# For The Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Asec%3A053aad4fdb324ec2 ## Record - **Collection:** Agency decision - **Document type:** Agency decision ## Text AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN AND REPORT For The Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons With Disabilities FISCAL YEAR 2023 2 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N CONTENTS SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, ADVANCEMENT, AND RETENTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (PART J). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section I: Efforts to Reach Regulatory Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section II: Model Disability Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Plan to Provide Sufficient & Competent Staffing for the Disability Program. . . . . . . . . . 4 Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Section III: Plan to Recruit and Hire Individuals with Disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Plan to Identify Job Applicants with Disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Progression towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Section IV: Plan to Ensure Advancement Opportunities for Employees with Disabilities . . . . 15 Advancement Program Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Career Development Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Section V: Plan to Improve Retention of Persons with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Voluntary and Involuntary Separations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Accessibility of Technology and Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Reasonable Accommodation Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the Workplace . . . . . . 37 Section VI: EEO Complaint and Findings Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 EEO Complaint Data Involving Harassment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Section VII: Identification and Removal of Barriers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 TABLE B2: TOTAL WORKFORCE BY REGIONAL OFFICES AND HEADQUARTERS—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 TABLE B3: OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . 53 Prepared by THE OFFICE OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FISCAL YEAR 2023 | i TABLE B4P: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY DISABILITY–PERMANENT WORKFORCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 TABLE B4T: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN GRADES BY DISABILITY—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 TABLE B5P: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY DISABILITY—PERMANENT WORKFORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 TABLE B5T: PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN SALARY RANGES BY DISABILITY—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 TABLE B6P: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS BY DISABILITY—PERMANENT WORKFORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 TABLE B6T: PARTICIPATION IN MISSION CRITICAL OCCUPATIONS BY DISABILITY—TEMPORARY WORKFORCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 TABLE B7: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR SENIOR GRADE LEVELS BY DISABILITY—PERMANENT WORKFORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 TABLE B8: PARTICIPATION RATES FOR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BY DISABILITY—PERMANENT WORKFORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 TABLE B9-1: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—PARTICIPATION BY DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 TABLE B9-2: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AND AWARDS—INCLUSION WITHIN THE PERMANENT WORKFORCE BY DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 ii | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N SPECIAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR THE RECRUITMENT, HIRING, ADVANCEMENT, AND RETENTION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (PART J) To capture agencies’ affirmative action plan for persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD), EEOC regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(e)) and MD-715 require agencies to describe how their plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants and employees with disabilities. All agencies, regardless of size, must complete this Part of the MD-715 report.1 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 In FY 2022, OPM changed the format of Applicant Flow Data with respect to disability identification. A new “disability omitted” category was added, which includes both applicants who did not submit a disability identification form and applicants who selected they did not wish to answer questions on their disability on the disability identification form. The SEC’s MD-715 workforce tables account for persons who did not submit a form in a new “No Form” column, and persons who selected they did not wish to answer questions on their disability in the “Not Identified” column. Since the agency has no information on the disability status of persons who did not submit a form, persons who did not submit a form are not included in the totals. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 1 1. Using the goal of 12% as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWD) b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWD) Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 This report presents separate results for both persons with disabilities (PWD) and persons with targeted disabilities (PWTD) employed, or seeking employment, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As required by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the analysis and report reflect the participation of persons with (targeted) disabilities in two different “clusters” – Cluster GS-1 to GS-10, and Cluster GS-11 to SES (senior officer-equivalent for the SEC). The clusters are calculated based on the locality adjusted salary specified in the revised regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As a point of reference, in FY 2023 the locality adjusted salary of a GS-11, step 1, in the Washington, DC, area was $78,592. The EEOC has established numerical goals for the employment and utilization of PWD (12%) and PWTD (2%) for each of the two clusters. The SEC’s goal is to meet and exceed these relevant benchmarks for PWD and PWTD for each cluster. The SEC included permanent and temporary employees hired under authorities that take disability into account as PWD under the relevant hiring authority. Permanent and temporary employees who did not self-identify on standard form 256 (SF-256) as having a disability but whose personnel record indicates they received veterans’ preference (e.g., CPS – preference based on compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more) are included in the total PWD workforce data tables. Similarly, permanent and temporary employees not self-identified on SF-256 but whose personnel record documents that they were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A, part u (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u) Appointment of persons with intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, or psychiatric disabilities) are included in the total PWD workforce for purposes of utilization analysis. For employees with salaries below a GS-11, step 1, the agency achieved the numerical goal for PWD participation; three or 46.15% of employees in this cluster were PWD compared to the 12% benchmark. See Table B5. For employees with locality adjusted salaries above a GS-11, step 1, the agency did not achieve the required numerical goal: 9.69% of employees in this cluster were PWD compared to the 12% benchmark. While the numerical goal was not achieved, the current participation rate represents an increase of 3.12 percentage points since the end of FY 2015. Between FY 2015 and FY 2023, the participation of PWD in the total workforce increased from 6.57% to 9.69%. 2 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 2. Using the goal of 2% as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD by grade level cluster in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Cluster GS-1 to GS-10 (PWTD) b. Cluster GS-11 to SES (PWTD) Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 The SEC achieved the numerical goal established for PWTD in the lower salary cluster during FY 2023. In the lower salary cluster, 1 of the 10 permanent employees is a PWTD (7.69%). The SEC did not achieve the numerical goal for PWTD among higher-salaried employees, as 1.81% of higher-salaried employees are PWTD. 3. Describe how the Agency has communicated the numerical goals to the hiring managers and/or recruiters. The SEC’s Office of Human Resources (OHR) continues to implement the 2022 – 2024 Recruitment Strategy (Recruitment Strategy) to “Increase workforce representation for people with disabilities and people with targeted disabilities.” The Recruitment Strategy employs two goals toward this objective: (1) build a talent pool of qualified Schedule A applicants; and (2) improve veteran recruitment efforts. SEC senior leadership, OHR, the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO), and Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) are working together to communicate these goals throughout the agency. The plan has been made available to all SEC employees on the SEC’s intranet, AskHR. OHR continues to provide training and develop new resources to improve awareness and communicate opportunities to utilize special hiring authorities, including Schedule A hiring options. Through training and conversations with hiring managers, OHR continues to reinforce how the agency may improve progress toward achieving numerical goals. A checklist is used by OHR staffing specialists when vacant positions are identified to ensure hiring managers understand all of their options for filling positions, including using Schedule A and veterans’ hiring authorities for those applicants with a service-connected disability of 30% or more. SEC division and office heads and employees have access to the agency’s Diversity Dashboard, an interactive web-enabled data feed that aggregates workforce data. Multiple views of gender, race, generation, veteran, and disability status provide a real-time status on the progress the agency is making toward its goals. Continued on the next page FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 3 OHR also continues to share workforce data through the Human Capital Reporting & Analytics (HCRA) Dashboard. The HCRA provides, among other key human capital metrics, aggregate data on the disability status for self-identified PWD and PWTD. A series of data filters enable leaders to understand employee gains and losses within their particular division or office for specific occupations, grades, and duty stations. OHR uses this information to support human capital strategic planning. 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. Plan to Provide Sufficient & 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 0 The agency designated sufficient talent acquisition resources and full-time equivalents (FTE) to Special Programs classification, recruitment, and staffing in support of the Disability Program. In FY 2023, OHR designated a new full-time position for the Disability and Veterans programs to serve as the primary point of contact for the disability community and work on recruitment, staffing, policies, and procedures. In addition, the agency approved hiring for another FTE and added three contractor personnel to the reasonable accommodation (RA) component of the agency’s Disability Program. 4 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 2. Identify all staff responsible for implementing the Agency’s disability employment program by the office, staff employment status, and responsible official. Number of Full-Time Equivalent Staff by Employment Status Disability Program Task Processing applications from PWD and PWTD Full Time Part Time Collateral Duty 14 0 0 Responsible Official (Name, Title, Office, Email) Xiya Li, Branch Chief, Recruitment, Outreach and Special Hiring Programs Office of Human Resources lixiy@sec.gov Jacqueline Twiner, Branch Chief, Staffing Office of Human Resources twinerj@sec.gov Answering questions from the public about hiring authorities that take disability into account 14 0 0 Xiya Li, Branch Chief, Recruitment, Outreach and Special Hiring Programs Office of Human Resources lixiy@sec.gov Jacqueline Twiner, Branch Chief, Staffing Office of Human Resources twinerj@sec.gov Processing reasonable accommodation requests from applicants and employees 2 0 0 Shalisha Bazemore, Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer / Acting Disability Program Manager Office of Human Resources bazemores@sec.gov Section 508 Compliance 1 0 0 Sharvon Jones, Section 508 Coordinator Governance Branch Office of Information Technology jonessh@sec.gov Architectural Barriers Act Compliance 0 0 3 Reema Gupta, Architect Office of Support Operations (OSO) Office of Building Operations (OBO) guptare@sec.gov Saji Alummuttil, Architect OSO-OBO alummuttils@sec.gov Carla Hairston, NCIDQ, COEE, Space Management Specialist OSO-OBO hairstonc@sec.gov Special Emphasis Program for PWD and PWTD 4 0 0 Rachael Tsuchitani, Disability Program Advisor Office of Human Resources tsuchitanir@sec.gov FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 5 3. Has the Agency provided disability program staff with sufficient training to carry out their responsibilities during the reporting period? If “yes”, describe the training that disability program staff have received. If “no”, describe the training planned for the upcoming year. Yes X No 0 RA Program staff, including the Disability Program Officer, receive on-the-job training and periodically attend training programs. The office also reviews recent case law to stay current with developments in this area. The RA Program Manager and coordinators completed courses specific to accommodating disabilities, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), religious accommodations, performance management, hiring, and retaining PWD and PWTD via webinars sponsored by the EEOC, LRP Publications, and through the SEC’s on-demand learning management system, LEAP. More generally, all of the SEC’s HR specialists have completed training courses related to staffing and placement offered by the USDA Graduate School or Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and through various other platforms. The agency’s training and development office, SEC University, also offers learning options that include processing applications for PWD and PWTD. The agency will continue these practices in the future. Plan to Ensure Sufficient Funding for the Disability Program 1. Has the Agency provided sufficient funding and other resources to successfully implement the disability program during the reporting period? If “no”, describe the Agency’s plan to ensure all aspects of the disability program have sufficient funding and other resources. Yes X No 0 The agency was resourced adequately during the reporting period to successfully implement the Disability Program. In FY 2023, the agency also designated a new, full-time position to serve as the primary point of contact for the veteran and disability community to work on recruitment, staffing, policies, and procedures. 6 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 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. 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. The SEC is committed to being a model employer for people with disabilities. The SEC uses a streamlined approach to the general hiring process using the Schedule A hiring authority for PWD. As such, external hiring requests are filtered through the Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC) for review. The SPPC refers eligible applicants to hiring managers prior to or concurrently with the general staffing process. OHR also continued to take steps toward improving the representation of PWD and PWTD in applicant pools. Since implementation of the Recruitment Strategy, the SEC has realized an increase in the overall representation of PWD through effective recruitment and outreach efforts that identify the agency as an employer of choice. The SEC used OPM’s Agency Talent Portal to search for resumes of individuals with disabilities. Invitations to complete the web-form and/or apply to jobs posted on USAJOBS.gov are sent to individuals with disabilities who demonstrated an interest in mission-critical occupations (MCO) at the SEC. In FY 2023, OHR also piloted posting open continuous job announcements on USAJOBS for the examiner and accountant MCOs, open only for veterans and PWD. The announcements were used as an additional tool to increase the number of eligibles in the database that can be non-competitively referred for future SEC vacancies. More than 1,300 applications were received across the two announcements. Through the end of the fiscal year, eight lists of eligibles were referred to hiring managers with a total of 332 applicants from the database. In FY 2023, the agency maintained a strong recruitment presence and attended four virtual career fairs and events to support other disability recruitment efforts in building talent pools for future employment. In FY 2023, OHR also hosted two career fairs specifically targeting individuals with disabilities and veterans seeking employment opportunities in the SEC’s MCOs and will continue seeking opportunities to engage with law and business students interested in internships with the SEC. Further, OHR continues to retain and review applications from PWD for future openings and conducts targeted outreach to connect with qualified candidates by collaborating with community-based partners such as nonprofit organizations, national and local disability organizations, and federally funded state and local employment programs. Finally, OHR continues to leverage the Disability Interests Advisory Committee (DIAC), an employee affinity group, for recruitment resources and assistance. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 7 2. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(3), describe the Agency’s use of hiring authorities that take disability into account (e.g., Schedule A) to recruit PWD and PWTD for positions in the permanent workforce. The agency uses a variety of available resources that support hiring through Schedule A and other hiring authorities that take disability into account. The Disability Program Manager and/or SPPC receives notifications and newsletters from the following groups and transmits information to OHR staff engaged in recruitment: n EARN—Employer Assistance Resource Network: askearn.org n JAN—Job Accommodation Network: askjan.org n n ODEP—Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor: dol.gov/agencies/odep OWF—Operation Warfighter Program: warriorcare.dodlive.mil/carecoordination/ operation-warfighter/ 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 under such authority and (2) forwards the individual’s application to the relevant hiring officials with an explanation of how and when the individual may be appointed. The following describes three procedures for processing applications under the Schedule A hiring authority for persons with disabilities, one used in response to a specific vacancy posting and the other two for Schedule A applications to be considered for future SEC vacancies. 1. OHR processes Schedule A applications in response to a Job Opportunity Announcement (JOA). Applicants who wish to be considered for a specific vacancy under the Schedule A hiring authority must submit the appropriate documentation when applying for a current open JOA. The SEC defers to the OPM-identified appropriate documentation. Applications are reviewed by HR specialists to determine if the applicant is minimally qualified as identified in the JOA. If the applicant is minimally qualified, that individual is referred to the hiring manager on a separate certificate of eligible candidates. HR specialists provide written guidance to hiring managers via email that explains how Schedule A applicants can be selected once the certificate has been issued. Continued on the next page 8 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 2. OHR also processes unsolicited Schedule A applications. Applicants who wish to be considered under the Schedule A hiring authority, outside the process for a specific vacancy posting, must submit the appropriate documentation as identified by OPM with their application. The SPPC will proactively contact the prospective applicant if the individual did not submit the required documentation. The application will not be processed until the appropriate documentation is received. Resumes submitted directly to the SPPC are reviewed to determine eligibility. Building a pool of qualified candidates is important to the SEC; as such, the agency has developed a Schedule A Resume Database. The SEC process for hiring starts with a Staffing Action Request Form (SARF) submitted by the hiring manager. Upon request, when a SARF is received by OHR, the SPPC compiles a certificate of eligible candidates from the database per the job series and grade and refers candidates to hiring managers. The SPPC conducts a one-on-one consultation with the hiring manager to discuss the certificate of eligible candidates, as appropriate. The SEC’s administrative regulations on its Veterans Employment Program provides instruction for hiring veterans with disabilities and was last updated in December 2021. The agency’s administrative regulations are available upon request. 3. OHR processes Schedule A applications in a response to an Open Continuous Announcement-Open to Persons with Disabilities and Veterans. Applicants who wish to be considered under the Schedule A hiring authority for future SEC vacancies through the posted announcement must submit the appropriate documentation with their application, as identified by OPM. Resumes received through the open continuous announcement will be reviewed by the SPPC to determine eligibility. Upon receipt of a SARF, the SPPC compiles a certificate of eligibles and refers candidates to hiring managers prior to a competitive vacancy announcement posted on USAJOBS. Written guidance is then provided to hiring managers via email to explain how Schedule A and veteran candidates can be selected and conducts one-on-one consultation with the hiring manager, as needed. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 9 4. Has the Agency provided training to all hiring managers on the use of hiring authorities that take disability into account (e.g., Schedule A)? If “yes”, describe the type(s) of training and frequency. If “no”, describe the Agency’s plan to provide this training. Yes X No 0 N/A 0 In FY 2023, OHR Staffing specialists used a hiring checklist in the one-on-one conversation with hiring managers. The checklist contains a section on Schedule A hiring of PWD, and the specialist advises hiring managers on the Schedule A hiring process and offers it as a course of action where applicable. To increase awareness about the Schedule A hiring process and options available to hiring managers, OHR also developed and launched online training. Additional resources and fact sheets are available to hiring managers via the SEC’s intranet, AskHR. In FY 2023, hiring managers were invited to take a survey to gauge awareness of PWD hiring and appointment flexibilities. The results of the survey will determine additional FY 2024 training and outreach needs. The SEC will continue to promote among hiring managers the successful use of Schedule A hiring to support the SEC’s Recruitment Strategy and Affirmative Action Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons with Disabilities. 10 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N Plan to Establish Contacts with Disability Employment Organizations 1. Describe the Agency’s efforts to establish and maintain contacts with organizations that assist PWD, including PWTD, in securing and maintaining employment. The SEC’s SPPC continued to maintain established partnerships with organizations that assist PWD and PWTD in securing and maintaining employment. The SPPC updated the SEC’s list of affinity organizations to maintain contact and foster relationships for recruitment events and candidate sourcing. The SPPC also maintains an ongoing relationship with the SEC’s DIAC and the Veterans Committee members which help support the agency’s efforts to recruit PWD and PWTD. In addition, the agency continued work to strengthen partnerships with stakeholders to include SEC program offices, such as OMWI, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), DIAC, and employee affinity groups to identify sustainable actions to improve the agency’s diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives for the PWD and PWTD communities. These actions continue to promote greater inclusion of the PWD and PWTD communities in the SEC workforce. Progression towards Goals (Recruitment and Hiring) 1. Using the goals of 12% for PWD and 2% for PWTD as the benchmarks, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the new hires in the permanent workforce? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. a. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWD) Yes 0 b. New Hires for Permanent Workforce (PWTD) Yes X No X No 0 In FY 2023, the agency hired 412 permanent employees, of which PWD and PWTD represented 12.62% and 0.97%, respectively, of all new hires. As such, the agency achieved the 12% goal for new hires of PWD for the first time in FY 2023 but did not achieve the numerical goal of 2% participation of new hires for PWTD. See Table B1. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 11 2. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the new hires for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. a. New Hires for MCO (PWD) b. New Hires for MCO (PWTD) Yes X Yes X No 0 No 0 In FY 2023, the SEC hired and onboarded a total of 412 permanent staff employees. Among these newly hired staff members were 337 persons in MCO positions as follows: 235 attorneys; 26 accountants; 31 securities compliance examiners; 26 IT management specialists; and 19 economists. Thirty-five of the 337 (9.74%) newly onboarded MCO permanent staff were PWD. As a preliminary matter, differences may be observed in comparing the demographic statistics of the qualified applicant pool (QAP), selections, and new hires onboarded. Reasons for these differences vary. Some newly hired staff applied for a vacancy posted in the prior fiscal year or may have elected not to volunteer demographic information with their application. In addition, in FY 2023, some divisions posted open continuous announcements for which the applicant flow data do not fall into a specific fiscal year based on the close dates of the postings. Triggers comparing the composition of PWD and PWTD in applicant flow versus new hire data should be interpreted with these differences in mind. Triggers were observed for PWD in the hiring of permanent economists, accountants, securities compliance examiners, and attorneys as follows: n n n n For economists, 10.53% of new hires were PWD, below their representation in the QAP of 13.68%. For attorneys, 8.09% of new hires were PWD, below their representation in the QAP 13.16%. For accountants, 3.85% of new hires were PWD, below their representation in the QAP of 8.27%. For securities compliance examiners, 3.23% of new hires were PWD, below their representation in the QAP of 8.74% Continued on the next page 12 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N For IT management, 42.31.% of new hires were PWD, above their representation in the QAP of 32.64%. Triggers were also observed for PWTD in the attorney, IT management, economist, and accountant occupations: n n n n n One-hundred seven PWTD were in the QAP (3.84%) for attorneys; no PWTD were hired. Forty-seven PWTD were in the QAP (5.75%) for IT management; no PWTD were hired. Thirty-three PWTD were in the QAP (6.64%) for economists; no PWTD were hired. Five PWTD were in QAP (1.07%) for securities compliance examiners; no PWTD were hired. Twenty-one PWTD was in the QAP (3.22%) for accountants; no PWTD were hired. See Table B6. 3. Using the relevant applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among the qualified internal applicants for any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. a. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWD) b. Qualified Applicants for MCO (PWTD) Yes 0 Yes 0 No X No X In the FY 2023 data presented in Table B6, differences were identified in the participation of PWD in the qualified internal applicants for competitive promotions as compared to the relevant applicant pool (RAP) within the Attorney occupation. The RAP was defined for each MCO based on the number of employees holding a qualifying occupation series and in the SK-levels encumbered at the agency between SK-11 and SK-16. Specifically, for attorneys, the RAP included all employees in the 0905 series. For accountants, the RAP included all employees in the 0510 series. For securities compliance examiners, the RAP included all employees in the 1831 and the 0501, Financial Administration and Program series. For the IT management occupation, the RAP included all employees in the 2210 series, and for the economist occupation, the RAP included all employees in the 0110 series. Continued on the next page FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 13 None of the MCOs had a trigger between the RAP and qualified internal applicants. Accountants, securities compliance examiners, IT management specialists, and economists all had qualified internal applicants that exceeded their RAP, both for PWD and PWTD. Within the attorney occupation, the QAP among PWTD (1.04%) was within one percentage point of the RAP (1.12%); thus no trigger was observed. 4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, do triggers exist for PWD and/or PWTD among employees promoted to any of the mission-critical occupations (MCO)? If “yes”, please describe the triggers below. a. Promotions for MCO (PWD) b. Promotions for MCO (PWTD) Yes X Yes X No 0 No 0 The selection data indicate a difference for PWD in the attorney, accountant, securities compliance examiner, economist, and IT management occupations. n For attorneys, the QAP for PWD was 6.22%, and PWD were 1.39% of selections. n For accountants, the QAP for PWD was 22.03%, and PWD were 0.00% of selections. n n n For securities compliance examiners, the QAP was 12.16%, and PWD were 0.00% of selections. For economists, the QAP for PWD was 11.54%, and PWD were 0.00% of selections. For IT management, the QAP for PWD was 48.19%, and PWD were 28.57% of selections. The selection data also indicate there were differences between selections and the qualified applicant pool for PWTD in the attorney, accountant, securities compliance examiner, economist, and IT management occupations. n For attorneys, the QAP for PWTD was 1.04%, and PWTD were 0.00% of selections. n For accountants, the QAP for PWTD was 3.39%, and PWTD were 0.00% of selections. n n n 14 | For IT management, the QAP for PWTD was 9.84%, and PWTD were 0.00% of selections. For economists, the QAP for PWTD was 11.54%, and PWTD were 0.00% of selections. For securities compliance examiners, the QAP for PWTD was 2.70%, and PWTD were 0.00% of selections. A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 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. Advancement Program Plan 1. Describe the Agency’s plan to ensure PWD, including PWTD, have sufficient opportunities for advancement. To promote EEO, the agency takes a number of steps to ensure that opportunities for advancement are open and available to all in the workforce, including PWD and PWTD. The following describes efforts to promote opportunities for advancement. Information about training, the agency’s Mentoring Program, and career development opportunities is widely shared with the workforce via SEC Today, which is the SEC’s daily newsletter published agency wide. OHR maintains a user-friendly, interactive portal, AskHR, on the SEC’s intranet, which provides employees with information about hiring, compensation and benefits, employee development, performance management, and disability accommodations, among a number of other topics. The SEC Veterans Committee hosts a website that includes information concerning veterans’ benefits and a link to the Feds Hire Vets website that highlights special hiring authorities for veterans. DIAC regularly communicates with its membership, which includes PWD and PWTD, about its own activities, other events, developmental opportunities, and job postings or support available to the workforce. These more targeted communications help ensure that PWD and PWTD are aware of the available options and any processes for requesting participation or enrollment. OHR reserved five (5) slots in the 2023 Mentoring Program cohort for employees with disabilities and collaborated with DIAC to communicate this opportunity to its membership. An additional 12 slots were delegated to the Division of Enforcement Diversity Council to nominate individuals and a number of those slots went to people with disabilities. The agency ultimately enrolled 17 mentees who are employees with disabilities. Continued on the next page FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 15 In addition, in FY 2021, the SEC launched a cross-office working group comprised of senior officers who are champions of disability inclusion, subject matter experts in OHR, OEEO, OMWI, and key members of the DIAC. This working group began meeting in FY 2021 and, leveraging evidence-based data, made 17 recommendations to management in FY 2022 related to the recruitment, hiring, career development, promotion, reasonable accommodation, and retention of PWD and PWTD at the SEC (PWD Recommendations). A new cross-office working group (comprised of OHR, OMWI, OEEO, OIT, and OCOO) was launched in FY 2023 and charged with implementing the PWD Recommendations. By the end of FY 2023, the SEC had implemented 12 of the 17 recommendations, including: sharing the Schedule A PWD list with division/office hiring managers prior to the publication of a job announcement provided there are qualified candidates in the resume database to refer; generating a larger talent pool of Schedule A PWD candidates through open continuous announcements and by marketing the web-form that is used to collect information from prospective candidates who identify as PWD; hosting two career fairs for PWD and veterans; creating more training resources for hiring managers; increasing outreach and communication to colleges, universities, and professional organizations; and sharing aggregate disability data with divisions/offices. To ensure progress was made on the recommended actions, the implementation working group met on a monthly basis and scheduled accountability meetings with agency leaders— including the agency’s Operations Steering Committee (a standing committee that is consulted on various matters, including those related to the agency’s human capital), the Diversity Council, the Chief Operating Officer, and the two senior officer co-leads for the working group that developed the recommendations. The accountability meetings not only serve to hold the working group accountable but also serve as an opportunity to request needed resources and/or support from other agency stakeholders in the implementation phase. The remaining PWD Recommendations accepted by the agency will be the focus of intentional effort in FY 2024, along with implementing accountability measures to continue to monitor the ongoing actions for the recommendations being implemented. 16 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N Career Development Opportunities 1. Please describe the career development opportunities that the Agency provides to its employees. The SEC provides numerous opportunities for employees to acquire the skills and certifications needed to succeed in their technical positions and to progress in their careers. Classroom-style and e-Learning programs offer an extensive array of learning opportunities in technical areas (e.g., courses on hedge funds, mutual funds, and credit derivatives), as well as in leadership development, to SEC senior leaders and non-supervisory staff alike. Among the variety of learning and development offerings, the SEC offers the career development training programs highlighted below. Data on participation in these programs is captured along with other training program data in the section below. n n n The EIG Fellows Program, coordinated by the Partnership for Public Service, strengthens the leadership skills of experienced federal employees through a combination of innovative coursework, best practices benchmarking, challenging action-learning projects, executive coaching, and government wide networking. This program is offered to SEC employees in the SK-14 to SK-17 (a mix of supervisory and non-supervisory) levels. SEC’s EIG Fellows attend facilitated sessions to share what they are learning and to explore how this information can be applied to improve organizational performance, workplace relationships, and productivity. The Aspiring Leaders Program is an interactive blended-learning program designed to strengthen the leadership and management skills of SEC non-supervisory (SK-13 and SK-14) employees. The program covers: critical leadership skills for effective supervision; first-line management responsibilities; understanding government policy, process, and regulations relevant to management; and increasing self-awareness through guided selfassessments and feedback. C.O.R.E. is a transformative professional development experience, with a focus on the unique perspectives of minority leaders at the SEC, and provides tools and techniques to increase participants’ effectiveness, span of contributions and engagement within their function, and support their personal well-being and growth. The series equips participants, including minority leadership talent, with knowledge, skills, and strategies to successfully manage unique challenges as they strive to reach senior-level positions at the SEC while helping to drive the agency’s overall success and mission effectiveness. The series has five two-hour webinars, in which participants learn strategies for authentic and difficult conversations, managing conflict, and exploring the role that emotions play in leadership outcomes. Continued on the next page FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 17 In addition to the career development programs referenced above, the agency encourages employees, including PWD and PWTD, to pursue leadership development through a variety of program offerings, including both individual coaching and an agency-wide mentoring program. In FY 2023, 45 SEC managers engaged in coaching with an external coach. Due to confidentiality considerations, the SEC does not track demographic information for the employees engaged in coaching opportunities. Non-supervisory offerings developed for leaders without formal authority included, for example, Unlocking Innovation Through Diversity and Managing Your Personal Brand and Impact and Influence. (Courses are designed to enhance individual development, relationship-building, support diversity and inclusion values SEC-wide, and develop leadership behaviors for SEC leaders at all levels.) In FY 2022, the SEC finalized and launched a Leadership Evaluation and Development (LEAD) Program, which emphasizes the importance of certain leadership skills essential for success at the SEC. In FY 2023, the SEC maintained the developmental components of the LEAD Program while pilot testing the leadership assessments, using them as part of the selection process for SO positions in OCOO and the Division of Investment Management. The LEAD pilot for selecting senior officers included validated standardized leadership assessments that screen candidates on essential leadership competencies in a fair and legally compliant manner. Based on the pilot test, in FY 2024, OHR is planning to focus efforts on formalizing a robust senior leadership developmental program, while also continuing to provide a framework and website for employees to investigate and seek leadership development resources and tools. The easy-to-navigate website will continue to be available to all SEC employees to identify and access leadership development tools and tips to help them advocate for relevant leadership development opportunities that are aligned to critical SO leadership competencies. The agency also promotes a robust Detail Program. Detail opportunities offer SEC employees short-term rotational assignments to gain knowledge and experience within another SEC division or office. Details are advertised internally via SEC Today and allow employees to temporarily move laterally, without a change in grade or pay, to learn about programs and subject matter areas throughout the agency. 18 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N Total Participants PWD Selectees (#) Internship Programs 3,395 406 6.82 9.38 2.39 2.60 Fellowship Programs 39 7 5.13 0.00 2.04 0.00 2.38 Career Development Opportunities Applicants (%) PWTD Applicants (#) Selectees (%) Applicants (%) Selectees (%) Mentoring Programs 42 42 23.81 23.81 2.38 Coaching Programs NA NA NA NA NA NA Training Programs 54,079 54,079 9.48 9.48 1.74 1.74 Detail Programs 370 183 6.60 7.43 1.35 0.55 Other Career Development Programs 54 47 14.81 14.89 7.41 6.38 Notes to help the reader understand the data above: The SEC’s Mentoring Program was open for registration to all employees. Mentees were selected on a first-come, first-served basis. Due to confidentiality considerations, the SEC does not track demographic information for employees engaged in coaching programs. Training Programs data show demographic data for all permanent employees’ registrations for training in LEAP, Pluralsight, Becker, The Practising Law Institute, and Udemy, who completed training opportunities during FY 2023. All eligible employees who register or apply are invited or selected to complete the training course. Applicant and selectee participation records are thus identical. These applicant registration and selectee records may include more than one training opportunity per employee. Therefore, the total registration and participation data exceed the total number of employees. In FY 2023, the SEC expanded the type of information included in reporting on Detail Programs. The FY 2023 MD-715 Report includes information both from detail opportunities that did not include a change in grade as well as detail opportunities that did include a change in grade. Current staff’s view is that both types of details represent opportunities for career development. Previous years’ MD-715 reporting on detail programs only summarized information for Temporary Promotions announced by the agency for competitive selection (which produces Applicant Flow Data in USA Staffing©). They did not include lateral details or non-competitive temporary promotions, which may be filled without posting to USAJOBS, and represent 94 percent of the agency’s detail opportunities. When this additional dataset of detail opportunities was included, PWD represented a much smaller proportion of detail applicants and selectees than computed under previous MD-715 Reports’ methods, and PWTD represented a slightly larger proportion of applicants and selectees. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 19 In this report, the agency included FY 2023 selection data for its leadership development programs, including the Excellence in Government Fellows Program, the Aspiring Leaders Program, and C.O.R.E., as well as approved participation in Harvard University’s Strategic Management of Regulatory Enforcement Agencies course. While completion of these programs does not lead to placement at a specific grade (a criterion for inclusion in the MD-715 Workforce Data Tables), they do contribute to the pool of employees who may potentially be considered for leadership positions in the future. Data for these leadership programs have been consolidated into the “Other Career Development Programs” category. 2. Do triggers exist for PWD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for the applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Applicants (PWD) b. Selections (PWD) Yes X Yes X No 0 No 0 From the Career Development Opportunities table as described above, data on the participation of PWD and PWTD in applications and selections for various programs were reviewed. For the Internship Program, 6.82% of applicants were PWD and PWD were 9.38% of selections. As selections had a higher percentage of PWD than the percentage of PWD among applicants, there was no trigger for internships. For the agency’s economist, accountant, and attorney Fellows programs, the agency noted a difference in the participation of PWD among (external) applicants for these programs and eventual selections for positions. While 5.13% of applicants were PWD, none of the Fellows hired were PWD (0.00%). Within the agency’s Mentoring Program (selections were on a first-come, first-served basis), the agency found no evidence of a trigger. PWD represent 23.81% of those employees who expressed interest in the Mentoring Program and 23.81% of those selected for mentoring. This was an increase of about double the proportion of applicants who were PWD in FY 2022 (12.90%). In FY 2023, training data includes trainings approved on standard form 182 through the agency’s learning management system, LEAP, and trainings from Pluralsight, Becker, the Practising Law Institute, and Udemy. Aggregate PWD participation in training programs matched their participation on rolls: 9.48% of trainings were completed by PWD, compared to 9.82% of permanent employees who are PWD. No trigger was found for applications or selections. Continued on the next page 20 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N FY 2023 data include information about lateral details as well as temporary promotions. PWD were a smaller percentage of applicants for detail opportunities than their representation in the workforce. PWD were 6.60% of applicants for detail opportunities compared to 9.82% of the SEC workforce. However, PWD were a larger proportion of those selected than their representation among applicants. PWD were 7.43% of selections compared to 6.60% of applicants. Selection data for PWD on other career development programs indicated no evidence of a trigger for PWD. PWD were 14.89% of selectees among the consolidated selectees of the Excellence in Government, Aspiring Leaders, and C.O.R.E. programs, and 9.82% of permanent SEC employees. 3. Do triggers exist for PWTD among the applicants and/or selectees for any of the career development programs identified? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for applicants and the applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Applicants (PWTD) b. Selections (PWTD) Yes X Yes X No 0 No 0 From the Career Development Opportunities table above, data on the participation of PWTD in various programs were reviewed for equality of employment opportunity in the applications and selections for these programs. FY 2023 showed few triggers among PWTD applicants for career development programs. However, several triggers remained among selections. In the agency’s Economist, Accountant, and Attorney Fellows programs, the agency had a trigger for selections among PWTD. PWTD were 2.04% of applicants, but no PWTD were selected as Fellows in FY 2023. For the Internship Program, 2.39% of applicants were PWTD, and PWTD were 2.60% of selections. Within the agency’s Mentoring Program, the participation rate for PWTD among applicants (2.38%) approximated the percentage of PWTD among permanent staff (1.84%). Thus, no trigger was found among applicants. The participation of PWTD among employees selected for mentoring in FY 2023 was equal to the proportion of applicants, as all applicants were selected on a first-come, first-served basis. Thus, no trigger was found among selections. Continued on the next page FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 21 No evidence of a trigger was found among applicants or selections in the training programs. In the aggregate, training records show that PWTD participated in training programs about equal to their participation on rolls; 1.74% of training opportunities requiring special approval were completed by PWTD, compared to 1.84% of permanent employees. Data about detailed employees show evidence of a difference for PWTD among those who applied for detail opportunities (1.35%) compared to PWTD in the permanent workforce (1.84%). The data also indicated a 0.8 percentage point difference between PWTD selections and applicants. While 1.35% of applicants for detail opportunities were PWTD, PWTD represent 0.55% of those selected. Data on other career development programs indicated high representation of PWTD among applicants for leadership programs, at 7.41 percent. However, selection data suggested a one percentage point trigger at the selection phase. Of 54 selectees among the consolidated selectees for the Excellence in Government, Aspiring Leaders, and C.O.R.E. programs, 6.38% of selections were PWTD, and 7.41% of applicants were PWTD. Awards 1. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD and/ or PWTD for any level of the time-off awards, bonuses, or other incentives? If “yes”, please describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWD) b. Awards, Bonuses, & Incentives (PWTD) Yes X Yes X No 0 No 0 Table B9-2 presents information on awards distributed to employees during the year as part of the SEC’s Employee Recognition Program. The EEOC has suggested that agencies consider awards distribution based on inclusion rates, the degree to which each employee group is distributed across workforce indicators, e.g., awarded or separated. This analysis requires aggregating data to the person level as presented in Table B9-2. Employees who received at least one award in any particular award category are counted once in this table. Aggregated data enables inclusion to be calculated as the proportion for all PWD and PWTD who received each type or category of award. In contrast, Table B9-1 presents participation rates among awards distributed. One employee can and often does receive more than one award in a year. In Table B9-1, one employee is represented more than once if he or she received more than one award in that category. Differences in calculation should be noted when interpreting data from Tables B9-1 and B9-2. Continued on the next page 22 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N The inclusion rate for PWD was calculated by comparing the number and percent of employees with disabilities who received at least one award in each applicable program element to the number and percent of employees without a disability (this category combines persons with no disability and those who did not identify as having a disability) who received at least one award in each applicable program element. The inclusion rate for PWTD was calculated by comparing the number and percent of employees with targeted disabilities who received at least one award in each applicable program element to the number and percent of employees without a targeted disability (this category combines persons with no disability, those who did not identify as having a disability, and those with a disability that is not targeted) who received at least one award in each applicable program element. The agency found a trigger in the distribution of time-off awards of 11-40 hours for PWD. The inclusion rate for PWD was 25.05%, while the inclusion rate for people without disability was 26.69%. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 30.23%. For cash awards, the agency found triggers for PWD and PWTD for cash awards of $1,000$1,999, $2,000 – $2,999, and $3000 or more. For cash awards at the $1,000 – $1,999 level, the inclusion rate for PWD was 32.90%, and the inclusion rate for persons without disability was 40.59%. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 33.72%, and the inclusion rate for persons with no targeted disability was 40.59%. For cash awards at the $2,000 – $2,999 level, the inclusion rate for PWD was 9.59%, and the inclusion rate for persons without disability was 13.55%. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 8.14%, and the inclusion rate for persons with no targeted disability was 13.25%. For cash awards at the $3,000 or more level, the inclusion rate for PWD was 3.27%, and the inclusion rate for persons without disability was 1.99%. The inclusion rate for PWTD was 1.16%, and the inclusion rate for persons with no targeted disability was 2.14%. OEEO researched the observed differences in the distribution of discretionary awards, made recommendations, and is actively monitoring the implementation as part of our barrier analysis program. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 23 2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD and/ or PWTD for quality step increases or performance-based pay increases? If “yes”, please describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Pay Increases (PWD) b. Pay Increases (PWTD) Yes 0 Yes 0 No X No X The agency did not have a trigger for PWD or PWTD for performance-based pay increases. 3. If the Agency has other types of employee recognition programs, are PWD and/or PWTD recognized disproportionately less than employees without disabilities? (The appropriate benchmark is the inclusion rate.) If “yes”, describe the employee recognition program and relevant data in the text box. a. Other Types of Recognition (PWD) b. Other Types of Recognition (PWTD) Yes 0 Yes 0 No 0 No 0 N/A X N/A X N/A Promotions 1. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. SES Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Internal Selections (PWD) b. Grade GS-15 Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Internal Selections (PWD) c. Grade GS-14 Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Internal Selections (PWD) d. Grade GS-13 Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Internal Selections (PWD) 24 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 The SEC crosswalks the agency’s SK alternative pay plan’s senior-grade levels to the General Schedule according to the following equivalencies: SES = SO and EX; GS-15 = SK-16 and SK-17; GS-14 = SK-14 and SK-15; GS-13 = SK-13. Note that the relevant applicant pools for the SK-grade equivalencies of the GS-14 and GS-15 levels combine data across SK-grade levels. This combination was made to conform analyses to the format provided, though the actual RAPs for individual SK levels differ. Table B7 presents the relevant FY 2023 data to assess whether triggers exist with regard to promotions to senior-grade levels. Of 1,349 qualified internal applications for senior-grade level positions, 414 (30.69%) were submitted by PWD. No differences were observed among the qualified applicants compared to the RAP for PWD at any senior-grade level. Among internal selections, differences were observed at the SES, GS-15, GS-14, and GS-13 equivalent levels. Of the 128 selections for internal promotions to senior-grade levels in Table B7, 6.25% were PWD, which was below their availability in the QAP at 30.69%. At the SES equivalent level, PWD represented 54.43% of qualified applicants, while no selections were PWD. At the GS-15 equivalent level, PWD represented 16.11% of qualified applicants, while they represented 3.90% of selections. At the GS-14 equivalent level, PWD represented 39.39% of qualified applicants, while they represented 10.20% of selections. At the GS-13 equivalent level, PWD represented 44.44% of qualified applicants, while no selections were PWD. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 25 2. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to the senior grade levels? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. SES Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Internal Selections (PWTD) b. Grade GS-15 Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Internal Selections (PWTD) c. Grade GS-14 Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Internal Selections (PWTD) d. Grade GS-13 Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes 0 No X No X Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Applying the same comparisons to PWTD as described above, the agency presents information on trigger identification for PWTD in promotions to senior-grade levels. Of 1,349 qualified internal applications for senior-grade level positions, 84 (6.23%) were submitted by PWTD, and 2 (1.56%) selected were PWTD. No differences were observed among qualified applicants at any of the senior grades. Among selections, triggers were observed at the SES, GS-15, and GS-13 equivalent levels. At the SES equivalent level, PWTD represented 8.86% of the qualified applicants, and represented no selections. At the GS-15 equivalent level, PWTD represented 1.93% of qualified applicants, and represented no selections. At the GS-13 equivalent level, PWTD represented 9.72% of qualified applicants, and represented no selections. There was no trigger observed at the GS-14 level. PWTD represented 4.31% of qualified applicants, and 4.08% of selections were PWTD. 26 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 3. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. New Hires to SES (PWD) b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWD) c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWD) d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWD) Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 X X 0 No No No No X 0 0 X The QAP from Table B7 summarizes data where the applicant self-identified with a disability and qualified for the position. Data in this table describe vacancies for permanent positions with the SEC that were posted in USAJOBS with a closing date during the fiscal year. In contrast, Table B7 also presents data on new hires onboarded during the course of the fiscal year; some of whom applied for a vacancy posted prior to the start of the fiscal year, and some of whom were onboarded from open, continuous postings. Differences may be observed in the demographic statistics of those selected versus those onboarded as new hires. Triggers comparing the composition of PWD and PWTD (see Question 5 immediately below) in applicant flow versus new hire data should be interpreted with these differences in mind. Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described in Section IV.D.1, the agency presents information on trigger identification for PWD new hires to senior grade levels based on reviewing Table B7. In FY 2023, 337 persons were hired into senior grade level positions as follows: Eight into SES equivalent positions, 50 into GS-15 equivalent positions, 162 into GS-14 equivalent positions, and 117 into GS-13 equivalent positions. Thirty-eight of those 337 (11.28%) hires identified as PWD. Triggers were observed among new hires to the GS-15 equivalent, GS-14 equivalent, and GS-13 equivalent levels. The following evaluates participation of PWD in each senior-grade equivalent level. At the GS-15 equivalent level, the QAP was 13.50% PWD, and 4.00% of the 50 hires identified as PWD. At the GS-14 equivalent levels, the QAP was 15.74% PWD, and 11.11% of the 162 hires identified as PWD. There was no trigger among new hires at the GS-13 equivalent level. The QAP was 12.94% PWD, while 13.68% of the 117 hires identified as PWD. There was no trigger among new hires at the SES equivalent level. The QAP was 11.06% PWD, and 25.00% (two hires) identified as PWD. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 27 4. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the new hires to the senior grade levels? For non-GS pay plans, please use the approximate senior grade levels. If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. New Hires to SES (PWTD) b. New Hires to GS-15 (PWTD) c. New Hires to GS-14 (PWTD) d. New Hires to GS-13 (PWTD) Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X X No No No No 0 0 0 0 Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described above, the agency presents information on trigger identification for PWTD new hires to senior-grade levels. The QAP for PWTD was 4.32%. The agency found triggers in participation of PWTD between qualified applicants and new hires at the SES, GS-15, GS-14, and GS-13 equivalent levels. More detail about each senior-grade level follows in descending order by level. At the SES equivalent level, the QAP was 2.98% PWTD; no new hires were PWTD. At the GS-15 equivalent level, the QAP was 4.20%; no new hires were PWTD. At the GS-14 equivalent level, the QAP was 4.99% PWTD; 0.62% of the newly-hired GS-14 equivalent staff were PWTD. At the GS-13 equivalent level, the QAP was 3.05% PWTD; 1.71% of the newly hired staff members were PWTD. 28 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 5. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Executives Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Internal Selections (PWD) b. Managers Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Internal Selections (PWD) c. Supervisors Qualified Internal Applicants (PWD) Internal Selections (PWD) Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 The SEC cross-walked the agency’s alternative pay plan supervisory levels to the executive, manager, and supervisor levels according to the following equivalencies: Executives = SO; Managers = SK-17 and the supervisory Administrative Law Judges in pay plan Administrative Law (AL); and Supervisors = employees or positions at SK-levels below SK-17 who hold supervisory status. The agency notes that, similar to the senior-grade level equivalencies, the relevant applicant pools for supervisory levels at the agency combine data across multiple SK levels. This combination was made to conform analyses to the format provided, though the actual RAPs for the specific leadership levels differ. FY 2023 data underlying Table B8 are relevant for assessing whether triggers exist with regard to promotions to supervisory or managerial positions. Among the promotions in FY 2023 were 66 persons promoted to a leadership position at the supervisor, manager, or executive level: 1 SO, 38 managers, and 27 supervisors. The following evaluates participation of PWD in each leadership level. For the executive, manager, and supervisor levels, there were no differences to the disadvantage of PWD in the QAP compared to the RAP. However, there were triggers at all three levels with respect to selections. For executives, the QAP was 59.55% and no PWD were selected. For managers, the QAP was 18.06%, and PWD were 2.63% of selections. For supervisors, the QAP was 32.84%, and PWD were 3.70% of selections. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 29 6. Does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the qualified internal applicants and/or selectees for promotions to supervisory positions? (The appropriate benchmarks are the relevant applicant pool for qualified internal applicants and the qualified applicant pool for selectees.) If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. Executives Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Internal Selections (PWTD) b. Managers Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Internal Selections (PWTD) c. Supervisors Qualified Internal Applicants (PWTD) Internal Selections (PWTD) Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Yes 0 Yes X No X No 0 Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described above, the agency presents information on trigger identification for PWTD internal promotions to supervisory positions from Table B8. For the executive, manager, and supervisor levels, there were no differences to the disadvantage of PWD in the QAP compared to the Relevant Applicant Pool. However, there were triggers at all three levels with respect to selections. Of 66 individuals selected for promotion, none were PWTD. At the executive level, the agency observed triggers with respect to selections for promotion. The QAP was 8.99%, and there were no PWTD selections. However, there was only one promotion selection made at the executive level in FY 2023. At the manager level, the agency observed a trigger with respect to selections for promotions. The QAP for PWTD was 2.26%, while no selections were PWTD. At the supervisor level, the agency observed a trigger with respect to selections for promotions. The QAP for PWTD was 7.35%, while no selections were PWTD. 30 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 7. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. New Hires for Executives (PWD) b. New Hires for Managers (PWD) c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWD) Yes 0 Yes X Yes X No X No 0 No 0 Applying the same grade equivalencies that were described above, the agency presents information on trigger identification for PWD new hires into leadership positions. Table B8 is relevant for assessing whether differences exist with regard to applicants and new hires in supervisory positions for PWD (this question) and PWTD (see the next question). Differences were found in FY 2023 new hire data for PWD at the manager and supervisor levels. Among the 412 newly hired staff members in FY 2023 were 19 persons hired into leadership positions: eight SOs, six SK-17 managers, and five supervisors below SK-17. Two of those 19 (10.53 %) newly hired permanent staff in leadership positions identified as PWD. The following evaluates participation of PWD in each leadership level. For executives, the QAP was 11.06% PWD, and two of the eight (25.00%) newly hired permanent executives identified as PWD. For managers, the QAP was 20.59% PWD, and none of the six newly hired managers identified as PWD. For supervisors, the QAP was 14.04% PWD, and none of the five newly hired permanent supervisors identified as PWD. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 31 8. Using the qualified applicant pool as the benchmark, does your Agency have a trigger involving PWTD among the selectees for new hires to supervisory positions? If “yes”, describe the trigger(s) in the text box. a. New Hires for Executives (PWTD) b. New Hires for Managers (PWTD) c. New Hires for Supervisors (PWTD) Yes X Yes X Yes X No 0 No 0 No 0 Differences were found in the new hire data for PWTD at the executive, manager, and supervisor levels. For executives, the QAP was 2.98% PWTD, and no PWTD were hired for executive positions in FY 2023. For managers, the QAP was 5.88% PWTD, and no PWTD were hired for manager positions in FY 2023. For supervisors, the QAP was 3.86% PWTD, and no PWTD were hired for supervisor positions in FY 2023. 32 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 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 to 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. Voluntary and Involuntary Separations 1. In this reporting period, did the Agency convert all eligible Schedule A employees with a disability into the competitive service after two years of satisfactory service (5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u)(6)(i))? If “no”, please explain why the Agency did not convert all eligible Schedule A employees. Yes X No 0 N/A 0 The SEC maintains discretion on conversions to a career or career-conditional appointment among employees on Schedule A appointments. As a general practice, those Schedule A employees who were not converted voluntarily accepted a new Schedule A appointment within the agency. During FY 2023, four employees were converted to the competitive service under the Schedule A hiring authority after two years of their most recent Schedule A appointment. Thirteen employees are currently serving on their most recent Schedule A appointment that was processed within the past two years. All 13 employees are serving on an initial Schedule A appointment that has not reached the two-year threshold. Eleven staff members were newly hired under Schedule A during FY 2023. A review of records for other Schedule A employees who were hired or transferred to the SEC and remain on rolls at the close of FY 2023 confirms that all were converted to the competitive service within two years of their most recent Schedule A appointment. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 33 2. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWD among voluntary and involuntary separations exceed that of persons without disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger below. a. Voluntary Separations (PWD) b. Involuntary Separations (PWD) Yes 0 Yes 0 No X No X Data from Table B1-2 on voluntary and involuntary separations by disability were used to calculate the inclusion rates. Inclusion rates were calculated as the number of PWD who separated among all PWD in the workforce, compared to the same proportion among persons with no disability (this category is combined with those who did not self-identify as having a disability). The agency did not identify a trigger for voluntary separations in FY 2023. The inclusion rate on voluntary separations was 5.01% for PWD, and 4.03% for persons with no disability. The inclusion rate on involuntary separations was 0.00% for PWD and 0.07% for persons with no disability. 3. Using the inclusion rate as the benchmark, did the percentage of PWTD among voluntary and involuntary separations exceed that of persons without targeted disabilities? If “yes”, describe the trigger below. a. Voluntary Separations (PWTD) b. Involuntary Separations (PWTD) Yes 0 Yes 0 No X No X Using data from Table B1-2, the inclusion rates were calculated as the number of PWTD who separated among all PWTD in the workforce, compared to that same proportion among persons with no targeted disability (this group also includes those who did not selfidentify as having a disability and those with a disability that is not targeted). The agency did not have a trigger for voluntary separations in FY 2023. For PWTD, the inclusion rate on voluntary separations was 3.49%, and the inclusion rate for persons with no targeted disability was 4.14%. For PWTD, there were no involuntary separations in FY 2023, and among persons with no targeted disability, the inclusion rate for involuntary separations was 0.07%. 34 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 4. If a trigger exists involving the separation rate of PWD and/or PWTD, please explain why they left the Agency using exit interview results and other data sources. Not applicable. There were no triggers involving separation rates in FY 2023. 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 explaining employees’ and applicants’ rights under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including a description of how to file a complaint. The agency’s public website provides information on the employee and applicant rights under Section 508: https://www.sec.gov/disability/sec_access and directs complaints to Section508Complaint@sec.gov. 2. Please provide the internet address on the Agency’s public website for its notice explaining employees’ and applicants’ rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including a description of how to file a complaint. Information is posted on SEC.gov: http://www.sec.gov/disability/sec_access.htm. This page contains the required notice explaining employees’ and applicants’ rights under the Architectural Barriers Act, including how to file a complaint alleging violations of the Architectural Barriers Act. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 35 3. D  escribe any programs, policies, or practices that the Agency has undertaken, or plans on undertaking over the next fiscal year, designed to improve accessibility of Agency facilities and/or technology. The SEC continues to improve upon current practices in place to ensure all ICT is accessible to internal and external parties, as mandated by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The agency’s testing and validation process includes dedicated resources, testing tools, documented test processes, and a remediation process. The majority of ICT products and tools are tested before they are deployed. Upon completion of testing, project teams are notified of the defects and are instructed to submit for approval a Remediation Plan, indicating a definitive timeline in which the vendor will make the respective product 508 compliant. The Office of Public Affairs has been instrumental in educating SEC staff on the guidelines and importance of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Training courses have been offered, as well as “how to” videos that inform staff of the process with making electronic information technologies accessible to all parties. The Office of Information Technology will be active in supporting the SEC Administrative Regulation that defines roles and responsibilities of SEC staff to address formal Section 508 Complaint Procedures related to accessibility of IT programs and services. 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 accommodations during the reporting period. (Please do not include previously approved requests with repetitive accommodations, such as interpreting services.) In FY 2023, the SEC processed 97% of accommodation requests (which includes offering interim accommodations) within 45 business days. 36 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N 2. D  escribe the effectiveness of the policies, procedures, or practices to implement the Agency’s reasonable accommodation program. Some examples of an effective program include timely processing requests, timely providing approved accommodations, conducting training for managers and supervisors, and monitoring accommodation requests for trends. The SEC published in FY 2022 the revised RA policy and operating procedures to include a revised timeframe to process requests for accommodation. During FY 2023, the agency received 146 reasonable accommodation requests from employees and job applicants, 47% of which were received during Quarter 2, FY 2023. In FY 2023, the SEC processed 97% of accommodation requests (which includes offering interim accommodations) within 45 business days. Personal Assistance Services Allowing Employees to Participate in the Workplace Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5), federal agencies, as an aspect of affirmative action, are required to provide personal assistance services (PAS) to employees who need them because of a targeted disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the Agency. 1. 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 agency’s Reasonable Accommodation (RA) Operating Procedures (SECOP 6-80) includes information regarding the process for requesting PAS. Although distinguishable from other types of reasonable accommodation, requests for PAS will be initiated, processed, and otherwise addressed in the same manner described in the RA Operating Procedures. Similarly, medical information, to include medical confidentiality and disclosure provisions, and the responsibilities of the Disability Program officer, the employee, and other relevant staff (e.g., supervisors, RA coordinators) during the interactive process, apply to all requests for PAS. Program provisions for requesting and providing decisions on PAS reasonable accommodation requests are the same as the process for requesting reasonable accommodation described in the agency policy and related operating procedures and are available on the agency public and internal websites. In FY 2023, the materials related to PAS were updated to explain eligibility requirements, types of PAS, and how to request services under the new RAIMS process. The agency will continue to provide PAS-related resources and other materials on its intranet portal and offer related training to managers, supervisors, and employees throughout FY 2024. Continued on the next page FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 37 SEC employees are asked to submit PAS requests through the RAIMS portal. Agency Form 2943, Request for Personal Assistance Services, remains available to capture the needs of employees seeking personal assistance services. The agency has a contract in place to support employees with targeted disabilities needing PAS, including reader and nurse services. In FY 2023, the agency did not receive or process any new requests for PAS services. During FY 2023, the agency conducted general training for managers and supervisors on the Rehabilitation Act, their role and responsibilities in the reasonable accommodation process to include the interactive process provision, and how to respond appropriately when an individual places them on notice of the need for reasonable accommodation. New managers and supervisors are required to attend scheduled training on the agency’s provisions for reasonable accommodation. Additionally, program-specific information is disseminated during the New Employee Orientation and through the College of Leadership & Team Development (CLTD) Fundamentals of Human Resources Management course offered by the agency’s learning office, SECU. The CLTD 307 training provides specific, scenario-based illustrations for supervisors and managers to heighten awareness about the RA Program, details general characteristics of available accommodations typically requested by employees with disabilities (e.g., PAS) and clarifies assumptions about roles and responsibilities with respect to the agency’s RA Program. Moreover, refresher training course offerings are readily available for employees and managers through the agency’s learning platform. The training provides an effective overview of the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the federal and SEC RA process. 38 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N SECTION VI: EEO COMPLAINT AND FINDINGS DATA EEO Complaint Data Involving Harassment 1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging harassment, as compared to the government-wide average? Yes 0 No X N/A 0 2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging harassment based on disability status result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement? Yes 0 No X N/A 0 3. If the Agency had one or more findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability status during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the Agency. During FY 2023, the agency did not have any findings of discrimination alleging harassment based on disability status. EEO Complaint Data Involving Reasonable Accommodation 1. During the last fiscal year, did a higher percentage of PWD file a formal EEO complaint alleging failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, as compared to the government-wide average? Yes 0 No X N/A 0 2. During the last fiscal year, did any complaints alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation result in a finding of discrimination or a settlement agreement? Yes X No 0 N/A 0 3. If the Agency had one or more findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation during the last fiscal year, please describe the corrective measures taken by the Agency. During FY 2023, the agency did not have any findings of discrimination involving the failure to provide reasonable accommodation. FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 39 SECTION VII: IDENTIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF BARRIERS Element D of MD-715 requires agencies to conduct a barrier analysis when a trigger suggests that a policy, procedure, or practice may be impeding the employment opportunities of a protected EEO group. 1. Has the Agency identified any barriers (policies, procedures, and/or practices) that affect employment opportunities for PWD and/or PWTD? Yes 0 No X 2. Has the Agency established a plan to correct the barrier(s) involving PWD and/or PWTD? Yes 0 No 0 N/A X 3. Identify each trigger and plan to remove the barrier(s), including the identified barrier(s), objective(s), responsible official(s), planned activities, and, where applicable, accomplishments. Not applicable for the FY 2023 reporting period. 40 | A F F I R M AT I V E A C T I O N P L A N Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD1 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 TOTAL WORKFORCE Prior FY Current FY # 4,722 4,005 283 374 60 434 86 1 1 38 7 2 3 6 4 0 20 1 3 % 100% 84.82% 5.99% 7.92% 1.27% 9.19% 1.82% 0.02% 0.02% 0.80% 0.15% 0.04% 0.06% 0.13% 0.08% 0.00% 0.42% 0.02% 0.06% # 4,941 4,188 269 416 68 484 90 1 3 37 8 2 1 6 4 0 24 1 3 0.06% % 100% 84.76% 5.44% 8.42% 1.38% 9.80% 1.82% 0.02% 0.06% 0.75% 0.16% 0.04% 0.02% 0.12% 0.08% 0.00% 0.49% 0.02% Difference # 219 183 -14 42 8 50 4 0 2 -1 1 0 -2 0 0 0 4 0 0 Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.06% -0.55% 0.50% 0.11% 0.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% -0.05% 0.01% 0.00% -0.04% -0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% Net Change % 4.64% 4.57% -4.95% 11.23% 13.33% 11.52% 4.65% 0.00% 200.00% -2.63% 14.29% 0.00% -66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE GAINS Total New Hires # 853 693 72 67 21 88 10 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 % 100% 81.24% 8.44% 7.85% 2.46% 10.32% 1.17% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE LOSSES Reduction in Force Removal Resignation Retirement Other Total Separations # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 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% 0.00% # 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 100% 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% # 90 76 11 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 84.44% 12.22% 3.33% 0.00% 3.33% 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% # 97 76 5 13 3 16 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 78.35% 5.15% 13.40% 3.09% 16.49% 2.06% 0.00% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 410 312 63 28 7 35 6 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 % 100% 76.10% 15.37% 6.83% 1.71% 8.54% 1.46% 0.24% 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% # 600 467 79 44 10 54 8 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 % 100% 77.83% 13.17% 7.33% 1.67% 9.00% 1.33% 0.17% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS - preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 41 Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD1 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued PERMANENT Prior FY Current FY # 4,452 3,819 223 353 57 410 83 1 1 36 7 2 3 6 3 0 20 1 3 % 100% 85.78% 5.01% 7.93% 1.28% 9.21% 1.86% 0.02% 0.02% 0.81% 0.16% 0.04% 0.07% 0.13% 0.07% 0.00% 0.45% 0.02% 0.07% # 4,674 3,972 243 394 65 459 86 1 3 36 8 2 1 6 3 0 22 1 3 0.06% % 100% 84.98% 5.20% 8.43% 1.39% 9.82% 1.84% 0.02% 0.06% 0.77% 0.17% 0.04% 0.02% 0.13% 0.06% 0.00% 0.47% 0.02% Difference # 222 153 20 41 8 49 3 0 2 0 1 0 -2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.80% 0.19% 0.50% 0.11% 0.61% -0.02% 0.00% 0.04% -0.04% 0.01% 0.00% -0.05% 0.00% -0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% -0.01% Federal Goal % 12.00% 2.00% EMPLOYEE GAINS Permanent New Hires # 412 327 33 40 12 52 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 % 100% 79.37% 8.01% 9.71% 2.91% 12.62% 0.97% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE LOSSES Reduction in Force Removal Resignation Retirement # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 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% 0.00% # 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 100% 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% # 73 63 7 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 86.30% 9.59% 4.11% 0.00% 4.11% 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% # 97 76 5 13 3 16 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 78.35% 5.15% 13.40% 3.09% 16.49% 2.06% 0.00% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 23 16 3 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Other Total Separations 100% 69.57% 13.04% 17.39% 0.00% 17.39% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 196 158 15 20 3 23 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 80.61% 7.65% 10.20% 1.53% 11.73% 1.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 0.00% 1.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS - preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 42 | E E O P R O G R A M S TAT U S R E P O R T Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD1 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued TEMPORARY Prior FY Current FY # 270 186 60 21 3 24 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 % 100% 68.89% 22.22% 7.78% 1.11% 8.89% 1.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 267 216 26 22 3 25 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 % 100% 80.90% 9.74% 8.24% 1.12% 9.36% 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Difference # -3 -34 1 0 1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Ratio Change % 0.00% 12.01% -12.48% 0.46% 0.01% 0.47% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% -0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% Net Change % -1.11% 16.13% -56.67% 4.76% 0.00% 4.17% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% -50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE GAINS Temporary New Hires # 441 366 39 27 9 36 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 % 100% 82.99% 8.84% 6.12% 2.04% 8.16% 1.36% 0.23% 0.00% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.00% 0.68% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE LOSSES Involuntary Reduction in Force Removal Voluntary Resignation Retirement Other Total Separations # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 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% 0.00% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 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% 0.00% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 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% 0.00% # 404 309 64 24 7 31 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 % 100% 76.49% 15.84% 5.94% 1.73% 7.67% 1.24% 0.25% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% # 17 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 76.47% 23.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 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% 0.00% # 387 296 60 24 7 31 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 % 100% 76.49% 15.50% 6.20% 1.81% 8.01% 1.29% 0.26% 0.00% 0.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% # 404 309 64 24 7 31 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 % 100% 76.49% 15.84% 5.94% 1.73% 7.67% 1.24% 0.25% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.00% “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS - preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 43 Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD1 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued SCHEDULE A EMPLOYEES IN THE PERMANENT WORKFORCE2 # 13 0 0 7 6 13 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 100% 42.86% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% # 13 0 0 7 6 13 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 53.85% 46.15% 100% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -46.15% 46.15% 0.00% -35.17% 0.00% 0.00% -14.29% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -28.57% 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% Prior FY Current FY Difference % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE GAINS Total New Hires # 11 0 0 6 5 11 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 54.55% 45.45% 100% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE LOSSES # Total Separations % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 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% 0.00% “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS - preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). 2 Schedule A Employees in the Permanent Workforce are those currently serving under an appointment type covered by Schedule A(u). Employees previously converted to the permanent workforce are not counted. Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 44 | E E O P R O G R A M S TAT U S R E P O R T Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD2 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] Persons without Disability1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 TOTAL WORKFORCE Prior FY Current FY # 4,722 4,005 283 374 60 434 86 1 1 38 7 2 3 6 4 0 20 1 3 % 100% 90.81% 84.82% 4,288 5.99% 7.92% 1.27% 9.19% 1.82% 0.02% 0.02% 0.80% 0.15% 0.04% 0.06% 0.13% 0.08% 0.00% 0.42% 0.02% 0.06% # 4,941 4,188 269 416 68 484 90 1 3 37 8 2 1 6 4 0 24 1 3 % 100% 90.20% 84.76% 5.44% 8.42% 1.38% 0.02% 0.06% 0.75% 0.16% 0.04% 0.02% 0.12% 0.08% 0.00% 0.49% 0.02% 0.06% 4,457 9.80% 1.82% 12.00% 2.00% 8 50 4 0 2 -1 1 0 -2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0.11% 0.61% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% -0.05% 0.01% 0.00% -0.04% -0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 11.23% 13.33% 11.52% 4.65% 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% -66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 1 501 Goal % Difference # 219 169 183 -14 42 Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.61% -0.06% -0.55% 0.50% Net Change % 4.64% 3.94% 4.57% -4.95% -2.63% 14.29% EMPLOYEE GAINS (INCLUSION RATE) Total New Hires # 853 765 693 72 % 17.26% 17.16% 16.55% 26.77% 88 10 1 1 16.11% 30.88% 18.18% 67 21 11.11% 100% 33.33% 1 0 0 2.70% 12.50% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 5 0 0 0.00% 20.83% 0 0.00% 0.00%  ersons without Disability include the combination of those with No Disability (05) and those who are Not Identified (01). P “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 2 FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 45 Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD2 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] Persons without Disability1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued EMPLOYEE LOSSES (INCLUSION RATE) Involuntary Reduction in Force Removal Voluntary Resignation Retirement Other # 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 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% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.06% 0.07% 0.07% 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% # 597 543 464 79 44 10 54 8 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 11.08% 29.37% 10.58% 14.71% 11.16% 8.89% 100% 0.00% 8.11% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% % 12.08% 12.18% 0.00% 200.00% # 90 87 76 11 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 1.82% 1.95% 1.81% 4.09% 0.72% 0.00% 0.62% 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% # 97 81 76 5 13 3 16 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 1.96% 1.82% 1.81% 1.86% 3.13% 4.41% 3.31% 2.22% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 312 63 28 7 35 6 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 6.73% 10.29% 7.23% 6.67% 100% 0.00% 5.41% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 # 410 375 % 8.30% 8.41% # 600 546 Total Separations % 12.14% 12.25% 7.45% 23.42% 10 54 8 1 0 3 0 11.15% 29.37% 10.58% 14.71% 467 79 44 11.16% 8.89% 100% 0.00% 8.11% 0.00% 0.00% 200.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0.00% 25.00% 0 0.00% 4.17% 0.00% 0.00%  ersons without Disability include the combination of those with No Disability (05) and those who are Not Identified (01). P “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 2 46 | E E O P R O G R A M S TAT U S R E P O R T Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD2 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] Persons without Disability1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued PERMANENT Prior FY Current FY # 4,452 3,819 223 353 57 410 83 1 1 36 7 2 3 6 3 0 20 % 100% 90.79% 85.78% 4,042 5.01% 7.93% 1.28% 9.21% 1.86% 0.02% 0.02% 0.81% 0.16% 0.04% 0.07% 0.13% 0.07% 0.00% 0.45% # 4,674 3,972 243 394 65 459 86 1 3 36 8 2 1 6 3 0 22 % 100% 90.18% 84.98% 4,215 5.20% 8.43% 1.39% 9.82% 1.84% 0.02% 0.06% 0.77% 0.17% 0.04% 0.02% 0.13% 0.06% 0.00% 0.47% 1 3 0.02% 0.07% 1 3 0.02% 0.06% 501 Goal % 12.00% 2.00% Difference # 222 173 153 20 41 8 49 3 0 2 0 1 0 -2 0 0 0 2 Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.61% -0.80% 0.19% 0.50% 0.11% 0.61% -0.02% 0.00% 0.04% -0.04% 0.01% 0.00% -0.05% 0.00% -0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% -0.01% Net Change % 4.99% 4.28% 4.01% 8.97% 11.61% 14.04% 11.95% 3.61% 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% -66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0 0 EMPLOYEE GAINS (INCLUSION RATE) Permanent New Hires # 412 360 % 8.81% 8.54% 12 52 4 0 1 8.23% 13.58% 10.15% 18.46% 327 33 40 11.33% 4.65% 0.00% 33.33% 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% 12.50% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0 0 0.00% 0.00%  ersons without Disability include the combination of those with No Disability (05) and those who are Not Identified (01). P “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 2 FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 47 Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD2 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] Persons without Disability1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE—DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued EMPLOYEE LOSSES (INCLUSION RATE) PERMANENT Involuntary # 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.06% 0.07% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Inclusion Benchmark Reduction in Force Removal Voluntary 0.07% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.06% 0.07% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 193 170 155 15 20 3 23 3 0 0 1 0 % 4.13% 4.03% 3.90% 6.17% 5.08% 4.62% 5.01% 3.49% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% Inclusion Benchmark Resignation Retirement 4.14% # 73 70 63 7 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 1.56% 1.66% 1.59% 2.88% 0.76% 0.00% 0.65% 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% # 97 81 76 5 13 3 16 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 2.08% 1.92% 1.91% 2.06% 3.30% 4.62% 3.49% 2.33% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 23 19 16 3 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.49% 0.45% 0.40% 1.23% 1.02% 0.00% 0.87% 1.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # Total Separations % 196 173 158 15 20 3 23 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.19% 4.10% 3.98% 6.17% 5.08% 4.62% 5.01% 3.49% 0.00% 0.00% 2.78% 0.00% 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Other  ersons without Disability include the combination of those with No Disability (05) and those who are Not Identified (01). P “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 2 48 | E E O P R O G R A M S TAT U S R E P O R T Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD2 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] Persons without Disability1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE–DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued TEMPORARY # 270 246 186 60 21 3 24 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 % 100% 91.11% 68.89% 22.22% 7.78% 1.11% 8.89% 1.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 267 242 216 26 22 3 25 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 % 100% 90.64% 80.90% 9.74% 8.24% 1.12% 9.36% 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% # -3 -4 30 -34 1 0 1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Ratio Change % 0.00% -0.47% 12.01% -12.48% 0.46% 0.01% 0.47% 0.39% 0.00% 0.00% -0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.75% 0.00% 0.00% Net Change -1.11% -1.63% 16.13% -56.67% 4.76% 0.00% 4.17% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% -50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 366 39 27 9 36 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 300.00% 144.00% 150.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 150.00% 0.00% 0.00% Prior FY Current FY Difference % EMPLOYEE GAINS (INCLUSION RATE) Temporary New Hires # 441 % 165.17% 405 167.36% 169.44% 150.00% 122.73%  ersons without Disability include the combination of those with No Disability (05) and those who are Not Identified (01). P “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 2 FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 49 Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD2 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] Persons without Disability1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE–DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued EMPLOYEE LOSSES (INCLUSION RATE) TEMPORARY Involuntary Reduction in Force Removal Voluntary Resignation Retirement Other # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 404 373 309 64 24 7 31 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 154.13% 143.06% 246.15% 109.09% 233.33% 124.00% 125.00% 0.00% 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% % 151.31% # 17 17 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 6.37% 7.02% 6.02% 15.38% 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 387 356 296 60 24 7 31 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 147.11% 137.04% 230.77% 109.09% 233.33% 124.00% 125.00% 0.00% 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% % 144.94% # 404 Total Separations % 151.31% 373 309 64 24 7 31 5 1 154.13% 143.06% 246.15% 109.09% 233.33% 124.00% 125.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 2 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 200.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100% 0 0 1 0 0 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00%  ersons without Disability include the combination of those with No Disability (05) and those who are Not Identified (01). P “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 2 50 | E E O P R O G R A M S TAT U S R E P O R T Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Blind or Serious Difficulty Seeing [20] Deaf or Serious Difficulty Hearing [19] Traumatic Brain Injury [03] Developmental Disability [02] PWTD Total PWD Other PWD2 Disability [02-03, 06-99] Not Identified [01] No Disability [05] Persons without Disability1 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TENURE TABLE B1-2: TOTAL WORKFORCE–DISTRIBUTION BY DISABILITY [OPM FORM 256 SELF-IDENTIFICATION CODES] PAY PERIODS 202222 TO 202322 continued SCHEDULE A EMPLOYEES IN THE PERMANENT WORKFORCE3 # 5 0 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 40.00% 100% 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% # 13 0 0 0 7 6 13 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 53.85% 46.15% 100% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% # 8 0 0 0 4 4 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ratio Change % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -6.15% 6.15% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 160.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 133.33% 200% 160.00% 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% Prior FY Current FY Difference Net Change % EMPLOYEE GAINS (INCLUSION RATE) Total New Hires # 11 0 0 0 6 5 % 4.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27.27% 166.67% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.00% 25.00% 11 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% EMPLOYEE LOSSES (INCLUSION RATE) # Total Separations % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%  ersons without Disability include the combination of those with No Disability (05) and those who are Not Identified (01). P “Other PWD” include employees who did not self-identify on SF-256 and who were coded on Veterans’ Preference for hiring as “CPS—preference based on a compensable service-connected disability of 30% or more” or were hired or converted into the competitive service under Schedule A(u). 3 Schedule A Employees in the Permanent Workforce are those currently serving under an appointment type covered by Schedule A(u). Employees previously converted to the permanent workforce are not counted. Note: Total calculations shown may not match that derived from detail data presented due to rounding. Source: Datamart FPPS and EEO-AT 2.0 Analytic File for pay period 202322, downloaded on 11/16/2023 1 2 FISCAL YEAR 2023 | 51 501 Goal TOTAL HQ NYRO CHRO LARO BRO PLRO FWRO SFRO ARO MIRO DRO SLRO 12.00% % Significant Disfigurement [93] Dwarfism [92] Significant Psychiatric Disorder [91] Intellectual Disability [90] Epilepsy or Other Seizure Disorders [82] Partial or Complete Paralysis [60] Significant Mobility Impairment [40] Missing Extremities [31] Deaf or Serious Difficu [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Asec%3A053aad4fdb324ec2. Public record. Not legal advice.