounding
Source: Service workforce data, fiscal year 1999.
Appendix III
Representation of Women and Minorities in the
Chicago District Office
Page 43GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Manage
ment-Level Positions
For the Chicago district office, tables III.1 and
III.2 show various comparisons for fiscal years
1995 through 1999. Specifically,
� table III.1 shows comparisons of the
representation of women and minorities at EAS
levels 16 through 26 with their representation in
the district workforce (excluding EAS levels 16
through 26) and
� table III.2 shows comparisons of the
representation of women and minorities in the
district workforce (including EAS levels 16
through 26) and the CLF.
Table III.1: Chicago District Women and Minority
Representation at EAS Levels 16 Through 26
Compared With Their Representation in the District
Workforce (Excluding EAS Levels 16 Through 26),
Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999
Workforce EEO group
Fiscal
years
1995-99
White White Black Black Hispa Hispa Asian Asian Nativ Nativ Total
male women male women nic nic male women e e percen
male women Ameri Ameri tage
can can of
male women women/
minori
ties
1999
EAS 16-26
Percentag 7.04% 2.93% 36.36 47.80 2.49 1.61% 1.17% 0.44% 0.15% 0.00% 92.96%
e 48 20 % % 17 11 8 3 1 0 634
Number 248 326
(N=682)
District
workforce
(excl.
EAS 16- 8.10 2.09 36.60 44.57 4.21 1.74 1.81 0.72 0.12 0.05 91.90%
26) 882 228 3,986 4,855 459 189 197 78 13 5 10,010
Percentag
e
Number
(N=10,892
)
1998
EAS 16-26
Percentag 6.37% 3.47% 36.47 48.48 2.03% 1.59% 1.01% 0.43% 0.14% 0.00% 93.63%
e 44 24 % % 14 11 7 3 1 0 647
Number 252 335
(N=691)
District
workforce
(excl.
EAS 16- 8.30 2.12 36.74 44.62 4.02 1.64 1.69 0.71 0.12 0.04 91.70%
26) 936 239 4,143 5,031 453 185 191 80 13 5 10,340
Percentag
e
Number
(N=11,276
)
1997
EAS 16-26
Percentag 7.09% 3.00% 36.83 47.48 2.59% 1.36% 0.95% 0.55% 0.14% 0.00% 92.91%
e 52 22 % % 19 10 7 4 1 0 681
Number 270 348
(N=733)
District
workforce
(excl.
EAS 16- 8.80 2.19 37.63 43.59 3.90 1.38 1.71 0.66 0.11 0.04 91.20%
26) 980 244 4,191 4,855 434 154 190 73 12 5 10,158
Percentag
e
Number
(N=11,138
)
1996
EAS 16-26
Percentag 7.23% 2.68% 37.22 47.39 2.41% 1.34% 0.94% 0.54% 0.27% 0.00% 92.77%
e 54 20 % % 18 10 7 4 2 0 693
Number 278 354
(N=747)
District
workforce
(excl.
EAS 16- 8.84 2.21 37.55 43.65 3.81 1.44 1.69 0.69 0.09 0.03 91.16%
26) 1,026 257 4,358 5,066 442 167 196 80 11 4 10,581
Percentag
e
Number
(N=11,607
)
1995
EAS 16-26
Percentag 8.11% 2.83% 37.32 47.10 2.19% 0.90% 0.90% 0.51% 0.13% 0.00% 91.89%
e 63 22 % % 17 7 7 4 1 0 714
Number 290 366
(N=777)
District
workforce
(excl.
EAS 16- 9.07 2.14 38.02 43.44 3.62 1.33 1.62 0.65 0.09 0.03 90.93%
26) 1,063 251 4,457 5,093 424 156 190 76 10 4 10,661
Percentag
e
Number
(N=11,724
)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: Service fiscal year 1995 through 1999
workforce data.
Table III.2: Chicago District Women and Minority
Representation in the District Workforce
(Including EAS Levels 16 Through 26) Compared With
Their Representation in the CLF, Fiscal Years 1995
Through 1999
Workforce EEO group
Fiscal
years
1995-1999
White White Black Black Hispa Hispa Asian Asian Nativ Nativ Total
male women male women nic nic male women e e percen
male women Ameri Ameri tage
can can of
male women women/
minori
ties
1999
District
workforce
Percentag 8.04% 2.14% 36.58 44.76 4.11% 1.73% 1.77% 0.70% 0.12% 0.04% 91.96%
e 930 248 % % 476 200 205 81 14 5 10,644
Number 4,234 5,181
(N=11,574
)
District 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%
CLF
1998
District
workforce
Percentag 8.19 2.20 36.73 44.84 3.90 1.64 1.65 0.69 0.12 0.04 91.81%
e 980 263 4,395 5,366 467 196 198 83 14 5 10,987
Number
(N=11,967
)
District 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%
CLF
1997
District
workforce
Percentag 8.69 2.24 37.58 43.83 3.82 1.38 1.66 0.65 0.11 0.04 91.31%
e 1,032 266 4,461 5,203 453 164 197 77 13 5 10,839
Number
(N=11,871
)
District 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%
CLF
1996
District
workforce
Percentag 8.74 2.24 37.53 43.87 3.72 1.43 1.64 0.68 0.11 0.03 91.26%
e 1,080 277 4,636 5,420 460 177 203 84 13 4 11,274
Number
(N=12,354
)
District 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%
CLF
1995
District
workforce
Percentag 9.01 2.18 37.97 43.67 3.53 1.30 1.58 0.64 0.09 0.03 90.99%
e 1,126 273 4,747 5,459 441 163 197 80 11 4 11,375
Number
(N=12,501
)
District 33.53 28.30 10.28 11.45 7.74 4.71 2.04 1.70 0.09 0.08 66.39%
CLF
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: Service fiscal year 1995 through 1999
workforce data.
Appendix IV
Representation of Women and Minorities in the
Akron District Office
Page 46GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Manage
ment-Level Positions
For the Akron district office, tables IV.1 and
IV.2 show various comparisons for fiscal years
1995 through 1999. Specifically,
� table IV.1 shows comparisons of the
representation of women and minorities at EAS
levels 16 through 26 with their representation in
the district workforce (excluding EAS levels 16
through 26) and
� table IV.2 shows comparisons of the
representation of women and minorities in the
district workforce (including EAS levels 16
through 26) and the CLF.
Table IV.1: Akron District Women and Minority
Representation at EAS Levels 16 Through 26
Compared With Their Representation in the District
Workforce (Excluding EAS 16 Through 26), Fiscal
Years 1995 Through 1999
Workforce EEO group
Fiscal
Years
1995-99
White White Black Black Hispa Hispa Asian Asian Nativ Nativ Total
male women male women nic nic male women e e percent
male women Ameri Ameri age of
can can women/
men women minorit
ies
1999
EAS 16-26
Percentage 58.66 22.79 6.71% 9.01% 0.71% 0.88% 0.18% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 41.34%
Number % % 38 51 4 5 1 2 2 2 234
(N=566) 332 129
District
workforce
(excl. EAS 54.12 34.76 4.93 4.13 0.82 0.75 0.12 0.18 0.11 0.08 45.88%
16-26) 3,973 2,552 362 303 60 55 9 13 8 6 3,368
Percentage
Number
(N=7,341)
1998
EAS 16-26
Percentage 59.58 21.97 7.03% 9.14% 0.70% 0.70% 0.18% 0.18% 0.35% 0.18% 40.42%
Number % % 40 52 4 4 1 1 2 1 230
(N=569) 339 125
District
workforce
(excl. EAS 54.47 34.51 4.95 3.98 0.82 0.77 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.10 45.53%
16-26) 3,981 2,522 362 291 60 56 8 14 8 7 3,328
Percentage
Number
(N=7,309)
1997
EAS 16-26
Percentage 60.36 21.44 7.21% 8.29% 0.72% 0.72% 0.36% 0.18% 0.36% 0.36% 40.00%
Number % % 40 46 4 4 2 1 2 2 220
(N=555) 335 119
District
workforce
(excl. EAS 55.41 33.73 4.90 3.96 0.80 0.74 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.08 44.59%
16-26) 3,958 2,409 350 283 57 53 7 13 7 6 3,185
Percentage
Number
(N=7,143)
1996
EAS 16-26
Percentage 60.37 20.55 7.52% 8.81% 0.73% 0.73% 0.37% 0.18% 0.37% 0.37% 39.63%
Number % % 41 48 4 4 2 1 2 2 216
(N=545) 329 112
District
workforce
(excl. EAS 55.64 33.62 4.86 3.97 0.75 0.72 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.08 44.36%
16-26) 3,993 2,413 349 285 54 52 7 11 7 6 3,184
Percentage
Number
(N=7,177)
1995
EAS 16-26
Percentage 60.73 19.82 8.36% 8.55% 0.73% 0.73% 0.36% 0.18% 0.18% 0.36% 39.27%
Number % % 46 47 4 4 2 1 1 2 216
(N= 550) 334 109
District
workforce
(excl. EAS 55.81 33.50 4.78 4.07 0.71 0.69 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.10 44.19%
16-26) 4,028 2,418 345 294 51 50 7 10 7 7 3,189
Percentage
Number
(N= 7,217)
Note: Percentage may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: Service fiscal years 1995 through 1999
workforce data.
Table IV.2: Akron District Women and Minority
Representation in the District Workforce
(Including EAS Levels 16 Through 26) Compared With
Their Representation in the CLF, Fiscal Years 1995
Through 1999
Workforce EEO group
Fiscal
Years
1995-99
White White Black Black Hispa Hispa Asian Asian Nativ Nativ Total
male women male women nic nic male women e e percent
male women Ameri Ameri age of
can can women/
men women minorit
ies
1999
District
workforce
Percentag 54.45 33.91 5.06% 4.48% 0.81% 0.76% 0.13% 0.19% 0.13% 0.10% 45.55%
e % % 400 354 64 60 10 15 10 8 3,602
Number 4,305 2,681
(N=7,907)
District 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%
CLF
1998
District
workforce
Percentag 54.83 33.60 5.10 4.35 0.81 0.76 0.11 0.19 0.13 0.10 45.16%
e 4,320 2,647 402 343 64 60 9 15 10 8 3,558
Number
(N=7,878)
District 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%
CLF
1997
District
workforce
Percentag 55.77 32.84 5.07 4.27 0.79 0.74 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.10 44.23%
e 4,293 2,528 390 329 61 57 9 14 9 8 3,405
Number
(N=7,698)
District 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%
CLF
1996
District
workforce
Percentag 55.97 32.70 5.05 4.31 0.75 0.73 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.10 44.03%
e 4,322 2,525 390 333 58 56 9 12 9 8 3,400
Number
(N=7,722)
District 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%
CLF
1995
District
workforce
Percentag 56.16 32.54 5.03 4.39 0.71 0.70 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.12 43.84%
e 4,362 2,527 391 341 55 54 9 11 8 9 3,405
Number
(N=7,767
)
District 51.41 41.06 2.58 2.78 0.82 0.60 0.28 0.24 0.12 0.08 48.56%
CLF
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to
rounding.
Source: Service fiscal years 1995 through 1999
workforce data.
Appendix V
Comments From the U.S. Postal Service
Page 47GAO/GGD-00-142 Diversity in District Manage
ment-Level Positions
*** End of Document ***