EEOC FORM 715-01 PART A - D - lrn.usace.army.mil Distric… · LRN mission. Compliance Indicator Measures B.4 - The agency has sufficient budget and staffing to support the success

EEOC FORM U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FEDERAL AGENCY ANNUAL EEO PROGRAM STATUS REPORT

EEOC FORM 715-01

PART A - D

For period covering October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019.

PART A Department

or Agency Identifying Information

1. Agency Department of the Army

1.a. 2nd level reporting component U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1.b. 3rd level reporting component Nashville District

1.c. 4th level reporting component

2. Address 110 9th Avenue South, Room A-405

3. City, State, Zip Code Nashville, TN 37203-3817

4. Agency Code 5. FIPS Code ARCE 47037

PART B Total

Employment

1. Enter total number of permanent workforce 770

2. Enter total number of temporary workforce 6

3. Enter total number employees paid from non-appropriated funds

TOTAL Workforce [add lines] 776

PART C.1 Head of

Agency and Head of Agency

Designee

Agency Leadership Name & Title

1. Head of Agency Commander

2. Head of Agency Designee LTC Sonny B. Avichal, P.E.

EEO Program Staff Name, Title, Series, Pay Plan and Grade

PART C.2 Agency

Official(s) Responsible

For Oversight of EEO

Program(s)

1. Principal EEO Director/Official Stephanie H. Coleman, EEO Officer

2. Affirmative Employment ProgramManager

David W. Claussen, EEO Specialist/IWDP Manager

3. Complaint Processing ProgramManager

Stephanie H. Coleman

4. Disability Program Manager (SEPM) David W. Claussen

5. Other Responsible EEO Staff Calandra R. Wilson

6.

7.

9.



EEOC FORM 715-01

PART A – D

For period covering October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019.

PART D List of

Subordinate Components

Covered in This Report

Subordinate Component and Location (City/State) Agency and FIPS Codes

PART D.2Mandatory and

Optional Documents for

this Report

Did the agency submit the following documents Please respond Yes

or No

Comments

Organizational Chart Yes

462 Report No Documented in

Executive Summary

EEO Policy Yes

Anti-Harassment Policy Yes

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Plan Yes

FEORP Yes

Facility Accessibility Surveys No



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FY 19

Organization Information

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District, encompasses over 59,000 square miles and includes parts of seven states. It has regulatory, flood control, navigation, hydropower, and recreational responsibility for the Cumberland River watershed, and regulatory and navigation responsibility for most of the Tennessee River watershed. The Nashville District has a workforce composed of both GS and wage grade employees working in 49 field offices and the District headquarters.

MISSION STATEMENT

To execute the federal Civil Works Program for the Region and the Nation by mitigating risk from disasters, delivering collaborative water resource engineering solutions, providing world class public infrastructure management, and protecting the natural resources of the Cumberland-Tennessee River Systems.

OUR SLOGAN

We Protect People from Water, Protect Water from People and Make Water Useful.

OUR MOTTO

Get GREAT WORKS operational fast, safe, and responsibly.

More information on the District’s mission execution and accomplishments may be found on the public website http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil or on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/nashvillecorps.

Model Program Summary

The Nashville District continues making strides towards the goal of a model EEO program.

Essential Element A: Demonstrated commitment from agency leadership

• One area was ensuring more classroom sessions for DA’s EEO, Anti-Harassment and NoFEAR training.

• The Commander is a strong supporter of the District’s successful STEM and OperationWarfighters (OWF) programs. Recognizing that building a diverse bench starts early, hehas ensured we have volunteers for STEM-related activity, particularly those with the MetroNashville Public Schools and our Advancing Minorities’ Interest in Engineering (AMIE)partner, Tennessee State University.

http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/

http://www.facebook.com/nashvillecorps



• Leadership at the corporate level have ensured representation at college career fairs bydesignating employees to serve on a recruitment outreach coordination team to get theright people out to the right places in order to expand our reach of underrepresentedgroups.

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the agency's strategic mission

• The EEO Officer (EEOO) is routinely included in District deliberations and planning thatinvolve the management and deployment of human resources, e.g., command and staffmeetings, O-Plan development and planning, Position Management Review Committee(PMRC) meetings, and the Workforce Development Program Committee. The EEOSpecialists are looked to by Command and supervisors as go-to personnel to support districtactivities and mission, and along with the EEO Officer are utilized as advisors on districtselection panels.

• Though the EEOO is directly supervised by the Deputy Commander, in accordance withagency policy, the EEO Officer has direct access to the Commander.

Essential Element C: Ensuring Management and Program Accountability

• EEO objectives are included in supervisors’ performance standards.• The EEO Officer has to assess the program yearly under the Management Internal Controls

Program and semi-annually under the division’s Organizational Inspection Program,submitting that assessments, statements of assurance to our Business Integration Office,and to the division EEO manager respectively.

Essential Element D: Proactive prevention of unlawful discrimination

• District EEO-related policy statements emphasize proactive prevention. During training,these statements are highlighted, emphasizing the seriousness of violation of the policies.

• Mandatory SHARP training was conducted with 98% employee completion. 100% ofsupervisors and 100% non-supervisors completed their mandatory EEO/ Anti-Harassment/No FEAR training for this fiscal year.

• The District’s EEO Intranet site for all employees is utilized to provide a range of informationfrom complaints processes, Anti-Harassment, Anti-Discrimination, and SHARP policies, tospecial emphasis program observances.

• The District’s Individuals with Disabilities Program Manager works well with management inproviding reasonable accommodations, utilizing CAP, JAN, and other resources to assistthem in adapting the work environment for medically-impaired employees.

• The District has a fully functional ADR team in place whose purpose goes beyondconsideration of mediation offers. The team, which includes the District’s LMER Specialist,Labor Counselor, and EEO Officer, works collectively to advise management on problemprevention as well as resolution.



Essential Element E: Efficiency

• The District’s effective use of iComplaints, the Army Complaints Tracking System, has helpedassure the accurate, timely completion of all actions at each stage of the complaint process.

• As a part of the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division EEO Community of Practice (CoP), wehave a highly effective and supportive regional team. Nashville EEO Specialists providecounseling services for smaller sister districts, and share their expertise in areas such as EEOcomplaints processing, iComplaints, and the MD-715 Reporter with CoP team members aswell as across the USACE EEO enterprise.

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and legal compliance

• The District has a record of fully complying with EEOC orders and DA agency instructions.• The District has an excellent working relationship with DOD’s Investigations and Resolutions

Directorate (IRD), and with DA’s Office of Equal Opportunity Compliance and ComplaintsReview (EEOCCR) on complaint matters at varying levels.

EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier

During this reporting period, we lost 81 employees. Of those 81, fifteen (18%) were minority: (3) Black male, (6) Black females, (1) Asian female, (1) Native American male, and (4) two or more races. Twenty-two of the 81 were White females.

Because the District is losing minorities and women at a disproportionate rate to the number we are gaining, we are working diligently to expand our reach to increase employment of these underrepresented groups. In FY 2019, District recruitment outreach team members attended several job fairs at our local partnering HBCU, Tennessee State University, and recruited at other various surrounding colleges to include; Tennessee Technical College (TTU), University of Tennessee @ Knoxville, Vanderbilt University, University of Tennessee @ Martin, and Austin Peay State University. Team members have coordinated published schedules, and current application information and other handouts. The link to the LRD website with open Pathways Job announcements is distributed at these career fairs and shared with veterans’ groups, minority serving institution/HBCU deans and career centers.

Developmental Programs:

The Nashville District has several development programs to assist employees and applicants to excel within our organization. Our Pathways Recruiting Team attended several colleges within our surrounding community. Through the efforts of this team, we have hired several interns from



various parts of the country. Another developmental program we offer our employees is our Leadership Development Program (LDP) I & II. These programs are geared to identifying and developing future leaders for the Nashville District and USACE. The LDP consists of formal class course work, team building projects, internal & external site visits, overview of District/Corps operations, and exposure to the District’s Corporate Board (senior-level division office managers/supervisors).

The FY19 LDP I class was comprised of sixteen participants, to include two minorities and two females, who successfully completed the course.

STEM Activities:

As in the previous fiscal years, we’ve maintained our active partnerships with Stratford STEM Magnet High School and our Advancing Minorities’ Interest in Engineering (AMIE) partner, Tennessee State University (TSU). Our Commander and Deputy Commander have joined district volunteers in participating in numerous activities (over 13) throughout this fiscal year.

Active Partnerships. For several years, Nashville District has been an active member of Stratford High School’s Academy of Science and Engineering advisory council, Metro Public School’s Academies of Nashville Engineering/Manufacturing/Industrial Technology Partnership Council, Middle TN STEM Innovation Hub, and Tennessee State University’s Industrial Cluster.

On 1 August 2019, several technical experts from the Nashville District interacted with teachers during the Metro Nashville Public School district’s annual Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) In-Service Symposium at Stratford STEM Magnet School. More than 600 teachers from the school district attended the symposium, which included 40 breakout sessions for educators to learn new skills and strategies.

Presentations. Throughout the fiscal year, several District employees participated in various STEM presentations. On 27 March 2019, our Regulatory Division and J. Percy Priest Park Rangers hosted a STEM event for the Wilson and Sumner Counties Homeschool Collaborative, a grassroots collective of homeschool families that organize group enrichment opportunities for homeschool students.

Externships. Nashville District, in partnership with the Tennessee STEM Innovation Network (TSIN), hosted four Sumner County educators to share with them the wide variety of STEM-related work going on at the Corps and inspire them with examples of real world problems and relevant career-fields to take back to the classroom and use to enrich curriculum. The TSIN is a public-private partnership with the Tennessee Department of Education with the mission of expanding educational opportunities around science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in Tennessee -- preparing students for future STEM careers. The educators visited for three days, with one day at the district office headquarters and two days at our Old Hickory Lake project. One of the goals of



the externship is to have created a relationship with these teachers where we can support them with professional knowledge and inspiration that they can reach back to for curriculum development at their STEM schools.

Career Exploration. In October 2018, District employees attended the “My Future, My Way” Career Exploration fair with Metro Nashville Public Schools. This is the fifth consecutive year the Nashville District participated in the largest STEM/career-related event in the metropolitan area. Approximately nine District employees staffed exhibits and booths. Over 5,100 high school freshmen benefited from our District displays promoting our careers, mission, and recreational opportunities.

Longest-Running STEM Activity. For several years running, the Nashville District, in support of our partnership with TSU, hosted a portion of the National Summer Transportation Institute (NSTI) for high school students (10th-12th grades), from 17-21 June, 2019. Throughout the week, District personnel provided lectures about Nashville District’s engineering positions, waterways, and the geographic information system. Students were even provided an extensive tour of the Old Hickory project.

OWF Program:

This is the seventh year that we’ve combined forces with Ft. Campbell’s Operation Warfighter (OWF) Program. The Nashville District attended one OWF Career Intern Fair on 15 November 2018. We will continue our strong commitment with the OWF program out of Ft. Campbell. The OWF program allows soldiers that are being medically transitioned out of the active duty (military) a chance to work with civilian agencies to gain skills and experience to be able to work in the public or private civilian sector. Moreover, our Individual with Disabilities Program Manager, Captain Jason Ko, (Project Planning Branch Planner), and personnel from the Lake Rivers and Ohio Division (LRD) and Louisville District (LRL) attended a Hiring Heroes event at Ft. Campbell on 5 June 2019.

On 23 October 2018, the District recognized and celebrated National Disability Employment Awareness Month by having the POC for OWF Program out of Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, present information to supervisors and employees on internship opportunities for the transitioning soldiers. Along with the presentation, the District offered an open question and answer discussion on the USACE Reasonable Accommodation Policy.

In FY19, Nashville District maintained a relationship with the Employment Coordinator from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Transition Services Manager from Ft. Campbell’s Transition Assistance Program. Also, District recruitment teams visited area colleges and universities, in addition to utilizing a variety of other recruitment sources for position vacancies. As the stats indicate, since the beginning of the fiscal year, we have gained eighteen permanent disabled veterans and one temporary disabled veteran.



Fifteen of those veterans are 10-point/compensable/30percent, and four are 10-point/compensable. Occupations held by these veterans include:

Electronics Technician 10pt/Compensable Lock and Dam Operator (2) 10pt/Compensable Realty Specialist 10pt/Compensable Secretary 10pt/Compensable 30% Electronic Engineer 10pt/Compensable 30% Office Support Assistant 10pt/Compensable 30% Lock and Dam Operator (2) 10pt/Compensable 30% Engineering Technician 10pt/Compensable 30% Administrative Support Assistant (2) 10pt/Compensable 30% Realty Specialist 10pt/Compensable 30% Attorney 10pt/Compensable 30% Administrative Officer 10pt/Compensable 30% Contract Specialist (2) 10pt/Compensable 30% Procurement Analyst 10pt/Compensable 30% Administrative Support Assistant (Temp) 10pt/Compensable 30%

Special Emphasis Programs.

The events sponsored by the Special Emphasis Programs (SEP) Committee are among the most-well attended brown bag/sessions in the District. Employees from both the district office headquarters and field projects participate on a monthly basis. The sessions offered not only bring light to the Army’s recognized cultural observance months, but also provide employees (particularly in our targeted groups) with valuable tools for career advancement.

On 17 September 2019, the District’s SEP Committee hosted a brown bag session in recognition of National Hispanic Heritage Month. The event honored notable Hispanic servicemen and women, and included historical fun facts and a Hispanic cuisine cook-off contest.

On 26 August 2019, in celebration of Women’s Equality Day, the District held a lunch and learn session which featured women who serve the District in non-traditional leadership roles (Deputy Chief, Engineering-Construction Division, and Chief, Business Integration Office) speaking on the experiences and challenges they have encountered as they advanced in their respective careers.

On 10 June 2019, the District’s SEP Committee hosted a brown bag session on Resume Writing and Interviewing. This session included resume preparation, preparing for interviews, interviewing tips, and a mock panel interview (do’s and don’ts).



On 14 May 2019, the District held a brown bag session for the Asian American/Pacific Islander Heritage Month observance. This celebration included USACE National messaging, talking points, mission, and vision presentations led by Public Affairs Specialist and SEP Committee member.

On 6 May 2019, we commemorated Days of Remembrance by showcasing a display during our District’s monthly coffee gathering with the Commander and Deputy District Engineer, which highlighted the importance of the event. Moreover, pamphlets and handouts were distributed that raised awareness about the Holocaust, concentration camps, and the survivors.

On 28 February 2019, the EEO Office sponsored a Black History Month brown bag luncheon, with guest speaker, Edward Wisdom, III. Mr. Wisdom discussed the DEOMI-themed “Black Migration” movement from the South to cities in Northeast, West, and Midwest to gain jobs and better social and political opportunities.

Database Information

The Nashville District’s data contained in this report is from the Defense Civilian Personnel Database System (DCPDS) and the Army’s complaints tracking system (iComplaints). Data reflects all permanent and temporary Appropriated Fund employees. The Nashville District uses the National Civilian Labor Force (CLF) statistics for comparisons due to its broad scope, and the majority of our positions are announced for nation-wide competition.

Summary Analysis of the Workforce

The Nashville District’s total workforce increased by 3.4% from the 758 employees onboard (end of September 2018) to the 776 onboard at the end of September 2019. At 22.9%, the female representation rate increased slightly from 22.29% in FY18. The rate of women remains significantly below the 46.10% female workforce comparison of the 2010 National Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Minorities represented 11.47% (89/776) which is a slight decrease from FY18 (12.4%), and well below the CLF of 27.65%.

During the fiscal year, Nashville District hired 104 personnel. Out of the 104 hired, 62.5% (65/104) were male and 37.5% (39/104) were female. We increased in the White male/female, Hispanic female, and Asian male population. Black male/female, Hispanic male, Asian female, and American Indian female have declined in population and/or percentages as indicated by the chart below.



The data used were those we could verify with our own calculations. The chart below is a comparison of end of year FY19 demographics with end of FY18, and 2010 CLF statistics. The red areas indicate where we are below the civilian labor force statistics.

Nashville District Demographics Comparison FY 19:

Race/Gender FY 18 % FY 19 % % Difference

2010 CLF

White Male 532 70.2% 545 70.2% 0.0% 38.30%

White Female 132 17.4% 142 18.3% 0.9% 34.00%

Black Male 26 3.4% 24 3.1% -0.3% 5.50%

Black Female 25 3.3% 22 2.8% -0.5% 6.60%

Hispanic Male 8 1.0% 6 0.8% -0.2% 5.20%

Hispanic Female 5 0.7% 8 1.0% 0.3% 4.80%

Asian Male 8 1.0% 9 1.2% 0.2% 2.00%

Asian Female 3 0.4% 2 0.3% -0.1% 2.00%

Pacific Islander Male 1 0.1% 2 0.3% 0.2% 0.10%

Pacific Islander Female 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.0% 0.10%

American Indian Male 7 0.9% 6 0.8% -0.1% 0.30%

American Indian Female 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.0% 0.30%

Two or More Races Male 7 0.9% 6 0.8% -0.1% 0.40%

Two or More Race Female

4 0.5% 4 0.5% 0.0% 0.40%

Total Workforce – Distribution by Disability:

Total No Disability Not Identified Disability Targeted Disability

TD% Fed Goal

776 683 28 65 6 0.78% 2.0%

Nashville District had six employees recorded with a Targeted Disability (0.78%), which is well below the overall Federal Goal of 2.00%. In order to reach the overall Federal Goal, our District has conducted training sessions for all supervisors and employees on disability awareness that



encompasses disability employment and reasonable accommodation procedures. Another trigger that has been identified is that of our 104 disabled vets, only 44 have indicated that they have a disability and 18 indicated they wish not to identify their disability. Acknowledging that some of this may stemfrom self-identification not being entered into DCPDS (an issue we have raised with the regional CPAC), the District Commander will send a message to all personnel requesting a review and update (if needed) of their self-identification status in MyBiz+.

Summary of FED9 table by ERI/RNO as of September 2019 (Total Workforce):

FED9 Description Number of Employees Percentage

Officials and Managers 117 15.1%

Professionals 300 38.7%

Technicians 80 10.3%

Sales Workers 0 0% Administrative Support Workers 37 4.8%

Craft Workers 171 22.0%

Operatives 70 9.0% Laborers and Helpers 1 0.1%

Service Workers 0 0.0%

FED 9 Category 1 – Officials and Managers – Total = 117

Though the participation rate for all minorities slightly increased from 19.6% in FY18 to 21.4% in FY19, it is still below the 2010 CLF (22.7%) for this group. Native American males, as well as Black males and females were above their respective CLF representation. Asian males and females, Hispanic males, and Native American females were absent in this category. White females, at 29.9%, were slightly below their respective CLF (32.7%) representation. The participation rate of White males (48.7%) was above the CLF’s 45.7% percentage; the participation rate for males was 54.7% which is below the respective CLF of 56.1%; and the participation rate for females was 45.3% which is slightly above the respective CLF of 43.9%.



FED 9 Category 2 – Professionals – Total = 300

Males occupied 76.7% of Professional positions, while females occupied 23.3%, which is below their CLF representation of 54.7%. White males (69.0%) are about 33% above their representation compared to the CLF of 36.0%, while White females (20.3%) are 21% below their CLF representation of 41.5%. The participation rate of Hispanic male/female, Asian male/female, and Black females are also below the CLF. Native American males/females are absent in this category.

FED 9 Category 3 – Technicians – Total = 80

Males occupied 78.8% of the positions; and females occupied 21.2%, which is below the respective 2010 CLF of 63.5%. The participation rate of White female, Hispanic male, and Asian female was below their perspective CLF. There was no participation of Black female, Hispanic female, Asian male, and Native American female. White male, Native American male, and Black male were above their perspective CLF representation.

FED 9 Category 4 – Sales Workers – Total = 0

Nashville District doesn’t employ Sales Workers.

FED 9 Category 5 – Administrative Support Workers – Total = 37

Males occupied 18.9% of the positions and females occupied 81.1%. Participation of White and Black women were above the CLF. The participation rate for White male and Hispanic female were below the CLF. There was no participation of Black male, Hispanic male, Native American male/female, or Asian male/female.

FED 9 Category 6 – Craft Workers – Total = 171

Males occupied 96.5% of all Craft Worker positions. The participation rate for Native American female, Black female, Asian female, and Hispanic female are absent from this category. White male and Native American male are above the CLF. The participation rate for Black male, Hispanic male, White female, and Asian male are below their perspective CLF.

FED 9 Category 7 – Operatives – Total = 58

Males occupied 96.6% (56/58) of all Operatives positions. White female, Black male/female, and Asian male participation rates were below the CLF. There is no participation of Hispanic, Asian female, and American Indian female, while the participation rate for White and American Indian male were well above the CLF.

FED 9 Category 8 – Laborers – Total = 1

Nashville District has only one White male in this category.

FED 9 Category 9 – Service Workers – Total = 1



There is only one District employee in this category, a black male.

As the Fed 9 analysis indicates, the representation of white men was above their perspective CLF in every category except Administrative Support; whereas, most minorities in all categories were less than their perspective CLF. This trend was prevalent in FY’s 13 through 18, and has continued through FY19. Although, the district may not be underrepresented in minorities within all categories, this does indicate a “trigger” or an area of concern. There is also a question of whether minority data is being captured effectively while processing the new hires.

General Schedule (GS) Total Workforce by Race and Ethnicity Grade Grouping:

The GS pay plan represents a total of 68.9% (535/776) of Nashville District employees ranging from GS-04 to GS-15. Males represented 67.9% (363/535), a slight decrease from 68.9% in FY18. Females represented 32.1% (172/535), a slight increase from FY18 of 31.1% of the GS workforce. Males had 71.3% (87/122) representation at the GS-11 level, while females had 28.7% (35/122) representation at the GS-11 level. At the GS-12 level, males represented 74.5% (114/153) whereas females represented 25.5% (39/153). At the GS-13 level, males represented 77.8% (49/63), whereas females represented only 22.2% (14/63), showing a slight drop in female representation within the hierarchy of the GS pay grades. At the GS-14 level, males represent 77.8% (14/18), while females represented 22.2% (4/18). However, at the GS-15 level, males represented 50.0% (2/4) and females represented 50.0% (2/4). Minorities represented 13.6% (73/535) which is a slight decrease from FY18 of 14.4%. Minorities primarily occupy grades GS-07 through GS-13, however, there were two minorities represented (one Black male and one two or more races male) at the GS-14 and 15 grade level. Moreover, out of our four (4) GS-15 positions, two out of the four are White female. (Table A4-1)



General Schedule (GS) by Ethnicity and Race Identification (ERI) and Grade Grouping

General Schedule (GS) by Gender and Grade Grouping

GS 1-4 GS 5-8 GS 9-12 GS 13-15

White 9 85 294 74Black 1 7 28 5Hispanic 1 3 6 3Asian 0 0 9 1Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0 1 0American Indian/Alaska Native 0 1 1 0Two or More Races 0 2 3 2

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

GS 1-4 GS 5-8 GS 9-12 GS 13-15Men 60.00% 43.87% 72.80% 78.31%Women 40.00% 56.12% 27.19% 23.52%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%



Wage Grade (WG) by Race and Ethnicity Grouping:

During FY19, there were 241 (31.1% total populace) WG/WO/WB/WY/XH employees of whom 2.5% (6/241) were in positions held by females and 6.6% (16/241) were held by minorities. This is slight decrease compared to FY17 and FY18 in both females and minorities which indicates a possible trigger. White males had a significantly higher participation rate with 91.3% (220/241), which is slightly higher than in FY17 and FY18. Again, this could indicate an area of concern in representation. (Table A5-1. NOTE: Table A5-1 did not include WB-00. They are added in this report.)

Summary Analysis of Top Series:

Table A6 represents employees in major occupations that are essential to accomplishing the mission of the Nashville District. A comparison was made to the 2010 Civilian Labor Force (CLF).

Women and minorities in occupational series:

Civil Engineer, series (0810) - total of 97 employees: 83.5% male compared to the CLF of 89.9%; and 16.5% female compared to the CLF of 10.1%. Minorities had a low participation rate of 8.2% (8/97) compared to the CLF of 18.2%. Hispanic females, Black females, Asian females, and Native American males/females had no representation.

Conservation Biologists (Ranger), series (0401) and (0025) - total of 94 Employees: 76.6% (72/94) males compared to 55.9% of the CLF; and 23.4% (22/94) females compared to 44.1% of the CLF. White females had a low participation rate of 21.3% (20/94) compared to the CLF of 35.0%; Native American males/females and Asian males/females had no representation. Minorities had a low participation rate of 7.4% (7/94) compared to the CLF of 17.5%.

Lock & Dam Operators, series (5426) - total of 64 Employees: 98.4% male (63/64) (CLF 86.3%), and 1.6% Female (1/64) (CLF 13.8%). White females had a lower participation rate of 1.56% (1/64) compared to the CLF’s 9.3%. Hispanic males/females, Asian females, and Native American females had no representation in this series. Minorities had a low participation rate of 7.8% (5/64) compared to the CLF’s (34.7%), which is significantly lower than the 14.0% we had in FY18.

Lock & Dam Repairing, series (5318) - total of 51 Employees: 98% Male (50/51) (CLF 96.5%) with 2.0% women (1/51) compared to their CLF of 4.1% in this series. Hispanic males/females, Black females, Asian females, and Native American females had no representation. Minorities had a lower participation rate of 9.8% (5/51) than the CLF rate of 24.6%.

Engineering Technician, series (0802) - total of 67 Employees: 74.6% male (50/67) compared to the CLF of 80.9%, and 25.4% female (17/67) compared to the CLF of 19.1%. White females had a higher participation rate of 23.9% (16/67) than the CLF of 13.0%. Minorities had a low participation rate of 11.9% (8/67) compared to the CLF rate of 23.9%.



As the table below indicates within the major occupations, women and minorities have low participation rates.

Summary Analysis of awards by Performance Level/ERI and Sex:

Awards. The Army civilian personnel data system records indicate that Nashville District employees received 922 awards during fiscal year 2019. Awards included individual cash awards, time off awards, exemplary performance awards, meritorious civilian service awards, and superior civilian service awards. Males received 78.1% (721/922) awards compared to 21.8% (201/922) of females.

Participation rates in Current workforce

Series White Female

Hispanic Black Asian American Indian

M F M F M F M F

810 Civil Engineers G Y Y Y Y R Y Y Y

401 Biologist R G Y G G R R Y Y

802 Engineering Tech G R Y Y Y R G G Y

5426 Lock & Dam Operator

R R Y R Y R Y G y

5318 Lock & Dam Repairing

G R Y R Y G Y G Y

Expected number or greater (based on CLF)

Below expected number & within 2 standard deviations

More than 2 SD below the expected number



Quality Step Increase (QSI) Awards. There were 27 QSI awards presented for FY19. Fifteen were White male and ten where White female; one Black male and one Asian male. No other minorities had representation. 37.0% (10/27) were female and 63.0% (17/27) male.

There may be issues with the system in capturing awards, but of those captured for performance, it appears that women and minorities’ receipt of performance-based awards were consistent if not above their representation in the workforce. The amount of those awards or comparisons to the level of performance rating were not captured.

Promotions: According to Table A-10, there were 107 promotions within the Nashville District. Ninety-seven promotions were in the GS pay plan and ten were in the Wage Grade. Of those promotions, 59.8% (64/107) were given to White males, 16.8% (18/107) to White females, 4.7% (5/107) to Black females, 4.7% (5/107) to Black males, 1.9% (2/107) to Hispanic males, 0.9% (1/107) to Hispanic females, and 0.9% (1/107) to Asian males. Asian females, Native American females, and Native Pacific Islander males/females had no representation.

Separations: According to the Army civilian personnel data system, records indicate that Nashville District lost eighty-one employees in FY19. Females represented 37.1% (30/81) of the losses and males represented 62.9% (51/81). 54.3% (44/81) were White male, 27.2% (22/81) were White female, and 18.5% (15/81) were minorities.

EEO Complaints and 462 Report Analysis:

Number of claims. During the fiscal year, seven (7) new informal complaints were initiated. Those complaints contained allegations of hostile work environment harassment, termination, equal pay, and non-selection. Bases for complaints filed were disability (mental), sex, age, and race. It is noted that out of the seven new informal complaints initiated during the fiscal year, four individuals elected to file formal.

Top Issues # of Complaints

# of Complainants % of Complaints

Harassment (Non- Sexual)

2 2 28.6%

Promotion/Non-Selection

/

2 2 28.6%

Disciplinary Actions (all) 0 0 0Evaluation/Appraisal 2 2 28.6%Assignment of Duties 0 0 0Terms/Conditions of Employment

3 3 42.8%



Top Bases # of Complaints

# of Complainants % of Complaints

Reprisal 2 2 28.6%Sex (Female) 1 1 14.3%Race (Black) 1 1 14.3%Age 3 3 42.8%National Origin 1 1 14.3%Religion 0 0 0Other 0 0 0Disability 1 1 14.3%

Processing Time (Informal Claims). Nashville District’s informal claims were processed with an average of 20 days of the initial contact with the EEO Office. [One informal complaint was processed through ADR (mediation), though unsuccessful; and another was counseled in 32 days with a regulatory extension.]

STRATAGIES TO ACHIEVE A MODEL EEO PROGRAM FOR FY 2020

The Nashville district will continue to utilize the Pathways and Internship programs in an effort to hire and retain a diverse workforce.

The Great Lakes and Ohio River Division Regional CPAC will provide supervisory training on the Strategic Recruitment Discussion (SRD), the use of Schedule A and other hiring authorities, and the Pathways and recent graduate programs. Training will also be provided to employees on the USACE application process for using USA Jobs and the USA Staffing Application Manager.

The Nashville District will continue to administer and encourage participation in Leadership (LDP I and LDP II) and Mentoring Programs in an effort to assist employees in developing individual leadership skills and to grow future leaders through participation in seminars, career development, communication skills workshops, and group discussions.



715 - PART F CERTIFICATION of ESTABLISHMENT of CONTINUING

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

I, Stephanie H. Coleman, EEO Officer, am the Principal EEO Director/Official for: Nashville District (CELRN-EO).

The agency has conducted an annual self-assessment of Section 717 and Section 501 programs against the essential elements as prescribed by EEO MD-715. If an essential element was not fully compliant with the standards of EEO MD-715, a further evaluation was conducted and, as appropriate, EEO Plans for Attaining the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program, are included with this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.

The agency has also analyzed its workforce profiles and conducted barrier analyses aimed at detecting whether any management or personnel policy, procedure or practice is operating to disadvantage any group based on race, national origin, gender or disability. EEO Plans to Eliminate Identified Barriers, as appropriate, are included with this Federal Agency Annual EEO Program Status Report.

I certify that proper documentation of this assessment is in place and is being maintained for EEOC review upon request.

__________________________ _________________

Stephanie H. Coleman EEO Officer

Date

______________________________________________ _________________

Sonny B. Avichal, P.E. Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander

Date

26 November 2019



715 - PART G Agency Self-Assessment Checklist

Essential Element A: Demonstrated Commitment From agency Leadership This element requires the agency head to communicate a commitment to equal employment opportunity and a

discrimination-free workplace.

Compliance Indicator

Measures

A.1 - The agency issues an effective, up-to-date EEO policy statement.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments

A "No" response to any measure in Part G is a program deficiency requiring a Part H.

A.1.a Does the agency annually issue a signed and dated EEO policy statement on agency letterhead that clearly communicates the agency's commitment to EEO for all employees and applicants? If "yes", please provide the annual issuance date in the comments column. [see MD-715, II(A)]

Yes Commander’s Policy Signed June 28, 2019

A.1.b Does the EEO policy statement address all protected bases (age, color, disability, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity), genetic information, national origin, race, religion, and reprisal) contained in the laws EEOC enforces? [see 29 CFR § 1614.101(a)]

Yes


Measures

A.2 - The agency has communicated EEOpolicies and procedures to all employees.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


A.2.a Does the agency disseminate the following policies and procedures to all employees:

A.2.a.1 Anti-harassment policy? [see MD 715, II(A)] Yes

A.2.a.2 Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 C.F.R § 1614.203(d)(3)]

Yes Instructed by HQ to use revised July 26, 2019, AR690-12

A.2.b Does the agency prominently post the following information throughout the workplace and on its public website:

Yes

A.2.b.1 The business contact information for its EEO Counselors, EEO Officers, Special Emphasis Program Managers, and EEO Director? [see 29 C.F.R § 1614.102(b)(7)]

Yes

A.2.b.2 Written materials concerning the EEO program, laws, policy statements, and the operation of the EEO complaint process? [see 29 C.F.R § 1614.102(b)(5)]

Yes



A.2.b.3 Reasonable accommodation procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3)(i)] If so, please providethe internet address in the comments column.

Yes https://intranet.usace.army.mil/lrd/lrn/eo/EEO%20Complaint%20Information/AR%20690-12%20revised%2026%20July%202019.pdf

A.2.c Does the agency inform its employees about the following topics:

A.2.c.1 EEO complaint process? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(a)(12) and 1614.102(b)(5)] If "yes", please provide how often.

Yes Annually

A.2.c.2 ADR process? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(C)] If "yes", please provide how often.

Yes Annually

A.2.c.3 Reasonable accommodation program? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)(C)] If "yes", please providehow often.

Yes Annually

A.2.c.4 Anti-harassment program? [see EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1] If "yes", please provide how often.

Yes Annually

A.2.c.5 Behaviors that are inappropriate in the workplace and could result in disciplinary action? [5 CFR § 2635.101(b)] If "yes", please provide how often.

Yes Annually


Measures

A.3 - The agency assesses and ensures EEOprinciples are part of its culture.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


A.3.a Does the agency provide recognition to employees, supervisors, managers, and units demonstrating superior accomplishment in equal employment opportunity? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a) (9)] If "yes", provide one or two examples in the comments section.

Yes Recognition is given managers as part of their Objectives on their appraisals.

Recognition given via email. Special EEO and diversity award nominations for BEYA,

Women of Color, etc..

A.3.b Does the agency utilize the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or other climate assessment tools to monitor the perception of EEO principles within the workforce? [see 5 CFR Part 250]

Yes

Essential Element B: Integration of EEO into the agency's Strategic Mission This element requires that the agency's EEO programs are structured to maintain a workplace that is free from

discrimination and support the agency's strategic mission.2


B.1 - The reporting structure for the EEOprogram provides the principal EEO officialwith appropriate authority and resources toeffectively carry out a successful EEOprogram.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments




Measures

B.1.a Is the agency head the immediate supervisor of the person ("EEO Director") who has day-to-day control over the EEO office? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]

Yes The EEO Officer is under the direct supervision of the Deputy Commander;

however, has direct access to the Commander, who is the second-level

supervisor.

B.1.a.1 If the EEO Director does not report to the agency head, does the EEO Director report to the same agency head designee as the mission-related programmatic offices? If "yes," please provide the title of the agency head designee in the comments.

Yes

B.1.a.2 Does the agency's organizational chart clearly define the reporting structure for the EEO office? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(4)]

Yes

B.1.b Does the EEO Director have a regular and effective means of advising the agency head and other senior management officials of the effectiveness, efficiency and legal compliance of the agency's EEO program? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(1); MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

B.1.c During this reporting period, did the EEO Director present to the head of the agency, and other senior management officials, the "State of the agency" briefing covering the six essential elements of the model EEO program and the status of the barrier analysis process? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I)] If "yes", please provide the date of the briefing in the comments column.

Yes

B.1.d Does the EEO Director regularly participate in senior-level staff meetings concerning personnel, budget, technology, and other workforce issues? [see MD-715, II(B)]

Yes


Measures

B.2 - The EEO Director controls all aspects ofthe EEO program.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


B.2.a Is the EEO Director responsible for the implementation of a continuing affirmative employment program to promote EEO and to identify and eliminate discriminatory policies, procedures, and practices? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A); 29 CFR §1614.102(c)]

Yes

B.2.b Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the completion of EEO counseling [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(4)]

Yes

B.2.c Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the fair and thorough investigation of EEO complaints? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may

Yes



not be applicable for certain subordinate level components.]

B.2.d Is the EEO Director responsible for overseeing the timely issuing final agency decisions? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(5)] [This question may not beapplicable for certain subordinate level components.]

Yes HQ Army EEOCCR is responsible for overseeing the timely issuance of final agency decisions.

B.2.e Is the EEO Director responsible for ensuring compliance with EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR §§1614.102(e); 1614.502]

Yes

B.2.f Is the EEO Director responsible for periodically evaluating the entire EEO program and providing recommendations for improvement to the agency head? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

Yes

B.2.g If the agency has subordinate level components, does the EEO Director provide effective guidance and coordination for the components? [see 29 CFR §§ 1614.102(c)(2) and (c)(3)]

Yes No subordinate level components


Measures

B.3 - The EEO Director and other EEOprofessional staff are involved in, andconsulted on, management/personnel actions.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


B.3.a Do EEO program officials participate in agency meetings regarding workforce changes that might impact EEO issues, including strategic planning, recruitment strategies, vacancy projections, succession planning, and selections for training/career development opportunities? [see MD-715, II(B)]

Yes

B.3.b Does the agency's current strategic plan reference EEO / diversity and inclusion principles? [see MD-715, II(B)] If "yes", please identify the EEO principles in the strategic plan in the comments column.

Yes District Specific Initiative 4.2: To attract and retain quality candidates to accomplish our

LRN mission.


Measures

B.4 - The agency has sufficient budget andstaffing to support the success of its EEOprogram.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


B.4.a Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(1), has the agency allocated sufficient funding and qualified staffing to successfully implement the EEO program, for the following areas:



B.4.a.1 to conduct a self-assessment of the agency for possible program deficiencies? [see MD-715, II(D)]

Yes

B.4.a.2 to enable the agency to conduct a thorough barrier analysis of its workforce? [see MD-715, II(B)]

Yes

B.4.a.3 to timely, thoroughly, and fairly process EEO complaints, including EEO counseling, investigations, final agency decisions, and legal sufficiency reviews? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(c)(5) & 1614.105(b) - (f); MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D) & 5(IV); MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

B.4.a.4 to provide all supervisors and employees with training on the EEO program, including but not limited to retaliation, harassment, religious accommodations, disability accommodations, the EEO complaint process, and ADR? [see MD-715, II(B) and III(C)] If not, please identify the type(s) of training with insufficient funding in the comments column.

Yes

B.4.a.5 to conduct thorough, accurate, and effective field audits of the EEO programs in components and the field offices, if applicable? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

Yes

B.4.a.6 to publish and distribute EEO materials (e.g. harassment policies, EEO posters, reasonable accommodations procedures)? [see MD-715, II(B)]

Yes

B.4.a.7 to maintain accurate data collection and tracking systems for the following types of data: complaint tracking, workforce demographics, and applicant flow data? [see MD-715, II(E)]. If not, please identify the systems with insufficient funding in the comments section.

Yes

B.4.a.8 to effectively administer its special emphasis programs (such as, Federal Women's Program, Hispanic Employment Program, and People with Disabilities Program Manager)? [5 USC § 7201; 38 USC § 4214; 5 CFR § 720.204; 5 CFR § 213.3102(t) and (u); 5 CFR § 315.709]

Yes

B.4.a.9 to effectively manage its anti-harassment program? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1]

Yes

B.4.a.10 to effectively manage its reasonable accommodation program? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)(ii)]

Yes

B.4.a.11 to ensure timely and complete compliance with EEOC orders? [see MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

B.4.b Does the EEO office have a budget that is separate from other offices within the agency? [see 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(1)]

Yes



B.4.c Are the duties and responsibilities of EEO officials clearly defined? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(III)(A), 2(III), & 6(III)]

Yes

B.4.d Does the agency ensure that all new counselors and investigators, including contractors and collateral duty employees, receive the required 32 hours of training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(A) of MD-110?

Yes EEO Specialists serve as collateral-duty EEO Counselors as part of their position, and receive initial and refresher training for

counseling certification.

B.4.e Does the agency ensure that all experienced counselors and investigators, including contractors and collateral duty employees, receive the required 8 hours of annual refresher training, pursuant to Ch. 2(II)(C) of MD-110?

Yes


Measures

B.5 - The agency recruits, hires, develops, and retains supervisors and managers who have effective managerial, communications, and interpersonal skills.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


B.5.a Pursuant to 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5), have all managers and supervisors received training on their responsibilities under the following areas under the agency EEO program:

B.5.a.1 EEO Complaint Process? [see MD-715(II)(B)] Yes

B.5.a.2 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures? [see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(d)(3)]

Yes

B.5.a.3 Anti-Harassment Policy? [see MD-715(II)(B)] Yes

B.5.a.4 Supervisory, managerial, communication, and interpersonal skills in order to supervise most effectively in a workplace with diverse employees and avoid disputes arising from ineffective communications? [see MD-715, II(B)]

Yes

B.5.a.5 ADR, with emphasis on the federal government's interest in encouraging mutual resolution of disputes and the benefits associated with utilizing ADR? [see MD-715(II)(E)]

Yes


Measures

B.6 - The agency involves managers in the implementation of its EEO program.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


B.6.a Are senior managers involved in the implementation of Special Emphasis Programs? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes Senior managers serve on District’s SEP Committee, and not only permit, but

encourage employees to take part in District observances/brown bag training sessions.



B.6.b Do senior managers participate in the barrier analysis process? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes Managers are provided an opportunity to provide solutions for triggers that show an effect on the employment of minorities and

women.

B.6.c When barriers are identified, do senior managers assist in developing agency EEO action plans (Part I, Part J, or the Executive Summary)? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes Managers have ownership on action and provide input into correcting deficiencies.

B.6.d Do senior managers successfully implement EEO Action Plans and incorporate the EEO Action Plan Objectives into agency strategic plans? [29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(5)]

Yes

Essential Element C: Management and Program Accountability This element requires the agency head to hold all managers, supervisors, and EEO officials responsible for the

effective implementation of the agency's EEO Program and Plan.


Measures

C.1 - The agency conducts regular internalaudits of its component and field offices.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


C.1.a Does the agency regularly assess its component and field offices for possible EEO program deficiencies? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If "yes", please provide the schedule for conducting audits in the comments section.

Yes

C.1.b Does the agency regularly assess its component and field offices on their efforts to remove barriers from the workplace? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)] If "yes", please provide the schedule for conducting audits in the comments section.

Yes

C.1.c Do the component and field offices make reasonable efforts to comply with the recommendations of the field audit? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes


Measures

C.2 - The agency has established proceduresto prevent all forms of EEO discrimination.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


C.2.a Has the agency established comprehensive anti-harassment policy and procedures that comply with EEOC's enforcement guidance? [see MD-715, II(C); Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)]

Yes



C.2.a.1 Does the anti-harassment policy require corrective action to prevent or eliminate conduct before it rises to the level of unlawful harassment? [see EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.1]

Yes

C.2.a.2 Has the agency established a firewall between the Anti-Harassment Coordinator and the EEO Director? [see EEOC Report, Model EEO Program Must Have an Effective Anti-Harassment Program (2006]

Yes Nashville District’s Executive Officer is the Anti-Harassment Coordinator.

C.2.a.3 Does the agency have a separate procedure (outside the EEO complaint process) to address harassment allegations? [see Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (Enforcement Guidance), EEOC No. 915.002, § V.C.1 (June 18, 1999)]

Yes

C.2.a.4 Does the agency ensure that the EEO office informs the anti-harassment program of all EEO counseling activity alleging harassment? [see Enforcement Guidance, V.C.]

Yes

C.2.a.5 Does the agency conduct a prompt inquiry (beginning within 10 days of notification) of all harassment allegations, including those initially raised in the EEO complaint process? [see Complainant v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123232 (May 21, 2015); Complainant v. Dep't of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 0120130331 (May 29, 2015)] If "no", please provide the percentage of timely-processed inquiries in the comments column.

Yes

C.2.a.6 Do the agency's training materials on its anti-harassment policy include examples of disability-based harassment? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(2)]

Yes

C.2.b Has the agency established disability reasonable accommodation procedures that comply with EEOC's regulations and guidance? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)]

Yes Utilize AR 690-12.

C.2.b.1 Is there a designated agency official or other mechanism in place to coordinate or assist with processing requests for disability accommodations throughout the agency? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)(D)]

Yes

C.2.b.2 Has the agency established a firewall between the Reasonable Accommodation Program Manager and the EEO Director? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(A)]

Yes

C.2.b.3 Does the agency ensure that job applicants can request and receive reasonable accommodations during the application and placement processes? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(B)]

Yes



C.2.b.4 Do the reasonable accommodation procedures clearly state that the agency should process the request within a maximum amount of time (e.g., 20 business days), as established by the agency in its affirmative action plan? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(3)(i)(M)]

Yes

C.2.b.5 Does the agency process all accommodation requests within the time frame set forth in its reasonable accommodation procedures? [see MD-715, II(C)] If "no", please provide the percentage of timely-processed requests in the comments column.

Yes As directed by EEOC, when an agency is waiting for medical documentation, the time limit is frozen until medical documentation

is received.

C.2.c Has the agency established procedures for processing requests for personal assistance services that comply with EEOC's regulations, enforcement guidance, and other applicable executive orders, guidance, and standards? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(6)]

No Using PAS policy as directed by USACE HQ.

C.2.c.1 Does the agency post its procedures for processing requests for Personal Assistance Services on its public website? [see 29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(5)(v)] If "yes", please provide the internet address in the comments column.

Yes Online pamphlet explaining PAS.


Measures

C.3 - The agency evaluates managers andsupervisors on their efforts to ensure equalemployment opportunity.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


C.3.a Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(5), do all managers and supervisors have an element in their performance appraisal that evaluates their commitment to agency EEO policies and principles and their participation in the EEO program?

Yes

C.3.b Does the agency require rating officials to evaluate the performance of managers and supervisors based on the following activities:

C.3.b.1 Resolve EEO problems/disagreements/conflicts, including the participation in ADR proceedings? [see MD-110, Ch. 3.I]

Yes

C.3.b.2 Ensure full cooperation of employees under his/her supervision with EEO officials, such as counselors and investigators? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(6)]

Yes

C.3.b.3 Ensure a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, including harassment and retaliation? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.3.b.4 Ensure that subordinate supervisors have effective managerial, communication, and interpersonal skills

Yes



to supervise in a workplace with diverse employees? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

C.3.b.5 Provide religious accommodations when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(7)]

Yes Established an Accommodation room for religious as well as ADA accommodations.

C.3.b.6 Provide disability accommodations when such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship? [ see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(8)]

Yes

C.3.b.7 Support the EEO program in identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity. [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.3.b.8 Support the anti-harassment program in investigating and correcting harassing conduct. [see Enforcement Guidance, V.C.2]

Yes

C.3.b.9 Comply with settlement agreements and orders issued by the agency, EEOC, and EEO-related cases from the Merit Systems Protection Board, labor arbitrators, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.3.c Does the EEO Director recommend to the agency head improvements or corrections, including remedial or disciplinary actions, for managers and supervisors who have failed in their EEO responsibilities? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

Yes

C.3.d When the EEO Director recommends remedial or disciplinary actions, are the recommendations regularly implemented by the agency? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(c)(2)]

Yes


Measures

C.4 - The agency ensures effectivecoordination between its EEO programs andHuman Resources (HR) program.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


C.4.a Do the HR Director and the EEO Director meet regularly to assess whether personnel programs, policies, and procedures conform to EEOC laws, instructions, and management directives? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(2)]

Yes

C.4.b Has the agency established timetables/schedules to review at regular intervals its merit promotion program, employee recognition awards program, employee development/training programs, and management/personnel policies, procedures, and practices for systemic barriers that may be impeding full participation in the program by all EEO groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

C.4.c Does the EEO office have timely access to accurate and complete data (e.g., demographic data for

Yes



workforce, applicants, training programs, etc.) required to prepare the MD-715 workforce data tables? [see 29 CFR §1614.601(a)]

C.4.d Does the HR office timely provide the EEO office have timely access to other data (e.g., exit interview data, climate assessment surveys, and grievance data), upon request? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e Pursuant to Section II(C) of MD-715, does the EEO office collaborate with the HR office to:

C.4.e.1 Implement the Affirmative Action Plan for Individuals with Disabilities? [see 29 CFR §1614.203(d); MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.2 Develop and/or conduct outreach and recruiting initiatives? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.3 Develop and/or provide training for managers and employees? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.4 Identify and remove barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes

C.4.e.5 Assist in preparing the MD-715 report? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes Managers’ input is solicited.


Measures

C.5 - Following a finding of discrimination, theagency explores whether it should take adisciplinary action.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


C.5.a Does the agency have a disciplinary policy and/or table of penalties that covers discriminatory conduct? 29 CFR § 1614.102(a)(6); see also Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981)

Yes

C.5.b When appropriate, does the agency discipline or sanction managers and employees for discriminatory conduct? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(6)] If "yes", please state the numberof disciplined/sanctioned individuals during thisreporting period in the comments.

Yes

C.5.c If the agency has a finding of discrimination (or settles cases in which a finding was likely), does the agency inform managers and supervisors about the discriminatory conduct? [see MD-715, II(C)]

Yes No finding in FY19


C.6 - The EEO office advisesmanagers/supervisors on EEO matters.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments




Measures

C.6.a Does the EEO office provide management/supervisory officials with regular EEO updates on at least an annual basis, including EEO complaints, workforce demographics and data summaries, legal updates, barrier analysis plans, and special emphasis updates? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If "yes", please identify the frequency of the EEO updates in the comments column.

Yes

C.6.b Are EEO officials readily available to answer managers' and supervisors' questions or concerns? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

Essential Element D: Proactive Prevention This element requires that the agency head make early efforts to prevent discrimination and to identify and

eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity.


Measures

D.1 - The agency conducts a reasonableassessment to monitor progress towardsachieving equal employment opportunitythroughout the year.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


D.1.a Does the agency have a process for identifying triggers in the workplace? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

D.1.b Does the agency regularly use the following sources of information for trigger identification: workforce data; complaint/grievance data; exit surveys; employee climate surveys; focus groups; affinity groups; union; program evaluations; special emphasis programs; reasonable accommodation program; anti-harassment program; and/or external special interest groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes

D.1.c Does the agency conduct exit interviews or surveys that include questions on how the agency could improve the recruitment, hiring, inclusion, retention and advancement of individuals with disabilities? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(iii)(C)]

Yes


Measures

D.2 - The agency identifies areas wherebarriers may exclude EEO groups (reasonablebasis to act.)

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments




D.2.a Does the agency have a process for analyzing the identified triggers to find possible barriers? [see MD-715, (II)(B)]

Yes

D.2.b Does the agency regularly examine the impact of management/personnel policies, procedures, and practices by race, national origin, sex, and disability? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]

Yes

D.2.c Does the agency consider whether any group of employees or applicants might be negatively impacted prior to making human resource decisions, such as re-organizations and realignments? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]

Yes

D.2.d Does the agency regularly review the following sources of information to find barriers: complaint/grievance data, exit surveys, employee climate surveys, focus groups, affinity groups, union, program evaluations, anti-harassment program, special emphasis programs, reasonable accommodation program; anti-harassment program; and/or external special interest groups? [see MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I] If "yes", please identify the data sources in the comments column.

Yes


Measures

D.3 - The agency establishes appropriate action plans to remove identified barriers.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


D.3.a. Does the agency effectively tailor action plans to address the identified barriers, in particular policies, procedures, or practices? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(a)(3)]

Yes

D.3.b If the agency identified one or more barriers during the reporting period, did the agency implement a plan in Part I, including meeting the target dates for the planned activities? [see MD-715, II(D)]

Yes

D.3.c Does the agency periodically review the effectiveness of the plans? [see MD-715, II(D)]

Yes


Measures

D.4 - The agency has an affirmative action plan for people with disabilities, including those with targeted disabilities

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


D.4.a

Does the agency post its affirmative action plan on its public website? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(4)] Please provide the internet address in the comments.

No Nashville District MD715 is posted on the Nashville District share drive.



D.4.b

Does the agency take specific steps to ensure qualified people with disabilities are aware of and encouraged to apply for job vacancies? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(i)]

Yes

D.4.c

Does the agency ensure that disability-related questions from members of the public are answered promptly and correctly? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(1)(ii)(A)]

Yes

D.4.d

Has the agency taken specific steps that are reasonably designed to increase the number of persons with disabilities or targeted disabilities employed at the agency until it meets the goals? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(7)(ii)]

Yes Working with OWF Program and Hiring Heroes, Ft. Campbell, KY.

Essential Element E: Efficiency This element requires the agency head to ensure that there are effective systems for evaluating the impact and

effectiveness of the agency's EEO programs and an efficient and fair dispute resolution process.


Measures

E.1 - The agency maintains an efficient, fair,and impartial complaint resolution process.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


E.1.a Does the agency timely provide EEO counseling, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105?

Yes

E.1.b Does the agency provide written notification of rights and responsibilities in the EEO process during the initial counseling session, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.105(b)(1)?

Yes

E.1.c Does the agency issue acknowledgment letters immediately upon receipt of a formal complaint, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)?

Yes

E.1.d Does the agency issue acceptance letters/dismissal decisions within a reasonable time (e.g., 60 days) after receipt of the written EEO Counselor report, pursuant to MD-110, Ch. 5(I)? If so, please provide the average processing time in the comments.

Yes

E.1.e Does the agency ensure all employees fully cooperate with EEO counselors and EEO personnel in the EEO process, including granting routine access to personnel records related to an investigation, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(6)?

Yes

E.1.f Does the agency timely complete investigations, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108?

Yes District uses IRD for investigations.

E.1.g If the agency does not timely complete investigations, does the agency notify complainants of the date by which the investigation will be

Yes



completed and of their right to request a hearing or file a lawsuit, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.108(g)?

E.1.h When the complainant does not request a hearing, does the agency timely issue the final agency decision, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(b)?

Yes FADs are issued by Department of Army (DA) Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance and Complaints Review

(EEOCCR).

E.1.i Does the agency timely issue final actions following receipt of the hearing file and the administrative judge's decision, pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.110(a)?

Yes

E.1.j If the agency uses contractors to implement any stage of the EEO complaint process, does the agency hold them accountable for poor work product and/or delays? [See MD-110, Ch. 5(V)(A)] If "yes", please describe how in the comments column.

Yes

E.1.k If the agency uses employees to implement any stage of the EEO complaint process, does the agency hold them accountable for poor work product and/or delays during performance review? [See MD-110, Ch. 5(V)(A)]

Yes EEO Counselors are US Army Corps of Engineers EEO Specialists.

E.1.l Does the agency submit complaint files and other documents in the proper format to EEOC through the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP)? [See 29 CFR § 1614.403(g)]

Yes


Measures

E.2 - The agency has a neutral EEO process. Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


E.2.a Has the agency established a clear separation between its EEO complaint program and its defensive function? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

Yes

E.2.b When seeking legal sufficiency reviews, does the EEO office have access to sufficient legal resources separate from the agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)] If "yes", please identify the source/location of the attorney who conducts the legal sufficiency review in the comments column.

Yes For the Nashville District, District OC Chief coordinates with Louisville District OC Chief

for assignment of an attorney for legal sufficiency review.

E.2.c If the EEO office relies on the agency's defensive function to conduct the legal sufficiency review, is there a firewall between the reviewing attorney and the agency representative? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

Yes

E.2.d Does the agency ensure that its agency representative does not intrude upon EEO counseling, investigations, and final agency decisions? [see MD-110, Ch. 1(IV)(D)]

Yes



E.2.e If applicable, are processing time frames incorporated for the legal counsel's sufficiency review for timely processing of complaints? EEOC Report, Attaining a Model Agency Program: Efficiency (Dec. 1, 2004)

Yes


Measures

E.3 - The agency has established andencouraged the widespread use of a fairalternative dispute resolution (ADR) program.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


E.3.a Has the agency established an ADR program for use during both the pre-complaint and formal complaint stages of the EEO process? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(b)(2)]

Yes

E.3.b Does the agency require managers and supervisors to participate in ADR once it has been offered? [see MD-715, II(A)(1)]

Yes

E.3.c Does the agency encourage all employees to use ADR, where ADR is appropriate? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(IV)(C)]

Yes

E.3.d Does the agency ensure a management official with settlement authority is accessible during the dispute resolution process? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(III)(A)(9)]

Yes

E.3.e Does the agency prohibit the responsible management official named in the dispute from having settlement authority? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(I)]

Yes

E.3.f Does the agency annually evaluate the effectiveness of its ADR program? [see MD-110, Ch. 3(II)(D)]

Yes


Measures

E.4 - The agency has effective and accuratedata collection systems in place to evaluate its EEO program.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


E.4.a Does the agency have systems in place to accurately collect, monitor, and analyze the following data:

E.4.a.1 Complaint activity, including the issues and bases of the complaints, the aggrieved individuals/complainants, and the involved management official? [see MD-715, II(E)]

Yes



E.4.a.2 The race, national origin, sex, and disability status of agency employees? [see 29 CFR §1614.601(a)]

Yes

E.4.a.3 Recruitment activities? [see MD-715, II(E)] Yes

E.4.a.4 External and internal applicant flow data concerning the applicants' race, national origin, sex, and disability status? [see MD-715, II(E)]

No No applicant flow data provided by HQ.

E.4.a.5 The processing of requests for reasonable accommodation? [29 CFR § 1614.203(d)(4)]

Yes

E.4.a.6 The processing of complaints for the anti-harassment program? [see EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999), § V.C.2]

Yes

E.4.b Does the agency have a system in place to re-survey the workforce on a regular basis? [MD-715 Instructions, Sec. I]

Yes


Measures

E.5 - The agency identifies and disseminatessignificant trends and best practices in its EEOprogram.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments


E.5.a Does the agency monitor trends in its EEO program to determine whether the agency is meeting its obligations under the statutes EEOC enforces? [see MD-715, II(E)] If "yes", provide an example in thecomments.

Yes EEO Officer attends monthly PMRC meetings, and is updated monthly on District workforce numbers to include

review of losses and gains.

E.5.b Does the agency review other agencies' best practices and adopt them, where appropriate, to improve the effectiveness of its EEO program? [see MD-715, II(E)] If "yes", provide an example in thecomments.

Yes

E.5.c Does the agency compare its performance in the EEO process to other federal agencies of similar size? [see MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

Essential Element F: Responsiveness and Legal Compliance This element requires federal agencies to comply with EEO statutes and EEOC regulations, policy guidance, and other

written instructions.


Measures

F.1 - The agency has processes in place toensure timely and full compliance with EEOCOrders and settlement agreements.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments




F.1.a Does the agency have a system of management controls to ensure that its officials timely comply with EEOC orders/directives and final agency actions? [see 29 CFR §1614.102(e); MD-715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.b Does the agency have a system of management controls to ensure the timely, accurate, and complete compliance with resolutions/settlement agreements? [see MD-715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.c Are there procedures in place to ensure the timely and predictable processing of ordered monetary relief? [see MD-715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.d Are procedures in place to process other forms of ordered relief promptly? [see MD-715, II(F)]

Yes

F.1.e When EEOC issues an order requiring compliance by the agency, does the agency hold its compliance officer(s) accountable for poor work product and/or delays during performance review? [see MD-110, Ch. 9(IX)(H)]

Yes


Measures

F.2 - The agency complies with the law,including EEOC regulations, managementdirectives, orders, and other writteninstructions.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No

Comments


F.2.a Does the agency timely respond and fully comply with EEOC orders? [see 29 CFR §1614.502; MD-715, II(E)]

Yes

F.2.a.1 When a complainant requests a hearing, does the agency timely forward the investigative file to the appropriate EEOC hearing office? [see 29 CFR §1614.108(g)]

Yes

F.2.a.2 When there is a finding of discrimination that is not the subject of an appeal by the agency, does the agency ensure timely compliance with the orders of relief? [see 29 CFR §1614.501]

Yes

F.2.a.3 When a complainant files an appeal, does the agency timely forward the investigative file to EEOC's Office of Federal Operations? [see 29 CFR §1614.403(e)]

Yes

F.2.a.4 Pursuant to 29 CFR §1614.502, does the agency promptly provide EEOC with the required documentation for completing compliance?

Yes


F.3 - The agency reports to EEOC its programefforts and accomplishments.

Measure Met?

(Yes/No)

Comments




Measures

F.3.a Does the agency timely submit to EEOC an accurate and complete No FEAR Act report? [Public Law 107-174 (May 15, 2002), §203(a)]

Yes The responsibility rests with HQ Army EEOCCR.

F.3.b Does the agency timely post on its public webpage its quarterly No FEAR Act data? [see 29 CFR §1614.703(d)]

Yes New requirement for commands to timely post quarterly No FEAR Act data on its public webpage.



715 - PART H EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program

Statement of Model Program Essential Element Deficiency

Type of Program Deficiency Brief Description of Program Deficiency

Has the agency established procedures for processing requests for personal assistance services that comply with EEOC's regulations, enforcement guidance, and other applicable executive orders, guidance, and standards? [see 29 CFR 1614.203(d)(6)]

No separate guidelines have been written to establish procedures for processing requests for personal assistance services. The District uses LRD RA policy for all reasonable accommodation requests. We do have a PAS brochure on our Nashville District Intranet site for District employees to view. Pending guidance from HQ CEDL.

Objective(s) and Dates for EEO Plan

Date Initiated (mm/dd/yyyy) Objective Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)Modified Date (mm/dd/yyyy)

Date Completed

(mm/dd/yyyy)

12/01/2019 To develop a written PAS/RA policy if authorized by LRD. 09/30/2020

Responsible Official(s)

Title Name Performance Standards Address the Plan? (Yes or No)

DWP David Claussen No

Planned Activities Toward Completion of Objective

Target Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities

Sufficient Funding & Staffing?

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

9/31/2020 Coordinate with HQ CEDL on PAS/RA Policy if District policy is required.

Yes



Target Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities


(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

10/29/2019 Brief supervisors, managers, and employees on PAS/RA Policy during scheduled brown bags sessions.

Yes

715 - PART H EEO Plan To Attain the Essential Elements of a Model EEO Program

Report of Accomplishments

Fiscal Year Accomplishments

FY 20 On 10/29/2019 conducted brown bag on AR 690-12 RA policy to include PAS.

715 - Part I EEO Plan To Eliminate Identified Barrier

Statement of Condition That Was a Trigger for a Potential Barrier:

Source of the Trigger Specific Workforce Data Table

Narrative Description of Trigger

Less than expected representation: Nashville District continues to have less than expected representation of Hispanic males/females.

Table A1, A3, A6

As in the past several years, this trigger was identified by analyzing the MD715 workforce tables: Table A1 shows less than expected representation of Hispanic males/females in the overall District workforce in comparison with the Civilian Labor Force 2010 (CLF). Hispanics represent 1.8% of the District total workforce compared to the 10.0% in the CLF. A review of Table A3 data indicates that Hispanic (males/females) were significantly underrepresented in all Occupational Categories: Official and Managers, Professionals, Technicians, and Administrative Support Workers. There were no Hispanic males and three Hispanic females in the Officials and Managers occupation. There were no Hispanic representation in the Operative occupations. A review of Table A6 data on Hispanics indicate low participation rates in all of our major occupations; Biologist (Ranger), Civil Engineer, Engineering Technical, Lock & Dam Operator, Power Plant Operator, and Lock & Dam Repair.



EEO Group(s) Affected by Trigger (Check)

All Men All Women

X Hispanic or Latino Males X Hispanic or Latino Females

White Males White Females

Black or African American Males Black or African American Females

Asian Males Asian Females

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females

American Indian or Alaska Native Males American Indian or Alaska Native Females

Two or More Races Males Two or More Races Females

Barrier Analysis Process

Sources of Data

Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No)

Identify Information Collected

Workforce Data Tables Yes A1, A3, A6 two standard deviations under National CLF

Complaint Data (Trends) No

Grievance Data (Trends) No

Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment Processes) No

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., FEVS) No

Exit Interview Data No

Focus Groups No



Sources of Data

Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No)


Interviews No

Reports (e.g., Congress, EEOC, MSPB, GAO, OPM) No

Other (Please Describe) No

Status of Barrier Analysis Process

Barrier Analysis Process Completed?

(Yes or No)

Barrier(s) Identified?

(Yes or No)

Yes Yes

Statement of Identified Barrier(s)

Description of Policy, Procedure, or Practice

Selections for Officials and Management Occupations have tended toward local candidates in recent years while utilizing Pathways, relying on relatively small minority group labor pool.

In September 2019, a meeting was conducted with Engineering & Construction Division managers to discuss possible recruiting practices to increase Hispanic demographics.


Objective Date Initiated (mm/dd/yyyy)

Target Date (mm/dd/yyyy)


(Yes or No)

Modified Date (mm/dd/yyyy)

Date Completed (mm/dd/yyyy)

To conduct targeted outreach to attract Hispanic applicants for all occupational categories. To create

10/01/2019 09/30/2020

Yes






(Yes or No)



a diverse, high performing workforce that reflects the communities we serve by identifying and eliminating barriers.


Title Name

Performance Standards Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Hiring Managers, Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC) representatives, Nashville District’s Recruitment Outreach Coordination Team.?? TBD Yes


Target Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Planned Activities Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy) Completion Date (mm/dd/yyyy)

09/30/2020

Utilize the District’s Hispanic employees as members of outreach teams to increase Hispanic awareness of the Corps’ mission, and provide information about employment opportunities. Attend the Hispanic Engineer National Achievement Award Conference (HENAAC), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), National Guard and Reserve Units. Market the use of a variety of available student hiring.

09/30/2020 Management officials from Engineering- Construction Division will be implementing recruiting efforts to University of Puerto Rico in 2020.







2018

During FY19, our District’s Recruitment Outreach Coordination Team attended various college career fairs. Utilizing Pathways Internship Programs to increase the number of Hispanic students applying for internships at USACE; particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) positions. Furthermore, the Special Emphasis Committee was briefed on the MD715 and have implemented an action plan to increase Hispanic demographics.





Less than expected representation: Nashville District continues to have less than expected representation of Women. Particularly White women and to a lesser degree Black women, were significantly underrepresented in overall wage grades (WG), including WB-00.

Table A1, A3, A6

This trigger was identified by analyzing the MD 715 workforce tables downloaded by HQ ACPERS. Table A1 shows less than expected representation of women in the overall District workforce in comparison with the 2010 Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Women represented 22.9% of the District total workforce compared to 48.2% in the CLF. A review of Table A3 showed women remained significantly underrepresented in wage grades. In the Operative occupations, District workforce women representation is 1.4% compared to the CLF of 29.7%. In craft occupations, District workforce women representation is 2.9% compared to the CLF of 4.50%. A review of Table A6 showed low participation rates in some of our major occupations such as: Biologist (Ranger); and Lock & Dam Operator.




All Men X All Women

Hispanic or Latino Males Hispanic or Latino Females


Black or African American Males Black or African American Females


Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females




Sources of Data

Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No)


Workforce Data Tables Yes

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes


Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment Processes) No No findings from decisions

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., FEVS) Yes

Exit Interview Data Yes

Focus Groups No

Interviews Yes



Sources of Data

Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No)



Other (Please Describe) No Not Applicable



(Yes or No)


(Yes or No)

Yes Yes



Though the wage grade occupations in the District have always been predominantly occupied by men, there are also employment conditions associated with most WG jobs that possibly deter women from applying: 90% overnight travel, 10-hour work days, rotating shifts, and the requirement for mobility agreements. However, as these conditions are necessary for efficient District operations, the activities below will be implemented in an attempt to increase female interest in WG jobs.







(Yes or No)



To conduct targeted outreach to attract women applicants for wage grade occupations

10/01/2019 09/30/2020

Yes


Title Name Performance Standards Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Chief, Operations Diane Parks Yes




10-01-2019

Utilize women wage grade employees as members of outreach teams to increase women's awareness of the Corps mission, and provide information about employment opportunities at hydropower plants, mobile repair crews, and navigation locks. The District will also continue to utilize the Recruitment Outreach Coordination Team to promote the Corps through participation at various college career fairs each fall and spring.

09/30/2020





2019

During FY19, the District’s Recruitment Outreach Coordination Team either attended or solicited attendance for various college career fairs throughout our area of responsibility (Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama). We also utilized Pathways Internship Programs to increase the number of female students applying for internships at USACE; particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) positions. Additionally, representatives of the District to include our female Operations Project Manager, attended the Hiring Heroes Career Fair at Ft. Campbell. The District’s re-established Special Emphasis Programs Committee is taking more active role in increasing demographics through targeted briefings and implementation of an action plan to address needs underrepresentation of this group.





Less than expected representation: Nashville District continues to have less than expected representation of Black (African American) male and female, which were significantly underrepresented in total workforce and wage grade occupations.

Table A1, A3, A6

This trigger was identified by analyzing the MD 715 workforce tables downloaded by HQ ACPERS. Table A1 shows less than expected representation of African Americans. African American males were 2 standard deviations below their respective representation in the CLF, and African American females were 4 standard deviations. A review of Table A3 showed African American males and females remained significantly underrepresented in wage grades. Within the Professional occupational categories, African American females were 2 standard deviations below their respective representation in the CLF. In the Operative occupations, District workforce African American representation is 4.3% compared to the CLF of 15.0%. In craft occupations, District workforce African American representation is 1.2% compared to the CLF of 7.2%. A review of Table A6 indicated low participation rates in some of our major occupations such as; Lock & Dam Operator, Power Plant Operators, Lock & Dam Repairers, and Engineering Technicians.




All Men All Women

Hispanic or Latino Males Hispanic or Latino Females


X Black or African American Males X Black or African American Females


Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Males Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Females




Sources of Data

Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No)


Workforce Data Tables Yes

Complaint Data (Trends) Yes


Findings from Decisions (e.g., EEO, Grievance, MSPB, Anti-Harassment Processes) No No findings from decisions

Climate Assessment Survey (e.g., FEVS) Yes

Exit Interview Data Yes

Focus Groups No

Interviews Yes



Sources of Data

Source Reviewed?

(Yes or No)



Other (Please Describe) No Not Applicable



(Yes or No)


(Yes or No)

Yes Yes



Through normal retirements, reassignments, and several non-Corps job opportunities, the District is losing black (African American) males and females at a disproportionate rate to their onboarding. Vacancies as a result of the losses are not being filled in a way that would compensate for the impact on this level of diversity in the District. Ineffective recruitment strategies and hiring practices continue to contribute to a less than expected rate.





(Yes or No)



To conduct targeted outreach to attract African American

10/01/2019 09/30/2020 Yes






(Yes or No)



applicants by attending career fairs and recruiting events at more HBCU’s.


Title Name Performance Standards Address the Plan?

(Yes or No)

Recruitment Coordination Outreach Team




10-01-2019

Utilize African American employees as members of outreach teams to increase awareness of the Corps mission, and provide information about employment opportunities at hydropower plants, mobile repair crews, and navigation locks. The District will also continue use of our Recruitment Outreach Coordination Team to promote the Corps through participation at various college career fairs each fall and spring, to include more identified HBCUs. Also, focus on utilizing direct hiring authorities while pushing recruiting efforts to our local HBCUs.

09/30/2020





2019

During FY19, the District’s Recruitment Outreach Coordination Team attended various colleges, and career fairs. Utilizing Pathways Internship Programs to increase the number of African American students applying for internships at USACE; particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) positions. Furthermore, our District attended Hiring Heroes Career Fair at Ft. Campbell. With the stand-up of the District’s Special Emphasis Committee, were briefed on African American demographics and are implementing an action plan to increase demographics.

715 - Part J Special Program Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and

Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To capture agencies' affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and Management Directive (MD) 715 require agencies to describe how their plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with disabilities. All agencies, regardless of size, must complete this Part of the MD 715 report.

Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals

EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7)) require agencies to establish specific numerical goals for increasing the participation of persons with reportable and targeted disabilities in the federal government.

1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD by gradelevel cluster in the permanent workforce? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Yes X No b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes X No

Low Participation on People with Disabilities: Nashville District continues to have less than expected representation of people with Disabilities, currently 8.3% (65/776). The District has not reached the Federal goal of 12% of hiring people with Disabilities. With that said, 3.6% (28/776) wish not to identify their disability or health condition.

2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD by gradelevel cluster in the permanent workforce? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) Yes X No b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes X No

Low Participation on Targeted Disabilities: Nashville District continues to have less than expected representation of people with Targeted Disabilities (.78%). The District has not reached the Federal goal of 2% of hiring people with Targeted Disabilities.



3. Describe how the agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers and/or recruiters.

In FY19, our CPAC representatives briefed supervisors on schedule A hiring procedures while they attended our Supervisory Training Sessions. Furthermore, on 29 October 2019, the District’s Individuals with Disabilities Program Manager conducted a brown bag session on the Reasonable Accommodation Policy, AR 690-12.

Section II: Model Disability Program

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(d)(1), agencies must ensure sufficient staff, training and resources to recruit and hire persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, administer the reasonable accommodation program and special emphasis program, and oversee any other disability hiring and advancement program the agency has in place. A. Plan to Provide Sufficient and Competent Staffing for the Disability Program. 1. Has the agency designated sufficient qualified personnel to implement its disability program during the reporting period? If "no", describe the agency's plan to improve the staffing for the upcoming year. Yes X No

2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the agency's disability employment program by the office, staff employment status, and responsible official.

Disability Program Task

# of FTE Staff by Employment Status Responsible Official

(Name, Title, Office, Email) Full

Time Part Time

Collateral Duty

Processing applications from PWD and PWTD

Yes David Claussen, EEO Specialist/IWDP Manager



Disability Program Task

# of FTE Staff by Employment Status Responsible Official

(Name, Title, Office, Email) Full

Time Part Time

Collateral Duty

Answering questions from the public about hiring authorities that take disability into account


Processing reasonable accommodation requests from applicants and employees


Section 508 Compliance Yes Mark Abernathy, ACE-IT

Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Compliance


Special Emphasis Program for PWD and PWTD


3. Has the agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out theirresponsibilities during the reporting period? If "yes", describe the training that disability program staffhave received. If "no", describe the training planned for the upcoming year.

Yes x No

IWDP, David Claussen, has attended DEOMI’s DPM class. Additionally, he receives annual refresher training in EEO-related areas to stay abreast of changes to help more effectively accomplish duties of the position.

B. Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program.

Has the agency provided sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement the disability program during the reporting period? If "no", describe the agency's plan to ensure all aspects of the disability program have sufficient funding and other resources.

Yes X No

Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities



Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(1)(i) and (ii), agencies must establish a plan to increase the recruitment and hiring of individuals with disabilities. The questions below are designed to identify outcomes of the agency's recruitment program plan for PWD and PWTD.

A. Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities.

1. Describe the programs and resources the agency uses to identify job applicants with disabilities,including individuals with targeted disabilities.

In order to reach the overall Federal Goal, our District will continue conducting training sessions on disability awareness that encompass disability employment and reasonable accommodation procedures for all employees and supervisors. District Managers will be working, along with CPAC personnel, in contacting surrounding schools and initiating several workforce strategies to include; Operation Warfighter and Hiring Heroes. We will also continue to work directly with the VA Employment Representative, Nashville Area Office, sending them the District’s job announcements as soon as they are posted by HR personnel. Through research, we’ve found that many of our 10%-30% compensated veterans have not self-identified themselves has having a disability. As we’ve done in the past FY’s, we will continue to provide instruction on how to change personal information in MyBiz.

2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a) (3), describe the agency's use of hiring authorities that takedisability into account (e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in the permanentworkforce.

3. When individuals apply for a position under a hiring authority that takes disability into account (e.g.,Schedule A), explain how the agency (1) determines if the individual is eligible for appointment undersuch authority and (2) forwards the individual's application to the relevant hiring officials with anexplanation of how and when the individual may be appointed.

CPAC authorizes/determines if an applicant is qualified who is eligible for appointment under schedule A authority.

4. Has the agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities that takedisability into account (e.g., Schedule A)? If "yes", describe the type(s) of training and frequency. If "no",describe the agency's plan to provide this training.

Yes X No

As in the previous fiscal year, CPAC presented Schedule A Hiring Authority training to Nashville District supervisory personnel during their annual district-wide supervisory training.

B. Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations



Describe the agency's efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist PWD, including PWTD, in securing and maintaining employment.

Contacts will be made by phone or via email.

C. Progression Towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring)

1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for PWDand/or PWTD among the new hires in the permanent workforce? If "yes", please describe the triggersbelow.

a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Yes X No b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Yes X No

12.5% (13/104) of the new hires have a disability and no new hires have a Targeted Disability.

2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD amongthe new hires for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If "yes", please describe the triggersbelow.

a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) Yes No b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Yes No

FY19 Applicant Flow data not provided by DA/ODL.

3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD amongthe qualified internal applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If "yes", pleasedescribe the triggers below.

a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) Yes No b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes No


4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD amongemployees promoted to any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If "yes", please describe thetriggers below.

a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) Yes No b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes No


Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities



Pursuant to 29 C.F.R §1614.203(d) (1) (iii), agencies are required to provide sufficient advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities. Such activities might include specialized training and mentoring programs, career development opportunities, awards programs, promotions, and similar programs that address advancement. In this section, agencies should identify, and provide data on programs designed to ensure advancement opportunities for employees with disabilities.

A. Advancement Program Plan

Describe the agency's plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for advancement.

This will be done through the implementation of our mentoring program, LDP, and developmental assignments when offered.

B. Career Development Opportunities

1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the agency provides to its employees.

In addition to the lottery for participation in our long-established leadership development programs, the District recently implemented its mentoring program. Additionally, opportunities are provided throughout the year, in various disciplines, for employees to participate in developmental assignments through the competitive process or otherwise. The Special Emphasis Program Committee provides brown bag sessions on topics designed to improve skills necessary for career advancement.

2. In the table below, please provide the data for career development opportunities that requirecompetition and/or supervisory recommendation/approval to participate. [Collection begins with the FY2018 MD 715 report, which is due on February 28, 2019.]

Career Development Opportunities

Total Participants PWD PWTD

Applicants (#)

Selectees (#)

Applicants (%)

Selectees (%)

Applicants (%)

Selectees (%)

Internship Programs

N/A. Information was not captured by CPAC personnel.

Fellowship Programs

Mentoring Programs

Formal Mentoring Program developed in FY19 preceded by pilot program in FY18. There are currently



16 participants and 16 mentors in this program.

Coaching Programs

Training Programs

Natural Resources Park Ranger Training Program. This is a formal two year program which begins upon assignment to a GS-05 entry level Park Ranger position, with promotion potential to a GS-09 journeyman level position. The program consists of on the job training, formal classroom training and successful completion of a 31-moduleranger trainingmanual. Therewere sevenparticipants inthis program inFY19.

Detail Programs

Other Career Development Programs

Leadership Development Program (LDP 1) Thisprogramdevelopsinterpersonal,communicationand leadershipskills whilelearning moreabout the



various District functions. There were 16 participants in this program in FY19

3. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career developmentprograms? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and theapplicant pool for selectees.) If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWD) Yes No b. Selections (PWD) Yes No


4. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career developmentprograms identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for applicants and theapplicant pool for selectees.) If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Applicants (PWTD) Yes No b. Selections (PWTD) Yes No


C. Awards

1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD and/orPWTD for any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If "yes", please describe thetrigger(s) in the text box.

a. Awards, Bonuses, and Incentives (PWD) Yes X No b. Awards, Bonuses, and Incentives (PWTD Yes X No

According to Bobi reports, those PWD that received awards were 5.0% compared to the inclusion rate of 12%; and 0% PWTD compared to the inclusion rate of 2%.

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWD and/orPWTD for quality step increases or performance-based pay increases? If "yes", please describe thetrigger(s) in the text box.

a. Pay Increases (PWD) Yes x No b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes x No

According to table B10, 8.5% (9/106) received pay increases compared to the inclusion rate of 12% for PWD. For PWTD, it was 1.9% (2/106) compared to the inclusion rate of 2%,



3. If the agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are PWD and/or PWTD recognizeddisproportionately less than employees without disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is the inclusionrate.) If "yes", describe the employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box.

a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) Yes X No b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes X No

There were 27 QSI’s awarded -- only 7.4% (2/27) of those employees awarded have a disability.

D. Promotions

1. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/orselectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevantapplicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GSpay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the textbox.

a. SES i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No

b. Grade GS-15 i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No

c. Grade GS-14 i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No

d. Grade GS-13 i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No


2. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/orselectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevantapplicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GSpay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the textbox.

a. SES i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No

b. Grade GS-15 i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No

c. Grade GS-14 i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No

d. Grade GS-13 i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No

FY 19 Applicant Flow data not provided by DA/ODL.

3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWDamong the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximatesenior grade levels. If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWD) Yes No



b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) Yes No c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) Yes No d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes No


4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTDamong the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximatesenior grade levels. If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) Yes No b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) Yes No c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) Yes No d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes No


5. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/orselectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevantapplicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If "yes",describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Executives i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No

b. Managers i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No

c. Supervisors i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWD) Yes No


6. Does your agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/orselectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevantapplicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If "yes",describe the trigger(s) in the text box.

a. Executives i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No

b. Managers i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No

c. Supervisors i. Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Yes No ii. Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes No


7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWDamong the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the textbox.



a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) Yes No b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) Yes No c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Yes No


8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your agency have a trigger involving PWTDamong the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If "yes", describe the trigger(s) in the textbox.

a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) Yes No b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) Yes No c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes No


Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities

To be a model employer for persons with disabilities, agencies must have policies and programs in place to retain employees with disabilities. In this section, agencies should: (1) analyze workforce separation data to identify barriers retaining employees with disabilities; (2) describe efforts to ensure accessibility of technology and facilities; and (3) provide information on the reasonable accommodation program and workplace personal assistance services. A. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations

1. In this reporting period, did the agency convert all eligible Schedule A employees with a disability intothe competitive service after two years of satisfactory service (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)(6)(i))? If "no",please explain why the agency did not convert all eligible Schedule A employees.

Yes No X

2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among voluntary andinvoluntary separations exceed that of persons without disabilities? If "yes", describe the trigger below.

a. Voluntary Separations (PWD Yes X No b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes No X

20.9% (17/81) of those separated in FY19 were disabled (PWD).

3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary andinvoluntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If "yes", describe thetrigger below.



a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD Yes No X b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes No X

0% separated within PWTD.

4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, please explain why they left theagency using exit interview results and other data sources.

N/A

B. Accessibility of Technology and Facilities

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(4), federal agencies are required to inform applicants and employees of their rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794(b), concerning the accessibility of agency technology, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 4151-4157), concerning the accessibility of agency facilities. In addition, agencies are required to inform individuals where to file complaints if other agencies are responsible for a violation.

1. Please provide the internet address on the agency's public website for its notice explainingemployees' and applicants' rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a description ofhow to file a complaint.

https://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/Careers/EEO/ https://www.usace.army.mil/Accessibility.aspx

2. Please provide the internet address on the agency's public website for its notice explainingemployees' and applicants' rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of how tofile a complaint.

https://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/Careers/EEO/ https://www.usace.army.mil/Careers/EEO/Special-Emphasis-Programs/

3. Describe any programs, policies, or practices that the agency has undertaken, or plans onundertaking over the next fiscal year, designed to improve accessibility of agency facilities and/ortechnology.

IWDP Manager conducts field site ADA inspections to include recreational areas, campgrounds, leased marinas, etc.

C. Reasonable Accommodation Program

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), agencies must adopt, post on their public website, and make available to all job applicants and employees, reasonable accommodation procedures.

1. Please provide the average time frame for processing initial requests for reasonable accommodationsduring the reporting period. (Please do not include previously approved requests with repetitiveaccommodations, such as interpreting services.)

https://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/Careers/EEO/

https://www.usace.army.mil/Accessibility.aspx

https://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/Careers/EEO/

https://www.usace.army.mil/Careers/EEO/Special-Emphasis-Programs/

https://www.usace.army.mil/Careers/EEO/Special-Emphasis-Programs/



9 days average processing time for FY19.

2. Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the agency'sreasonable accommodation program. Some examples of an effective program include timely processingrequests, timely providing approved accommodations, conducting training for managers and supervisors,and monitoring accommodation requests for trends.

The District incorporates the Reasonable Accommodation Policy in our EEO/Anti-Harassment/No FEAR training for non-supervisors and supervisors, received this fiscal year by 100% of the District’s employees.

D. Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the WorkplacePursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action, are requiredto provide personal assistance services (PAS) to employees who need them because of a targeteddisability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the agency.

Describe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the PAS requirement. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests for PAS, timely providing approved services, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and monitoring PAS requests for trends.

The Nashville District has no set SOP on PAS. The District is currently awaiting Great Lakes & Ohio River Division’s (LRD) PAS instruction.

Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data

A. EEO Complaint data involving Harassment

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint allegingharassment, as compared to the government-wide average?

Yes No X

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status result ina finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes No X

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disabilitystatus during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the agency.

N/A



B. EEO Complaint Data involving Reasonable Accommodation

1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging failureto provide a reasonable accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average?

Yes No X

2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodationresult in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement?

Yes No X

3. If the agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonableaccommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the agency.

N/A

Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers

Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests that a policy, procedure, or practice may be impeding the employment opportunities of a protected EEO group.

1. Has the agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect employmentopportunities for PWD and/or PWTD?

Yes X No

2. Has the agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD and/or PWTD?

Yes X No

3. Identify each trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s),objective(s), responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, accomplishments.

Trigger 1 Low Participation on Targeted Disabilities: Nashville District continues to have less than expected representation of people with Targeted Disabilities (.78%). Nashville District has not reached the Federal 2% goal of hiring people with Targeted Disabilities.

Barrier(s) This trigger was identified by analyzing the MD 715 workforce tables downloaded by HQ ACPERS. Table B1 shows less than expected representation of people with Targeted Disabilities the overall District workforce (0.78%), which is an increase from FY18 (0.39%).

Objective(s) To conduct targeted outreach to attract people with targeted disabilities. Fully utilizing OWF, Hiring Heroes programs, and having managers focus on schedule A hiring authorities.



Responsible Official(s) Performance Standards Address the Plan?

Hiring Managers, Disability Program Manager, CPAC Representative, District Outreach Coordination Team

EEO performance standards are within managements objectives.

Target Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Planned Activities Sufficient Staffing & Funding

(Yes or No)

Modified Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Completion Date

(mm/dd/yyyy)

10/01/2019 Maintain District’s relationship with OWF POC from Ft. Campbell. Continue to conduct brown bag sessions on the District’s reasonable accommodation policy.

Yes

10/01/2019 Have CPAC personnel brief manager/supervisors on schedule A hiring at the District’s Annual Supervisory Training sessions.

Yes


4. Please explain the factor(s) that prevented the agency from timely completing any of the plannedactivities.



N/A

5. For the planned activities that were completed, please describe the actual impact of those activitiestoward eliminating the barrier(s).

District-wide email initiated by the Commander requesting each review their Disability Identification and ERI codes and change them if needed. Also, our CPAC representatives briefed supervisors on schedule A hiring procedures while they attended our Supervisory Training Seminar. On 29 October 2019, Disability Program Manager conducted a brown bag luncheon on the Reasonable Accommodation Program, process, and policy. As a result of this training, supervisors increased their overall knowledge of the Reasonable Accommodation policy and processes.

6. If the planned activities did not correct the trigger(s) and/or barrier(s), please describe how theagency intends to improve the plan for the next fiscal year.



Appendix A Definitions

The following definitions apply to Management Directive 715:

• Applicant: A person who applies for employment.

• Applicant Flow Data: Information reflecting characteristics of the pool of individualsapplying for an employment opportunity.

• Barrier: An agency policy, principle, practice or condition that limits or tends to limitemployment opportunities for members of a particular gender, race or ethnic background orfor an individual (or individuals) based on disability status.

• Disability: For the purpose of statistics, recruitment, and targeted goals, the number ofemployees in the workforce who have indicated having a disability on an Office of PersonnelManagement Standard Form (SF) 256. For all other purposes, the definition contained in 29C.F.R. § 1630.2 applies.

• Civilian Labor Force (CLF): Persons 16 years of age and over, except those in the armedforces, who are employed or are unemployed and seeking work.

• EEO Groups: Members of groups protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and otherFederal guidelines. Includes: White Men, White Women, Black Men, Black Women, HispanicMen, Hispanic Women, Asian Men, Asian Women, Native American Men, Native AmericanWomen, and Persons with Disabilities.

• Employees: Members of the agency's permanent or temporary work force, whether full orpart-time and whether in competitive or excepted service positions.

• Employment Decision: Any decision affecting the terms and conditions of an individual'semployment, including but not limited to hiring, promotion, demotion, disciplinary actionand termination.

• Feeder Group or Pool: Occupational group(s) from which selections to a particular job aretypically made.

• Federal Categories (Fed9): For the first time EEOC is requiring agencies to report theirworkforce data by aggregating it into nine employment categories. These categories aremore consistent with those EEOC uses in private sector enforcement and will permit betteranalysis of trends in the federal workplace than previous categories used. The Commissionhas created a Census/OPM Occupation Cross-Classification Table by OPM Occupational Code(crosswalk) which assists agencies in determining the category in which to place a positionthrough use of the position's OPM or SOC codes or the OPM or Census Occupation Title. Thecrosswalk may be accessed at the Commission's website:http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/715instruct/00-09opmcode.html. This crosswalk is intended asgeneral guidance in cross-classifying OPM occupational codes to the EEO nine categories.Agencies are encouraged to contact EEOC with specific questions about what category mightbe appropriate for their particular occupations.

• The nine job category titles are:



- Officials and Managers - Occupations requiring administrative and managerialpersonnel who set broad policies, exercise overall responsibility for execution of thesepolicies, and direct individual offices, programs, divisions or other units or special phasesof an agency's operations. In the federal sector, this category is further broken out intofour sub-categories: (1) Executive/Senior-Level, (2) Mid-Level, (3) First-Level and(4) Other. When an employee is classified as a supervisor or manager, that employeeshould be placed in the Officials and Managers category rather than in the category inthe crosswalk that they would otherwise be placed in based on their OPM occupationalcode. Those employees classified as supervisors or managers who are at the GS-12 levelor below should be placed in the First-Level sub-category of Officials and Managers,those at the GS-13 or 14 should be in the Mid-Level sub-category, and those at GS-15or in the SES should be in the Executive/Senior-Level sub-category. An agency mayalso choose to place employees who have significant policy-making responsibilities, butdo not supervise other employees, in these three sub-categories. The fourth sub-category, called "Other" contains employees in a number of different occupations whichare primarily business, financial and administrative in nature, and do not havesupervisory or significant policy responsibilities. For example, Administrative Officers(OPM Code 0341) are appropriately placed in the "Other" sub-category.

- Professionals - Occupations requiring either college graduation or experience of suchkind and amount as to provide a comparable background. Includes: accountants andauditors, airplane pilots and navigators, architects, artists, chemists, designers,dietitians, editors, engineers, lawyers, librarians, mathematicians, natural scientists,registered professional nurses, personnel and labor relations specialists, physicalscientists, physicians, social scientists, teachers, surveyors and kindred workers.

- Technicians - Occupations requiring a combination of basic scientific knowledge andmanual skill which can be obtained through two years of post-high school education,such as is offered in many technical institutes and junior colleges, or through equivalenton-the-job training. Includes: computer programmers, drafters, engineering aides,junior engineers, mathematical aides, licensed, practical or vocational nurses,photographers, radio operators, scientific assistants, technical illustrators, technicians(medical, dental, electronic, physical science), and kindred workers.

- Sales - Occupations engaging wholly or primarily in direct selling. Includes: advertisingagents and sales workers, insurance agents and brokers, real estate agents and brokers,stock and bond sales workers, demonstrators, sales workers and sales clerks, groceryclerks, and cashiers/checkers, and kindred workers.

- Administrative Support Workers - Includes all clerical-type work regardless of levelof difficulty, where the activities are predominantly non-manual though some manualwork not directly involved with altering or transporting the products is included.Includes: bookkeepers, collectors (bills and accounts), messengers and office helpers,office machine operators (including computer), shipping and receiving clerks,stenographers, typists and secretaries, telegraph and telephone operators, legalassistants, and kindred workers.

- Craft Workers (skilled) - Manual workers of relatively high skill level having a thoroughand comprehensive knowledge of the processes involved in their work. Exerciseconsiderable independent judgment and usually receive an extensive period of training.Includes: the building trades, hourly paid supervisors and lead operators who are notmembers of management, mechanics and repairers, skilled machining occupations,compositors and typesetters, electricians, engravers, painters (construction andmaintenance), motion picture projectionists, pattern and model makers, stationary



engineers, tailors, arts occupations, hand painters, coaters, bakers, decorating occupations, and kindred workers.

- Operatives (semiskilled) - Workers who operate machine or processing equipment orperform other factory-type duties of intermediate skill level which can be mastered in afew weeks and require only limited training. Includes: apprentices (auto mechanics,plumbers, bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, machinists, mechanics, building trades,metalworking trades, printing trades, etc.), operatives, attendants (auto service andparking), blasters, chauffeurs, delivery workers, sewers and stitchers, dryers, furnaceworkers, heaters, laundry and dry cleaning operatives, milliners, mine operatives andlaborers, motor operators, oilers and greasers (except auto), painters (manufacturedarticles), photographic process workers, truck and tractor drivers, knitting, looping,taping and weaving machine operators, welders and flame cutters, electrical andelectronic equipment assemblers, butchers and meat cutters, inspectors, testers andgraders, hand packers and packagers, and kindred workers.

- Laborers (unskilled) - Workers in manual occupations which generally require no specialtraining who perform elementary duties that may be learned in a few days and requirethe application of little or no independent judgment. Includes: garage laborers, carwashers and greasers, grounds keepers and gardeners, farm workers, stevedores, woodchoppers, laborers performing lifting, digging, mixing, loading and pulling operations,and kindred workers.

- Service workers - Workers in both protective and non-protective service occupations.Includes: attendants (hospital and other institutions, professional and personal service,including nurses’ aides, and orderlies), barbers, char workers and cleaners, cooks,counter and fountain workers, elevator operators, firefighters and fire protection,guards, door-keepers, stewards, janitors, police officers and detectives, porters, waitersand waitresses, amusement and recreation facilities attendants, guides, ushers, publictransportation attendants, and kindred workers.

• Fiscal Year: The period from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the following year.

• Goal: Under the Rehabilitation Act, an identifiable objective set by an agency to address oreliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity or to address the lingering effects ofpast discrimination.

• Major Occupations: Agency occupations that are mission related and heavily populated,relative to other occupations within the agency.

• Onsite Program Review: Visit by EEOC representatives to an agency to evaluate theagency's compliance with the terms of this Directive and/or to provide technical assistance.

• Reasonable Accommodation: Generally, any modification or adjustment to the workenvironment, or to the manner or circumstances under which work is customarilyperformed, that enables an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of aposition or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by similarlysituated individuals without a disability. For a more complete definition, see 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o). See also, EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation andUndue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 (October 17, 2002).

• Relevant Labor Force: The source from which an agency draws or recruits applicants foremployment or an internal selection such as a promotion.



• Section 501 Program: The affirmative program plan that each agency is required tomaintain under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act to provide individuals with disabilitiesadequate hiring, placement, and advancement opportunities.

• Section 717 Program: The affirmative program of equal employment opportunity thateach agency is required to maintain for all employees and applicants for employment underSection 717 of Title VII.

• Selection Procedure: Any employment policy or practice that is used as a basis for anemployment decision.

• Special Recruitment Program: A program designed to monitor recruitment of, and trackapplications from, persons with targeted disabilities.

• Targeted Disabilities: Disabilities that the federal government, as a matter of policy, hasidentified for special emphasis in affirmative action programs. They are: 1) deafness; 2)blindness; 3) missing extremities; 4) partial paralysis; 5) complete paralysis; 6) convulsivedisorders; 7) mental retardation; 8) mental illness; and 9) distortion of limb and/or spine.

• Technical Assistance: Training, assistance or guidance provided by the EEOC in writing,over the telephone or in person.

• Under representation: Result of conditions in which the representation of EEO groups islower than expected.

DATABASE NOTES

1. The data for this report reflects the organization as of 1 October 2019. The HR database ofrecord, the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS), was used to obtain the data.It is recognized that the HR database contains anomalies that affect data reporting. Thevariance didn't appear severe enough to affect the calculations.

2. Applicant pool dataset is not available, limiting conclusions on data tables.

3. Manifested Imbalances and Conspicuous Absences (MICA) are the correct terms required byfederal rulings to describe the term “under representation". Manifested Imbalances indicatethat although women and minorities are present, their representation is below the CLF.Conspicuous Absences refers to an absence of women and/or minorities.



Appendix B

Tables

Table A1-1

Table A3-1-1

Table A4-1

Table A5

Table A6-1

Table A10

Table B1

Table B10

Standard Deviation Table A1



All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total Prior FY# 758 589 169 8 5 532 132 26 25 8 3 1 0 7 0 7 4Total Prior FY% 100.00% 77.70% 22.29% 1.05% 0.65% 70.18% 17.41% 3.43% 3.29% 1.05% 0.39% 0.13% 0.00% 0.92% 0.00% 0.92% 0.52%Total Current FY# 776 598 178 6 8 545 142 24 22 9 2 2 0 6 0 6 4Total Current FY% 100.00% 77.06% 22.93% 0.77% 1.03% 70.23% 18.29% 3.09% 2.83% 1.15% 0.25% 0.25% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.77% 0.51%General CLF% (2010) 100.00% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.02% 5.38% 6.41% 1.83% 1.78% 0.07% 0.07% 0.32% 0.32% 0.75% 0.76%Difference # 18 9 9 -2 3 13 10 -2 -3 1 -1 1 0 -1 0 -1 0Ratio Change% 0.00% -0.64% 0.64% -0.28% 0.38% 0.05% 0.88% -0.34% -0.46% 0.10% -0.14% 0.12% 0.00% -0.15% 0.00% -0.15% -0.01%Net Change - % 2.37% 1.52% 5.32% -25.00% 60.00% 2.44% 7.57% -7.69% -12.00% 12.50% -33.33% 100.00% 0.00% -14.28% 0.00% -14.28% 0.00%

Perm. Prior FY# 757 589 168 8 5 532 131 26 25 8 3 1 0 7 0 7 4Perm. Prior FY% 100.00% 77.80% 22.19% 1.05% 0.66% 70.27% 17.30% 3.43% 3.30% 1.05% 0.39% 0.13% 0.00% 0.92% 0.00% 0.92% 0.52%Perm. Current FY# 770 595 175 6 8 542 139 24 22 9 2 2 0 6 0 6 4Perm. Current FY% 100.00% 77.27% 22.72% 0.77% 1.03% 70.38% 18.05% 3.11% 2.85% 1.16% 0.25% 0.25% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.77% 0.51%General CLF% (2010) 100.00% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.02% 5.38% 6.41% 1.83% 1.78% 0.07% 0.07% 0.32% 0.32% 0.75% 0.76%Difference # 13 6 7 -2 3 10 8 -2 -3 1 -1 1 0 -1 0 -1 0Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.53% 0.53% -0.28% 0.37% 0.11% 0.75% -0.32% -0.45% 0.11% -0.14% 0.12% 0.00% -0.15% 0.00% -0.15% -0.01%Net Change % 1.71% 1.01% 4.16% -25.00% 60.00% 1.87% 6.10% -7.69% -12.00% 12.50% -33.33% 100.00% 0.00% -14.28% 0.00% -14.28% 0.00%

Temp Prior FY # 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Temp Prior FY % 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Temp. Current FY # 6 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Temp Current FY % 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%General CLF% (2010) 100.00% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.02% 5.38% 6.41% 1.83% 1.78% 0.07% 0.07% 0.32% 0.32% 0.75% 0.76%Difference # 5 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ratio Change% 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% -50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Net Change % 500.00% 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

NAF Prior FY# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NAF Prior FY% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%NAF Current FY# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NAF Current FY % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%General CLF% (2010) 100.00% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.02% 5.38% 6.41% 1.83% 1.78% 0.07% 0.07% 0.32% 0.32% 0.75% 0.76%Difference # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ratio Change% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Net Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other Pacific IslanderAmerican Indian or

Alaskan NativeTwo or more races

Table A1: TOTAL WORKFORCE - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex by FY (CENASH, FY 2019)

Employment TenureTotal Employees Hispanic or Latino

RACE/ETHNICITY (Non-Hispanic or Latino)

White Black or African American AsianNative Hawaiian or

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male FemaleOfficials and Managers # 117 64 53 0 2 57 35 5 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2Professionals # 300 230 70 3 3 207 61 10 5 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 0Technicians # 80 63 17 1 0 55 16 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0Administrative Support Workers # 37 7 30 0 2 7 24 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Craft Workers # 170 165 5 2 0 156 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 1Operatives # 66 65 1 0 0 60 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Laborers and Helpers # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Service Workers # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0n/a # 4 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 776 598 178 6 8 545 142 24 22 9 2 2 0 6 0 6 4

Officials and Managers % 100.00% 54.70% 45.29% 0.00% 1.70% 48.71% 29.91% 4.27% 11.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.85% 0.00% 0.85% 1.70%Officials and Managers CLF 2010 % 100.00% 56.11% 43.89% 3.76% 3.48% 45.70% 32.65% 3.62% 5.03% 2.11% 1.78% 0.05% 0.06% 0.23% 0.23% 0.65% 0.66%Professionals % 100.00% 76.66% 23.33% 1.00% 1.00% 69.00% 20.33% 3.33% 1.66% 2.66% 0.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00%Professionals CLF 2010 % 100.00% 45.30% 54.70% 2.62% 3.48% 36.00% 41.45% 3.01% 5.45% 2.86% 3.24% 0.04% 0.05% 0.16% 0.26% 0.59% 0.79%Technicians % 100.00% 78.75% 21.25% 1.25% 0.00% 68.75% 20.00% 5.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.25% 1.25% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00%Technicians CLF 2010 % 100.00% 36.76% 63.24% 3.43% 4.75% 26.86% 45.25% 3.45% 9.15% 2.15% 2.72% 0.06% 0.06% 0.22% 0.39% 0.60% 0.92%Administrative Support Workers % 100.00% 18.91% 81.08% 0.00% 5.40% 18.91% 64.86% 0.00% 8.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70%Administrative Support Workers CLF 2010 % 100.00% 24.72% 75.28% 3.05% 7.72% 16.51% 55.66% 3.64% 8.36% 0.91% 1.90% 0.04% 0.11% 0.14% 0.46% 0.43% 1.05%Craft Workers % 100.00% 97.05% 2.94% 1.17% 0.00% 91.76% 2.35% 1.17% 0.00% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.76% 0.00% 0.58% 0.58%Craft Workers CLF 2010 % 100.00% 95.50% 4.50% 10.28% 0.41% 74.20% 3.28% 7.16% 0.54% 1.64% 0.14% 0.15% 0.01% 0.80% 0.05% 1.27% 0.07%Operatives % 100.00% 98.48% 1.51% 0.00% 0.00% 90.90% 1.51% 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.51% 0.00% 1.51% 0.00% 1.51% 0.00%Operatives CLF 2010 % 100.00% 70.31% 29.69% 8.94% 4.45% 47.26% 17.30% 10.48% 5.72% 2.09% 1.61% 0.11% 0.04% 0.50% 0.21% 0.94% 0.35%Laborers and Helpers % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Laborers and Helpers CLF 2010 % 100.00% 81.95% 18.05% 12.01% 2.15% 53.85% 12.91% 12.72% 2.16% 1.15% 0.34% 0.17% 0.03% 0.72% 0.17% 1.34% 0.30%Service Workers % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Service Workers CLF 2010 % 100.00% 48.71% 51.29% 6.47% 5.73% 30.88% 32.65% 8.49% 10.10% 1.44% 1.32% 0.10% 0.09% 0.43% 0.49% 0.91% 0.92%n/a % 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%n/a CLF 2010 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Total % 100.00% 77.06% 22.93% 0.77% 1.03% 70.23% 18.29% 3.09% 2.83% 1.15% 0.25% 0.25% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.77% 0.51%General CLF 2010 % 100.00% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.02% 5.38% 6.41% 1.83% 1.78% 0.07% 0.07% 0.32% 0.32% 0.75% 0.76%

Administrative Support Workers % 4.76% 1.17% 16.85% 0.00% 25.00% 1.28% 16.90% 0.00% 13.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00%Craft Workers % 21.90% 27.59% 2.80% 33.33% 0.00% 28.62% 2.81% 8.33% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 16.66% 25.00%Laborers and Helpers % 0.12% 0.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%n/a % 0.51% 0.33% 1.12% 0.00% 12.50% 0.36% 0.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Officials and Managers % 15.07% 10.70% 29.77% 0.00% 25.00% 10.45% 24.64% 20.83% 63.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00% 16.66% 50.00%Operatives % 8.50% 10.86% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 11.00% 0.70% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00%Professionals % 38.65% 38.46% 39.32% 50.00% 37.50% 37.98% 42.95% 41.66% 22.72% 88.88% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00%Service Workers % 0.12% 0.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Technicians % 10.30% 10.53% 9.55% 16.66% 0.00% 10.09% 11.26% 16.66% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00%Total % 100.00% 77.06% 22.93% 0.77% 1.03% 70.23% 18.29% 3.09% 2.83% 1.15% 0.25% 0.25% 0.00% 0.77% 0.00% 0.77% 0.51%


Alaskan Native Two or more races

Table A3-1-1: OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS - Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (CENASH, FY 2019)

Occupational GroupsTotal Employees Hispanic or Latino



All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male FemaleTotal GS/GM/GG/GR/GP # 535 363 172 4 8 325 137 19 22 8 2 1 0 2 0 4 3Grade - 4 # 10 6 4 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 5 # 13 6 7 1 0 5 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 6 # 11 3 8 0 0 3 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 7 # 71 31 40 0 2 28 34 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1Grade - 8 # 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 9 # 66 47 19 0 1 42 12 2 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0Grade - 10 # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 11 # 122 87 35 2 2 77 31 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2Grade - 12 # 153 114 39 0 1 103 29 6 8 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 13 # 63 49 14 1 2 45 9 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Grade - 14 # 18 14 4 0 0 13 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 15 # 4 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Total Non Wage Grade Pay Plans # 535 363 172 4 8 325 137 19 22 8 2 1 0 2 0 4 3

General CLF 2000 % 100.00% 51.86% 48.14% 5.17% 4.79% 38.33% 34.02% 5.38% 6.41% 1.83% 1.78% 0.07% 0.07% 0.32% 0.32% 0.75% 0.76%Grade - 4 % 100.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 40.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 5 % 100.00% 46.15% 53.84% 7.69% 0.00% 38.46% 38.46% 0.00% 15.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 6 % 100.00% 27.27% 72.72% 0.00% 0.00% 27.27% 63.63% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 7 % 100.00% 43.66% 56.33% 0.00% 2.81% 39.43% 47.88% 1.40% 4.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 1.40% 1.40%Grade - 8 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 9 % 100.00% 71.21% 28.78% 0.00% 1.51% 63.63% 18.18% 3.03% 7.57% 1.51% 1.51% 0.00% 0.00% 1.51% 0.00% 1.51% 0.00%Grade - 10 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 11 % 100.00% 71.31% 28.68% 1.63% 1.63% 63.11% 25.40% 4.91% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.63%Grade - 12 % 100.00% 74.50% 25.49% 0.00% 0.65% 67.32% 18.95% 3.92% 5.22% 3.26% 0.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 13 % 100.00% 77.77% 22.22% 1.58% 3.17% 71.42% 14.28% 1.58% 4.76% 1.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.58% 0.00%Grade - 14 % 100.00% 77.77% 22.22% 0.00% 0.00% 72.22% 22.22% 5.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 15 % 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%

Total Non Wage Grade Pay Plans % 100.00% 67.85% 32.14% 0.74% 1.49% 60.74% 25.60% 3.55% 4.11% 1.49% 0.37% 0.18% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.74% 0.56%

Grade - 4 % 1.86% 1.65% 2.32% 0.00% 0.00% 1.53% 2.91% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 5 % 2.42% 1.65% 4.06% 25.00% 0.00% 1.53% 3.64% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 6 % 2.05% 0.82% 4.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.92% 5.10% 0.00% 4.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 7 % 13.27% 8.53% 23.25% 0.00% 25.00% 8.61% 24.81% 5.26% 13.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 33.33%Grade - 8 % 0.56% 0.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 9 % 12.33% 12.94% 11.04% 0.00% 12.50% 12.92% 8.75% 10.52% 22.72% 12.50% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%Grade - 10 % 0.18% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 11 % 22.80% 23.96% 20.34% 50.00% 25.00% 23.69% 22.62% 31.57% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66%Grade - 12 % 28.59% 31.40% 22.67% 0.00% 12.50% 31.69% 21.16% 31.57% 36.36% 62.50% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Table A4-1 : PARTICIPATION RATES ACROSS GENERAL SCHEDULE (GS) GRADES by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (CENASH , FY 2019 )

GS/GM, and Related GradesTotal Employees Hispanic or Latino





Grade - 13 % 11.77% 13.49% 8.13% 25.00% 25.00% 13.84% 6.56% 5.26% 13.63% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%Grade - 14 % 3.36% 3.85% 2.32% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 2.91% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 15 % 0.74% 0.55% 1.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%

Total Non Wage Grade Pay Plans % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male FemaleGrade - 3 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 4 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 5 # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 6 # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 7 # 18 18 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 8 # 7 7 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 9 # 71 69 2 0 0 64 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Grade - 10 # 23 23 0 0 0 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 11 # 22 22 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0Grade - 12 # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 13 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 14 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 15 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grade - 00 # 93 89 4 2 0 85 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1Total # 241 235 6 2 0 220 5 5 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 2 1

Grade - 3 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 4 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 5 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 6 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 7 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 8 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 85.71% 0.00% 14.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 9 % 100.00% 97.18% 2.81% 0.00% 0.00% 90.14% 2.81% 2.81% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00%Grade - 10 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 91.30% 0.00% 8.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 11 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 86.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 12 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 13 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 14 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 15 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Total % 100.00% 98.64% 1.35% 0.00% 0.00% 91.21% 1.35% 3.37% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00%

Grade - 3 % 0.67% 0.68% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 4 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 5 % 1.35% 1.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 6 % 1.35% 1.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 7 % 12.16% 12.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 8 % 4.72% 4.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.44% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 9 % 47.97% 47.26% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 47.40% 100.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%



Table A5: PARTICIPATION RATES ACROSS WAGE GRADES by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (CENASH, FY 2019)

Wage and Related GradesTotal Employees Hispanic or Latino



Grade - 10 % 15.54% 15.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.55% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 11 % 14.86% 15.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 12 % 1.35% 1.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 13 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 14 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Grade - 15 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Total % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female810 - CIVIL ENGINEERING # 97 81 16 1 0 73 16 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 83.50% 16.49% 1.03% 0.00% 75.25% 16.49% 3.09% 0.00% 4.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-2051 - Civil Engineers % 100.00% 89.90% 10.10% 3.70% 0.60% 74.10% 7.50% 2.90% 0.60% 7.40% 1.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.10% 1.30% 0.20%

401 - GEN NATURAL RESOURCES MGMT AND # 94 72 22 2 1 67 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Percent % 100.00% 76.59% 23.40% 2.12% 1.06% 71.27% 21.27% 2.12% 1.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.06% 0.00%19-1020 - Biological Scientists % 100.00% 55.90% 44.10% 1.90% 2.10% 47.30% 35.00% 1.20% 1.80% 4.10% 4.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.20% 0.90% 0.60%

802 - ENGINEERING TECHNICAL # 67 50 17 1 0 43 16 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 74.62% 25.37% 1.49% 0.00% 64.17% 23.88% 5.97% 0.00% 0.00% 1.49% 1.49% 0.00% 1.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-3020 - Engineering Technicians, Except Dra% 100.00% 80.90% 19.10% 6.10% 1.60% 62.30% 13.00% 5.70% 2.20% 5.10% 1.80% 0.10% 0.00% 0.40% 0.10% 1.10% 0.40%

5426 - LOCK & DAM OPERATING # 64 63 1 0 0 58 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Percent % 100.00% 98.43% 1.56% 0.00% 0.00% 90.62% 1.56% 3.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.56% 0.00% 1.56% 0.00% 1.56% 0.00%53-60XX - Miscellaneous Transportation Work% 100.00% 86.30% 13.80% 9.60% 1.50% 59.30% 9.30% 11.60% 2.30% 3.20% 0.10% 0.50% 0.00% 0.40% 0.20% 1.60% 0.20%

5318 - LOCK AND DAM REPAIRING # 51 50 1 0 0 45 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 98.03% 1.96% 0.00% 0.00% 88.23% 1.96% 3.92% 0.00% 1.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%49-9042 - Maintenance and Repair Workers, G% 100.00% 95.90% 4.10% 12.10% 0.50% 70.10% 2.60% 9.10% 0.70% 2.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.80% 0.10% 1.70% 0.00%

2810 - HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICIAN # 35 35 0 1 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2.85% 0.00% 97.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%49-9051 - Electrical Power-Line Installers and % 100.00% 97.30% 2.70% 7.10% 0.20% 80.30% 1.80% 7.10% 0.50% 0.50% 0.10% 0.20% 0.00% 0.70% 0.00% 1.40% 0.00%

303 - MISCELLANEOUS CLERK & ASSISTANT # 32 5 27 0 1 5 22 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Percent % 100.00% 15.62% 84.37% 0.00% 3.12% 15.62% 68.75% 0.00% 9.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.12%43-9199 - Office and Administrative Support W% 100.00% 26.60% 73.40% 2.30% 5.80% 19.70% 54.70% 2.80% 8.90% 1.10% 2.30% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.50% 0.40% 1.20%

5352 - INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT MECHANIC # 31 30 1 1 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 96.77% 3.22% 3.22% 0.00% 90.32% 3.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%49-904X - Industrial and Refractory Machinery % 100.00% 96.20% 3.80% 8.20% 0.40% 77.90% 2.70% 6.60% 0.50% 1.70% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.10% 0.00%

4749 - MAINTENANCE MECHANIC # 24 24 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%49-9042 - Maintenance and Repair Workers, G% 100.00% 95.90% 4.10% 12.10% 0.50% 70.10% 2.60% 9.10% 0.70% 2.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.80% 0.10% 1.70% 0.00%

5407 - ELECTRIC POWER CONTROLLING # 23 20 3 0 0 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Percent % 100.00% 86.95% 13.04% 0.00% 0.00% 82.60% 8.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.34% 4.34%51-8010 - Power Plant Operators, Distributors % 100.00% 92.60% 7.40% 4.00% 0.20% 79.60% 5.90% 5.60% 1.00% 0.90% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 1.40% 0.20% 1.10% 0.00%

1170 - REALTY # 17 10 7 0 0 8 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Percent % 100.00% 58.82% 41.17% 0.00% 0.00% 47.05% 35.29% 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 5.88%Nov-41 - Property, Real Estate, and Communit% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1102 - CONTRACTING # 16 5 11 0 0 4 7 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Alaskan Native Two or more races

Table A6-1: DISTRIBUTION BY MAJOR OCCUPATIONS Distribution by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (CENASH, FY 2019)

Job Title/SeriesTotal Employees Hispanic or Latino



Percent % 100.00% 31.25% 68.75% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 43.75% 6.25% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-1023 - Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesa % 100.00% 47.00% 53.00% 2.90% 3.20% 39.80% 42.70% 2.50% 4.70% 1.00% 1.30% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.80%

850 - ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING # 16 14 2 0 0 9 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 87.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 56.25% 0.00% 18.75% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-2070 - Electrical and Electronics Engineers % 100.00% 91.30% 8.70% 3.60% 0.40% 72.10% 5.50% 3.50% 0.90% 10.50% 1.60% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 1.20% 0.10%

343 - MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYS# 15 2 13 0 1 2 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Percent % 100.00% 13.33% 86.66% 0.00% 6.66% 13.33% 46.66% 0.00% 26.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.66%13-1111 - Management Analysts % 100.00% 61.40% 38.60% 2.00% 1.60% 52.50% 31.10% 2.50% 3.30% 3.40% 1.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.80% 0.50%

1350 - GEOLOGY # 15 10 5 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-2040 - Environmental Scientists and Geosc % 100.00% 75.80% 24.10% 1.80% 0.90% 69.00% 20.60% 1.70% 1.00% 2.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.30% 0.70% 0.40%

1601 - EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, AND SERVICES# 13 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-11XX - Other Business Operations Specialis% 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 2.60% 2.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50% 0.90%

301 - MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATION & P # 13 6 7 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 46.15% 53.84% 0.00% 0.00% 46.15% 46.15% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-11XX - Other Business Operations Specialis% 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 2.60% 2.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50% 0.90%

830 - MECHANICAL ENGINEERING # 13 12 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 92.30% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 84.61% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-2141 - Mechanical Engineers % 100.00% 93.40% 6.50% 3.10% 0.20% 79.00% 5.10% 3.00% 0.50% 6.80% 0.60% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 1.10% 0.10%

1101 - GENERAL BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY # 11 6 5 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 54.54% 45.45% 0.00% 0.00% 36.36% 45.45% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-11XX - Other Business Operations Specialis% 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 2.60% 2.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50% 0.90%

809 - CONSTRUCTION CONTROL TECHNICAL # 9 9 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 88.88% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%47-4011 - Construction and Building Inspector % 100.00% 90.20% 9.80% 5.50% 0.80% 74.50% 7.20% 6.50% 1.40% 1.50% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.70% 0.10% 1.20% 0.10%

499 - BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE STUDENT TRAINEE# 9 5 4 0 0 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 55.55% 44.44% 0.00% 0.00% 55.55% 33.33% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-1020 - Biological Scientists % 100.00% 55.90% 44.10% 1.90% 2.10% 47.30% 35.00% 1.20% 1.80% 4.10% 4.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.20% 0.90% 0.60%

510 - ACCOUNTING # 9 4 5 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 44.44% 55.55% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 55.55% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-2011 - Accountants and Auditors % 100.00% 43.00% 57.00% 2.00% 3.10% 35.00% 42.80% 2.60% 5.30% 2.70% 4.70% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% 0.70%

560 - BUDGET ANALYSIS # 6 2 4 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 33.33% 66.66% 0.00% 16.66% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-2031 - Budget Analysts % 100.00% 37.30% 62.70% 1.70% 3.60% 29.30% 45.10% 3.60% 9.50% 2.10% 3.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.50% 0.50% 0.70%

905 - GENERAL ATTORNEY # 6 1 5 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Percent % 100.00% 16.66% 83.33% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.66% 0.00%23-1011 - Lawyers % 100.00% 71.30% 28.70% 2.00% 1.20% 65.20% 23.90% 2.00% 1.90% 1.20% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.60% 0.40%

819 - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING # 5 3 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 60.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-2081 - Environmental Engineers % 100.00% 77.80% 22.20% 2.20% 0.90% 65.40% 17.80% 3.00% 1.20% 5.80% 1.90% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 1.10% 0.10%

18 - SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MA# 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%29-9000 - Other Healthcare Practitioners and % 100.00% 63.40% 36.60% 3.60% 1.80% 50.70% 28.50% 5.70% 4.10% 1.70% 1.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.60% 0.30% 1.00% 0.70%

2604 - ELECTRONICS MECHANIC # 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%49-209X - Electrical and Electronics Repairers, % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

20 - COMMUNITY PLANNING # 4 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-3051 - Urban and Regional Planners % 100.00% 65.80% 34.20% 3.00% 1.40% 56.30% 28.40% 3.50% 2.20% 2.10% 1.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.70% 0.40%

5784 - RIVERBOAT OPERATING # 4 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%53-5020 - Ship and Boat Captains and Operato% 100.00% 97.10% 2.90% 3.50% 0.00% 87.40% 2.50% 2.40% 0.20% 0.70% 0.10% 0.20% 0.00% 1.30% 0.00% 1.70% 0.00%

856 - ELECTRONICS TECHNICAL # 4 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00%17-3020 - Engineering Technicians, Except Dra% 100.00% 80.90% 19.10% 6.10% 1.60% 62.30% 13.00% 5.70% 2.20% 5.10% 1.80% 0.10% 0.00% 0.40% 0.10% 1.10% 0.40%

89 - EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT # 4 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%n/a - n/a % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

899 - ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE STUD# 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-2XXX - Miscellaneous Engineers, Including % 100.00% 89.60% 10.40% 3.20% 0.60% 71.80% 7.10% 3.00% 0.80% 9.90% 1.60% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 1.40% 0.20%

260 - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY # 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 33.33% 66.66% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-1041 - Compliance Officers, Except Agricult% 100.00% 52.90% 47.10% 4.20% 3.50% 41.30% 34.10% 4.50% 6.90% 1.70% 1.40% 0.10% 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 0.80% 0.60%

511 - AUDITING # 3 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-2011 - Accountants and Auditors % 100.00% 43.00% 57.00% 2.00% 3.10% 35.00% 42.80% 2.60% 5.30% 2.70% 4.70% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.30% 0.50% 0.70%

193 - ARCHEOLOGY # 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-30XX - Miscellaneous Social Scientists, % 100.00% 50.10% 49.90% 1.90% 2.20% 42.00% 40.40% 2.40% 3.80% 2.00% 2.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.60% 0.50% 1.10% 0.90%

28 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIS# 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-2040 - Environmental Scientists and Geosc % 100.00% 75.80% 24.10% 1.80% 0.90% 69.00% 20.60% 1.70% 1.00% 2.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.30% 0.70% 0.40%

318 - SECRETARY # 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 33.33% 66.66% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%43-6010 - Secretaries and Administrative Assis% 100.00% 3.50% 96.50% 0.30% 7.10% 2.50% 77.70% 0.40% 8.10% 0.20% 1.80% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 1.30%

340 - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT # 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-11XX - Other Business Operations Specialis% 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 2.60% 2.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50% 0.90%

1035 - PUBLIC AFFAIRS # 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.66% 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%27-3031 - Public Relations Specialists % 100.00% 38.30% 61.70% 2.30% 3.50% 31.80% 50.70% 2.50% 4.70% 0.90% 1.30% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 1.00%

110 - ECONOMIST # 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-3011 - Economists % 100.00% 69.40% 30.60% 3.10% 2.00% 56.30% 21.60% 3.20% 2.40% 5.40% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.10% 1.10% 0.70%

1199 - BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY STUDENT TR # 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-11XX - Other Business Operations Specialis% 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 2.60% 2.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50% 0.90%

150 - GEOGRAPHY # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-30XX - Miscellaneous Social Scientists, % 100.00% 50.10% 49.90% 1.90% 2.20% 42.00% 40.40% 2.40% 3.80% 2.00% 2.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.60% 0.50% 1.10% 0.90%

1370 - CARTOGRAPHY # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-1020 - Surveyors, Cartographers, and Phot % 100.00% 82.00% 18.00% 3.20% 0.60% 72.80% 15.10% 2.50% 0.90% 1.60% 0.80% 0.10% 0.00% 0.50% 0.10% 1.30% 0.50%

1316 - HYDROLOGIC TECHNICIAN # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-40XX - Miscellaneous Life, Physical, and So % 100.00% 53.10% 46.90% 3.40% 3.40% 40.20% 33.40% 3.70% 4.50% 4.10% 4.30% 0.10% 0.00% 0.50% 0.30% 1.00% 1.00%

2805 - ELECTRICIAN # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%47-2141 - Painters, Construction and Mainten % 100.00% 92.60% 7.40% 23.90% 0.80% 57.80% 5.80% 6.90% 0.40% 1.40% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.70% 0.10% 1.80% 0.20%

2210 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGE# 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%15-10XX - Computer Scientists and Systems An% 100.00% 66.80% 33.20% 3.10% 1.60% 50.40% 24.70% 4.30% 3.50% 7.40% 2.90% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 1.20% 0.40%

80 - SECURITY ADMINISTRATION # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-11XX - Other Business Operations Specialis% 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 2.60% 2.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50% 0.90%

801 - GENERAL ENGINEERING # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-2XXX - Miscellaneous Engineers, Including % 100.00% 89.60% 10.40% 3.20% 0.60% 71.80% 7.10% 3.00% 0.80% 9.90% 1.60% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 1.40% 0.20%

855 - ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING # 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-2070 - Electrical and Electronics Engineers % 100.00% 91.30% 8.70% 3.60% 0.40% 72.10% 5.50% 3.50% 0.90% 10.50% 1.60% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 1.20% 0.10%

86 - SECURITY CLERICAL AND ASSISTANCE # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

43-9199 - Office and Administrative Support W% 100.00% 26.60% 73.40% 2.30% 5.80% 19.70% 54.70% 2.80% 8.90% 1.10% 2.30% 0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.50% 0.40% 1.20%

950 - PARALEGAL SPECIALIST # 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%23-2011 - Paralegals and Legal Assistants % 100.00% 13.90% 86.10% 1.50% 6.60% 9.70% 68.70% 1.70% 6.90% 0.70% 2.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.40% 0.30% 1.40%

505 - FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-2099 - Financial Specialists, All Other % 100.00% 43.00% 57.00% 3.60% 5.60% 33.00% 41.00% 3.90% 6.80% 1.60% 2.60% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.70% 0.70%

5788 - DECKHAND # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%53-5011 - Sailors and Marine Oilers % 100.00% 94.50% 5.50% 6.30% 0.60% 71.00% 3.60% 11.20% 0.80% 2.40% 0.20% 0.20% 0.10% 1.40% 0.10% 1.70% 0.00%

690 - INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%29-9000 - Other Healthcare Practitioners and % 100.00% 63.40% 36.60% 3.60% 1.80% 50.70% 28.50% 5.70% 4.10% 1.70% 1.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.60% 0.30% 1.00% 0.70%

25 - PARK RANGER # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%33-909X - Lifeguards and Other Protective Ser % 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 3.00% 3.60% 34.80% 45.00% 3.10% 5.70% 0.80% 0.80% 0.20% 0.10% 0.40% 0.50% 1.00% 1.00%

341 - ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER # 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-11XX - Other Business Operations Specialis% 100.00% 43.40% 56.60% 4.70% 5.30% 30.20% 39.70% 4.90% 7.80% 2.60% 2.30% 0.10% 0.10% 0.20% 0.40% 0.50% 0.90%

3502 - LABORING # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%53-7062 - Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Ma% 100.00% 81.20% 18.80% 12.50% 2.90% 51.50% 11.90% 13.70% 3.00% 1.40% 0.50% 0.10% 0.00% 0.70% 0.20% 1.40% 0.20%

4742 - UTILITY SYSTEMS REPAIRING-OPERATIN# 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%51-8090 - Miscellaneous Plant and System Op % 100.00% 92.60% 7.40% 9.30% 0.50% 71.70% 5.30% 8.40% 1.20% 1.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.70% 0.10% 1.30% 0.10%

1320 - CHEMISTRY # 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-2030 - Chemists and Materials Scientists % 100.00% 67.70% 32.30% 2.30% 1.60% 52.40% 21.50% 4.20% 2.20% 7.90% 6.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.70% 0.60%

1373 - LAND SURVEYING # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%17-1020 - Surveyors, Cartographers, and Phot % 100.00% 82.00% 18.00% 3.20% 0.60% 72.80% 15.10% 2.50% 0.90% 1.60% 0.80% 0.10% 0.00% 0.50% 0.10% 1.30% 0.50%

1550 - COMPUTER SCIENCE # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%15-10XX - Computer Scientists and Systems An% 100.00% 66.80% 33.20% 3.10% 1.60% 50.40% 24.70% 4.30% 3.50% 7.40% 2.90% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 1.20% 0.40%

19 - SAFETY TECHNICIAN # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%29-9000 - Other Healthcare Practitioners and % 100.00% 63.40% 36.60% 3.60% 1.80% 50.70% 28.50% 5.70% 4.10% 1.70% 1.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.60% 0.30% 1.00% 0.70%

1315 - HYDROLOGY # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-2040 - Environmental Scientists and Geosc % 100.00% 75.80% 24.10% 1.80% 0.90% 69.00% 20.60% 1.70% 1.00% 2.00% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.30% 0.70% 0.40%

1171 - APPRAISING AND ASSESSING # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%13-2021 - Appraisers and Assessors of Real Es % 100.00% 66.70% 33.30% 1.60% 1.20% 61.20% 29.40% 1.90% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.10% 0.60% 0.30%

101 - SOCIAL SCIENCE # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Percent % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%19-30XX - Miscellaneous Social Scientists, % 100.00% 50.10% 49.90% 1.90% 2.20% 42.00% 40.40% 2.40% 3.80% 2.00% 2.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.60% 0.50% 1.10% 0.90%

All Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male FemaleGS GENERAL SCHEDULE 4 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 5 # 5 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 6 # 4 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 7 # 14 9 5 0 0 9 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 8 # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 9 # 25 19 6 0 1 17 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 10 # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 11 # 23 17 6 1 0 15 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 12 # 13 9 4 0 0 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 13 # 5 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 14 # 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 97 72 25 2 1 64 18 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WG WAGE GRADE - NONSUPERVISORY PAY SCHED 9 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 7 # 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 8 # 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 9 # 3 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 10 # 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 9 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total # 107 82 25 2 1 74 18 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 4 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 5 % 100.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 6 % 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 7 % 100.00% 64.28% 35.71% 0.00% 0.00% 64.28% 28.57% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 8 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 9 % 100.00% 76.00% 24.00% 0.00% 4.00% 68.00% 8.00% 8.00% 12.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 10 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 11 % 100.00% 73.91% 26.08% 4.34% 0.00% 65.21% 21.73% 4.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.34%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 12 % 100.00% 69.23% 30.76% 0.00% 0.00% 61.53% 30.76% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 13 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 14 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

WG WAGE GRADE - NONSUPERVISORY PAY SCHED 9 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 7 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 8 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 9 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 10 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total % 100.00% 76.63% 23.36% 1.86% 0.93% 69.15% 16.82% 4.67% 4.67% 0.93% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.93%

GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 4 % 0.93% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 5 % 4.67% 3.65% 8.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2.70% 5.55% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 6 % 3.73% 2.43% 8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 7 % 13.08% 10.97% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.16% 22.22% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 8 % 1.86% 2.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Two or more races

Table A10-1 : PROMOTIONS BY PAY PLAN AND GRADE/BAND by Race/Ethnicity and Sex (CENASH , FY 2019 )

Current Pay Plan Pay Plan Description Grade/BandTotal Employees Hispanic or Latino




Alaskan Native

GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 9 % 23.36% 23.17% 24.00% 0.00% 100.00% 22.97% 11.11% 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 10 % 0.93% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 11 % 21.49% 20.73% 24.00% 50.00% 0.00% 20.27% 27.77% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 12 % 12.14% 10.97% 16.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.81% 22.22% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 13 % 4.67% 6.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 14 % 3.73% 4.87% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

WG WAGE GRADE - NONSUPERVISORY PAY SCHED 9 % 0.93% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 7 % 1.86% 2.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 8 % 2.80% 3.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 9 % 2.80% 3.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 10 % 0.93% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

(05) No Disability (01) Not Identified (06 - 94) Disability Targeted Disability (18) Hearing (21) Vision (30) Missing Extremities (69) Partial Paralysis (79) Paralysis (82) Epilepsy (90) Severe Intellectual Disability (91) Psychiatric Disability (92) Dwarfism

Total Prior FY # 756 666 26 64 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0Total Prior FY % 100.00% 88.09% 3.43% 8.46% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%Total Current FY # 776 683 28 65 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1Total Current FY % 100.00% 88.01% 3.60% 8.38% 0.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00%

Federal Goal 2.00%Difference # 15 17 2 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.49% 0.20% -0.68% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -25.00% 25.00%Net Change % 1.98% 2.55% 7.69% -6.25% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Perm Prior FY # 755 665 26 64 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0Perm Prior FY % 100.00% 88.07% 3.44% 8.47% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%Perm Current FY # 770 677 28 65 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1Perm Current FY % 100.00% 87.90% 3.64% 8.44% 0.78% 33.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 16.67%

Federal Goal 2.00%Difference # 10 12 2 -4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.42% 0.22% -0.63% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -25.00% 0.00%Net Change % 1.32% 1.80% 7.69% -6.25% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Temp Prior FY # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Temp Prior FY % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Temp Current FY # 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Temp Current FY # 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Federal Goal 2.00%Difference # 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Net Change % 100.00% 500.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

NAF Prior FY # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NAF Prior FY % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%NAF Current FY # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NAF Current FY # 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Federal Goal 2.00%Difference # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Net Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE - Distribution by Disability by FY (CENASH , FY 2019 )

Employment Tenure Total EmployeesDetail by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

(05) No Disability (01) Not Identified (06 - 94) Disability Targeted Disability (18) Hearing (21) Vision (30) Missing Extremities (69) Partial Paralysis (79) Paralysis (82) Epilepsy (90) Severe Intellectual Disability (91) Psychiatric Disability (92) DwarfismGS GENERAL SCHEDULE 4 # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 5 # 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 6 # 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 7 # 14 12 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 8 # 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 9 # 25 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 10 # 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 11 # 23 19 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 12 # 12 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 13 # 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 14 # 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 96 83 5 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

WG WAGE GRADE - NONSUPERVISORY PAY SCHE 9 # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 7 # 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 8 # 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 9 # 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 10 # 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 9 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total # 106 92 5 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 4 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 5 % 100.00% 80.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 6 % 100.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 7 % 100.00% 85.71% 7.14% 7.14% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 8 % 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 9 % 100.00% 92.00% 4.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 10 % 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 11 % 100.00% 82.60% 4.34% 13.04% 4.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 12 % 100.00% 91.66% 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 13 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 14 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

WG WAGE GRADE - NONSUPERVISORY PAY SCHE 9 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 7 % 100.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 8 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 9 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 10 % 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Total % 100.00% 86.79% 4.71% 8.49% 1.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%

GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 4 % 0.94% 1.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 5 % 4.71% 4.34% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 6 % 3.77% 3.26% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 7 % 13.20% 13.04% 20.00% 11.11% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 8 % 1.88% 1.08% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 9 % 23.58% 25.00% 20.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 10 % 0.94% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 11 % 21.69% 20.65% 20.00% 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 12 % 11.32% 11.95% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 13 % 4.71% 5.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%GS GENERAL SCHEDULE 14 % 3.77% 4.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

WG WAGE GRADE - NONSUPERVISORY PAY SCHE 9 % 0.94% 1.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 7 % 1.88% 1.08% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 8 % 2.83% 3.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 9 % 2.83% 3.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%WY NAV LOCK&DAM NONSUPV 10 % 0.94% 1.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total % 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Table B10-1: PROMOTIONS BY PAY PLAN AND GRADE/BAND BY DISABILITY (CENASH, FY 2019 )

Current Pay Plan Pay Plan Description Grade/Band Total EmployeesDetail by Disability Status Detail for Targeted Disabilities

Total WorkforceTotal All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesTotal 776 178 545 142 24 22 6 8 9 2 2 0 6 0 6 4 89Actual Percentage 98.7% 22.9% 70.2% 18.3% 3.1% 2.8% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5% 11.5%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 100.0% 48.2% 38.3% 34.0% 5.5% 6.6% 5.2% 4.8% 2.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 27.7%Expected Number 374 297 264 43 51 40 37 16 16 1 1 2 2 3 3 2151 Standard Deviation 13.9 13.5 13.2 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.0 3.9 3.9 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 12.5# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 5 STD 5 STD 2 STD 4 STD 5 STD 4 STD 3 STD 5 STDActual # Minus Expected # -196 -122 -19 -29 -34 -29 -7 -14 -1 -2 -126

By Race/National Origin1 Standard Deviation# Std. Deviations < C.L.F.Actual # Minus Expected #

Total All AllAll Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Permanent 770 175 542 139 24 22 6 8 9 2 2 0 6 0 6 4 89Actual Percentage 98.7% 22.7% 70.4% 18.1% 3.1% 2.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5% 11.6%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 100.0% 48.2% 38.3% 34.0% 5.5% 6.6% 5.2% 4.8% 2.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 27.7%Expected Number 371 295 262 42 51 40 37 15 15 1 1 2 2 3 3 2131 Standard Deviation 13.9 13.5 13.1 6.3 6.9 6.2 5.9 3.9 3.9 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 12.4# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 5 STD 5 STD 2 STD 4 STD 5 STD 4 STD 3 STD 5 STDActual # Minus Expected # -196 -123 -18 -29 -34 -29 -6 -13 -1 -2 -124


NHOPI - Native Hawaiian and other Pacific IslanderAIAN - American Indian and Alaskan Native

-47 -63 -20

NHOPI

5 STD 5 STD 2 STD

Black Hispanic Asian NHOPI2.11.2 2.59.0 8.3 5.4

White Black Hispanic Asian

9.1 8.4 5.55 STD 5 STD 2 STD

Asian NHOPI AIAN 2/More Races2.2 2.5

-48 -64 -20

1.2

AIAN 2/More Races

White Black Hispanic Asian AIAN 2/More Races

Total WorkforceComparing the Work Force and the U.S. Civilian Labor Force (C.L.F.)

FY 2019

Black Hispanic

Distribution by EEO Group

NHOPI AIAN 2/More Races

Source of Work Force Data: DCPDS, Department of the Army

Total All AllAll Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Temporary 6 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Actual Percentage 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 100.0% 48.2% 38.3% 34.0% 5.5% 6.6% 5.2% 4.8% 2.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 27.7%Expected Number 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Standard Deviation 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1# Std. Deviations < C.L.F.Actual # Minus Expected # -2


NHOPI

-1 -1

AIAN 2/More Races0.2

Asian0.20.8 0.7 0.5 0.1

NHOPI AIAN 2/More RacesBlack Hispanic AsianWhite

Black Hispanic

Officials and Managers Total All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesActual Number 117 55 56 36 4 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 25Actual Percentage 97.4% 47.0% 47.9% 30.8% 3.4% 12.0% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7% 21.4%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 99.4% 43.0% 44.9% 31.8% 3.6% 4.8% 4.4% 3.7% 2.9% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 22.7%Expected Number 50 53 37 4 6 5 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 Standard Deviation 5.4 5.4 5.0 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 4.5# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 2 STDActual # Minus Expected # -1 -5 -1 -3 -2 -2


ProfessionalsTotal All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesActual Number 300 70 207 61 10 5 3 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 32Actual Percentage 99.3% 23.3% 69.0% 20.3% 3.3% 1.7% 1.0% 1.0% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 10.7%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 99.4% 53.7% 35.3% 40.0% 3.0% 5.3% 3.0% 3.6% 3.9% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 24.1%Expected Number 161 106 120 9 16 9 11 12 12 0 0 0 1 1 2 721 Standard Deviation 8.6 8.3 8.5 3.0 3.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.2 7.4# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 5 STD 5 STD 2 STD 2 STD 2 STD 3 STD 5 STDActual # Minus Expected # -91 -59 -11 -6 -8 -4 -11 -1 -2 -40


TechniciansTotal All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesActual Number 80 17 55 16 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 9Actual Percentage 98.8% 21.3% 68.8% 20.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 11.3%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 99.5% 62.7% 26.0% 44.2% 3.5% 9.1% 3.8% 5.0% 2.7% 3.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 29.3%Expected Number 50 21 35 3 7 3 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 Standard Deviation 4.3 3.9 4.4 1.6 2.6 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 4.1

Asian NHOPI

2 STD 2 STD 2 STD

AIAN

AIAN

Hispanic Asian NHOPI

Black Hispanic

-14 -15

Occupational Categories (Total Workforce)

FY 2019

Comparing the Work Force and the Relevant U.S. Civilian Labor Force (2010 C.L.F.)

4.8

White Black

NHOPIWhite Black Hispanic Asian

-10 -1

AIAN 2/More Races

Black Hispanic Asian

2 STD 2 STD

2/More Races

-1

1.60.0 0.94.3 4.7

2/More Races

2/More Races

-6 -6

Distribution by EEO Group

0.0

NHOPI AIAN

0.7

2/More Races

Black Hispanic Asian NHOPI AIAN1.03.0 3.0 2.4

White

# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 5 STD 4 STD 2 STD 2 STD 3 STDActual # Minus Expected # -33 -19 -7 -2 -4 -2 -2 -14


Administrative Support WorkersTotal All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesActual Number 37 30 7 24 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6Actual Percentage 97.3% 81.1% 18.9% 64.9% 0.0% 8.1% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 16.2%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 100.2% 75.7% 16.5% 56.7% 3.3% 8.0% 2.9% 7.5% 0.9% 1.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 0.3% 0.6% 27.0%Expected Number 28 6 21 1 3 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 Standard Deviation 2.6 2.3 3.0 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.6 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 2.7# Std. Deviations < C.L.F.Actual # Minus Expected # -1 -1 -1 -1 -4


Craft WorkersTotal All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesActual Number 171 5 157 4 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 10Actual Percentage 98.8% 2.9% 91.8% 2.3% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 5.8%Expected % US CLF 103.5% 8.4% 74.8% 3.2% 6.7% 0.5% 10.2% 4.6% 1.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 25.5%Expected Number 14 128 5 11 1 17 8 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 441 Standard Deviation 3.6 5.7 2.3 3.3 0.9 4.0 2.7 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 5.7# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 2 STD 2 STD 3 STD 2 STD 5 STDActual # Minus Expected # -9 -1 -9 -1 -15 -8 -2 -1 -34


OperativesTotal All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesActual Number 70 1 63 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 6Actual Percentage 98.6% 1.4% 90.0% 1.4% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 8.6%Expected % US C.L.F. 99.6% 28.7% 48.5% 17.3% 9.8% 5.2% 9.1% 4.3% 2.2% 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.1% 33.8%Expected Number 20 34 12 7 4 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 24

2.1Hispanic Asian NHOPI AIAN

0.3

-10 -23 -2

Black Hispanic3.4 4.6

2/More Races0.7 0.6

Black Hispanic Asian NHOPI0.31.9 1.9 1.0

NHOPI AIAN 2/More RacesWhite Black Hispanic Asian

2 STD 5 STD

-1 -2 -1

AIAN 2/More RacesWhite Black Hispanic Asian NHOPI

AIAN

2 STD 2 STD-6 -6 -4

AIAN 2/More Races1.1 1.2

Asian NHOPI

AIAN 2/More RacesNHOPI

Black3.0 2.5


0.7

1.7 0.4

0.92/More Races

1 Standard Deviation 3.8 4.2 3.2 2.5 1.9 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.3 4.0# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 5 STD 3 STD 2 STD 4 STDActual # Minus Expected # -19 -11 -4 -4 -6 -3 -2 -1 -18


Service WorkersTotal All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MinoritiesActual Number 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Actual Percentage 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 99.5% 50.7% 31.6% 32.8% 8.0% 9.7% 6.5% 5.7% 1.5% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 35.1%Expected Number 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 Standard Deviation 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5# Std. Deviations < C.L.F.Actual # Minus Expected # -1


NHOPI AIAN 2/More Races

0.7

0.3 0.2Hispanic

Hispanic Asian

2.9

-3

0.10.0 0.1Asian NHOPI 2/More RacesAIAN

1.62 STD

0.32/More Races

0.7NHOPI

3.02 STD

Black0.4

-8

White Black

Asian

-9

HispanicBlack AIAN

Conservation Bioligists/Ranger, Series 0401 & 0025

Total All All

All Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Actual Number 94 22 67 20 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7

Actual Percentage 98.9% 23.4% 71.3% 21.3% 2.1% 1.1% 2.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 7.4%

Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 99.8% 48.0% 44.3% 39.5% 1.4% 1.6% 2.4% 2.1% 3.2% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 6.4%

Expected Number 45 42 37 1 2 2 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

1 Standard Deviation 4.8 4.8 4.7 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 2.4

# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 4 STD 3 STD 2 STD

Actual # Minus Expected # -23 -17 -1 -1 -3 -4 By Race/National Origin

1 Standard Deviation

# Std. Deviations < C.L.F.Actual # Minus Expected #

Civil Engineers, Series 0810Total All AllAll Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Actual Number 97 16 73 16 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Actual Percentage 100.0% 16.5% 75.3% 16.5% 3.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 99.8% 12.3% 72.0% 9.1% 3.6% 0.7% 4.1% 0.9% 7.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 18.7%Expected Number 12 70 9 3 1 4 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 Standard Deviation 3.2 4.4 2.8 1.8 0.8 2.0 0.9 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 3.8# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 2 STDActual # Minus Expected # -1 -3 -1 -3 -1 -10


Lock & Dam Repairing, Series 5318 Total All AllAll Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Actual Number 51 1 45 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5Actual Percentage 100.0% 2.0% 88.2% 2.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.8%Expected % (US C.L.F.) 99.8% 3.5% 72.8% 2.4% 9.3% 0.6% 10.2% 0.3% 2.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 24.6%

0.0 0.9 0.5

2 STD

1.7 2.0 2.5

-1

Black

White NHOPI AIAN 2/More Races

Black Hispanic Asian NHOPI AIAN

2/More RacesHispanic Asian

2.7 0.0

NHOPI

Black Hispanic Asian2.1

White Black

Participation Rates for Major Occupations

White

Comparing the Workforce and the Relevant Civilian Labor Force (2010 C.L.F.)Distribution by EEO GroupsEnd of September FY 2019

NHOPI2.0

AIAN

2/More Races

Black Hispanic Asian

-1 -7

AIAN 2/More Races0.7 0.7

Hispanic

-1 -4 -4

Asian NHOPI AIAN 2/More Races

Expected Number 2 37 1 5 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 131 Standard Deviation 1.3 3.2 1.1 2.1 0.6 2.2 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.0 3.1# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 2 STD 2 STDActual # Minus Expected # -1 -3 -5 -8


Lock & Dam Operators (Bridge and Lock Tenders), Series 5426Total All AllAll Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Actual Number 64 1 58 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 5Actual Percentage 98.4% 1.6% 90.6% 1.6% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 7.8%Expected % (US C.L.F.) 99.0% 12.7% 55.9% 8.4% 14.7% 2.1% 9.7% 1.6% 3.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.2% 1.3% 0.1% 34.7%Expected Number 8 36 5 9 1 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 221 Standard Deviation 2.7 4.0 2.2 2.8 1.1 2.4 1.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.3 3.8# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 2 STD 2 STD 2 STD 4 STDActual # Minus Expected # -7 -4 -7 -1 -6 -1 -2 -17


Electrical Power Controlling (Power Plant Operators), Series 5407Total All AllAll Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Actual Number 23 3 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2Actual Percentage 91.3% 13.0% 82.6% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 4.3% 8.7%Expected % ( C.L.F.) 99.7% 6.8% 78.2% 5.4% 6.3% 0.8% 4.9% 0.4% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 16.1%Expected Number 2 18 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 41 Standard Deviation 1.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.8# Std. Deviations < C.L.F.Actual # Minus Expected # -1 -1 -1 -2


Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters - Series 0802Total All AllAll Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Minorities

Actual Number 67 17 43 16 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 8Actual Percentage 100.0% 25.4% 64.2% 23.9% 6.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.9%Expected % (U.S. C.L.F.) 100.2% 19.3% 60.5% 13.0% 7.0% 2.3% 7.0% 1.7% 5.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 23.9%Expected Number 13 41 9 5 2 5 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 16

0.0

NHOPI AIAN 2/More RacesWhite Black Hispanic Asian

Black

-3 -5

2.12 STD

Asian NHOPI

Hispanic Asian NHOPI AIAN2.2 1.1

2/More Races0.50.80.0

White Black Hispanic

Hispanic 2/More RacesNHOPI AIAN

AIAN 2/More Races

AsianBlack

Black Hispanic Asian1.2 1.1 0.5

1.0 0.92 STD 2 STD

-9 -7 -2

3.0 2.5 1.5

-1-2 -1


0.20.0

2/More Races

2/More Races

AIAN

NHOPI AIAN

NHOPI

0.7

1 Standard Deviation 3.2 4.0 2.8 2.1 1.2 2.1 1.1 1.8 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.3 3.5# Std. Deviations < C.L.F. 2 STDActual # Minus Expected # -1 -2 -4 -1 -3 -8

By Race/National Origin1 Standard Deviation# Std. Deviations < C.L.F.Actual # Minus Expected # -2 -5 -4

AIAN 2/More Races0.3 0.9 0.6

Black Hispanic Asian NHOPI2.4 2.3 2.1

2 STD



Appendix C Supporting Documents

1. FEORP Accomplishments Plan and Progress Tracker (FY 2019).xlsx.To open this document, please copy and paste the following URL into a browser window.N:\EEO\MD 715 FY 19

2. LRN Nashville District FEORP signed LtCol Avichal 2019.pdf.To open this document, please copy and paste the following URL into a browser window.N:\EEO\MD 715 FY 19

3. LRN 2019 DVAAP Accomplishment Report Form.pdf.To open this document, please copy and paste the following URL into a browser window.N:\EEO\MD 715 FY 19

4. LRN 2020 DVAAP Plan and Certification signed by Deputy Commander.pdf.To open this document, please copy and paste the following URL into a browser window.N:\EEO\MD 715 FY 19

5. LRN Policy Memorandum #16 - Anti-Harassment.pdf.To open this document, please copy and paste the following URL into a browser window.https://usace.dps.mil/sites/PUBS-LRN/PolicyLetters/Forms/PubsDisplay.aspx

6. LRN Policy Memorandum #17 - Anti-Disrcimination.pdf.To open this document, please copy and paste the following URL into a browser window.https://usace.dps.mil/sites/PUBS-LRN/PolicyLetters/Forms/PubsDisplay.aspx

7. Nashville District Orgchart.pdf.To open this document, please copy and paste the following URL into a browser window.N:\EEO\MD 715 FY 19