This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-832 
entitled 'The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance 
Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation' which was released 
on September 20, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

August 2006: 

The Federal Workforce: 

Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic 
Representation: 

GAO-06-832: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-832, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Hispanic representation in the federal workforce has historically been 
lower than in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Understanding factors 
affecting representation is important to developing and maintaining a 
high-quality and inclusive workforce. In this report, GAO identifies 
and analyzes factors affecting Hispanic representation in the federal 
workforce, examines oversight roles of EEOC and OPM, and provides 
illustrations of selected federal agencies’ efforts with respect to 
Hispanic representation. GAO constructed a multivariate logistic 
regression model, with advice from experts, to determine how factors 
affected the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the 
federal versus nonfederal workforce. GAO’s analyses are not intended to 
and do not show the existence or absence of discrimination in the 
federal workforce. 

What GAO Found: 

U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of 
the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the 
federal workforce. Our statistical model showed that when accounting 
for citizenship, required for most federal employment, Hispanics were 
nearly as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal 
workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF 
excluding federal employees). In addition, the federal workforce has a 
greater proportion of occupations that require higher levels of 
education than the CLF. When we compared citizens with similar levels 
of education, Hispanics were more likely than non-Hispanics to be 
employed in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce. 
Other factors in our model, including age, gender, race, veteran’s 
status, English proficiency, and geography (state where employed), had 
a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being 
in the federal workforce. 

In addition to reporting and comparing representation levels overall 
and in subsets of the federal workforce to the CLF, EEOC and OPM 
require that agencies analyze their own workforces. However, the CLF 
benchmarks of representation that EEOC, OPM, and the agencies use do 
not differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore do 
not identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to 
work for the federal government. Where these analyses identify 
differences in representation, EEOC, for example, requires agencies to 
determine if there are barriers to participation and develop strategies 
to address them. OPM provides resources and guidance to assist agencies 
in implementing human capital strategies. Through these efforts, OPM 
has promoted the use of student employment programs as a source of 
qualified candidates. Analyzing agency use of these programs, including 
the extent to which agencies convert participants to permanent 
employment, could provide OPM with valuable information to assist 
agencies in maximizing the use of these programs in their strategic 
workforce planning. 

The agencies we reviewed use a variety of approaches to address 
Hispanic representation, including recruiting at colleges and 
universities with large Hispanic populations, publicizing employment 
opportunities in Hispanic media, reaching out to Hispanic communities 
and Hispanic-serving organizations, and using student employment, 
internship, career development, and training programs. For example, the 
U.S. Air Force partners with vocational-technical schools to develop 
aircraft maintenance technicians, and staff at selected National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration facilities mentor and tutor 
students to encourage careers in science, technology, engineering, and 
math. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that EEOC and OPM take citizenship into account when 
comparing federal workforce representation to the CLF to provide a more 
complete picture of, and reasons for, differences in representation. In 
comments on a draft of this report, EEOC said citizenship data are 
important but EEOC did not address GAO’s recommendations. OPM provided 
minor technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate, but did 
not otherwise comment on the report or recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-832]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact George H. Stalcup at 
(202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Citizenship and Education Had the Largest Effect on Hispanic 
Representation in the Federal Workforce: 

EEOC and OPM Have Taken Steps in Their Oversight Roles to Address 
Hispanic Representation:  

Agencies Take Steps to Recruit and Develop Hispanics in the Federal 
Workforce: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Affecting Hispanic 
Representation in the Federal Workforce: 

Data Sets Used: 

Methodology: 

The Difference between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of 
Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce: 

The Effect of Citizenship on the Difference between Hispanics' and Non- 
Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the 
Nonfederal Workforce: 

Effect of Remaining Factors among Citizens on the Difference between 
Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal 
Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce: 

Effect of All Factors Considered Simultaneously on the Difference 
between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the 
Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce: 

Additional Explanatory Analyses: 

Limitations: 

Appendix III: Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. Citizens and 
Nationals: 

Appendix IV: Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade and Federal 
Occupation: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Citizens 18 
and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000: 

Table 2: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Residents 
18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000: 

Table 3: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among Non-U.S. 
Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000: 

Table 4: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees 
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens and Noncitizens, and 
Odds and Odds Ratios Derived from Them, 2000: 

Table 5: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees 
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens Only, and Odds and Odds 
Ratio Derived from Them, 2000: 

Table 6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of 
Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Citizens Being Employed in the Federal 
Workforce After Controlling for Different Factors: 

Table 7: Hispanic Representation in the Federal Workforce by Pay Plan 
and Grade, 1990-2005: 

Table 8: Hispanic Representation in the 2000 CLF and 2000-2005 Federal 
Workforce by Federal Occupation: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Composition of Federal Workforce and CLF by EEOC's Nine 
Occupational Categories, 2000: 

Figure 2: Hispanic Representation in the Permanent Federal Workforce, 
CLF, and among U.S. Citizens in the CLF, 1994-2005: 

Abbreviations: 

ACE: American Council on Education: 

ACS: American Community Survey: 

ASEC: Annual Social and Economic Supplement: 

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

CFO: Chief Financial Officer: 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations: 

CLF: Civilian Labor Force: 

CPDF: Central Personnel Data File: 

CPS: Current Population Survey: 

CSC: Civil Service Commission: 

CSRA: Civil Service Reform Act: 

DDCDP: District Director Candidate Development Program: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

DOL: Department of Labor: 

DRB: Disclosure Review Board: 

EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity: 

EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration: 

FCIP: Federal Career Intern Program: 

FEORP: Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Recruitment Program: 

FNS: Food and Nutrition Service: 

HACU: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities: 

HCAAF: Human Capital Accountability and Assessment Framework: 

LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens: 

MBA: Masters of Business Administration: 

MD: Management Directive: 

MSPB: Merit Systems Protection Board: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NCLR: National Council of La Raza: 

NSPS: National Security Personnel System: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PATCOB: Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, Other White-
Collar, and Blue-Collar: 

PMF: Presidential Management Fellows: 

PUMS: Public Use Microdata Sample: 

SBA: Small Business Administration: 

SCEP: Student Career Experience Program: 

SES: Senior Executive Service: 

SL/ST: Senior Level/Senior Technical: 

SSA: Social Security Administration: 

USAF: United States Air Force: 

USPS: United States Postal Service: 

August 17, 2006: 

Congressional Requesters: 

Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the Civilian Labor Force 
(CLF),[Footnote 1] with their representation having increased from 8.5 
percent in 1990 to 12.6 percent in 2005. The Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) have reported that Hispanic representation in the federal 
workforce has also increased, but remains lower in the federal 
workforce than in the CLF. For 2005, OPM reported that Hispanics were 
7.4 percent of the federal workforce, up from 5.3 percent in 
1990.[Footnote 2] 

Previous studies have identified factors that can affect Hispanic 
representation in the federal workforce but generally did not assess 
the extent to which these factors influence representation. 
Understanding how the factors affect Hispanic representation in the 
federal workforce is important to guiding agency efforts, under the 
leadership of OPM and EEOC, to develop approaches to recruit, develop, 
and retain a high-quality workforce that uses the talents of 
individuals from all segments of society. In this report, prepared in 
response to your request, we (1) identify and analyze the factors that 
are affecting Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, (2) 
examine the steps that EEOC and OPM, in their oversight roles, are 
taking related to Hispanic representation, and (3) illustrate the 
efforts within selected federal agencies related to Hispanic 
representation. We will also be providing additional data on Hispanic 
representation in the federal workforce under separate cover. 

In accomplishing our objectives, we interviewed federal agency 
officials and representatives from Hispanic-serving organizations and 
reviewed previous studies to identify factors that can affect Hispanic 
representation. To determine the effect of these factors on Hispanic 
representation in the federal workforce, we constructed a multivariate 
logistic regression model using 2000 Decennial Census data.[Footnote 3] 
Logistic regression analysis is a very common and widely accepted 
approach to analyze outcomes that have two possibilities (such as being 
in the federal vs. nonfederal workforce) when the interest is in 
determining the net effects of multiple factors that may be related to 
one another. We used the model to measure the extent to which the 
identified factors that could be reliably measured affected the 
likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal 
workforce, as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. In developing the 
model, we obtained the opinions of experts identified by the National 
Academy of Sciences as well as officials from EEOC, OPM, the Department 
of Justice (DOJ), and the Census Bureau. We also obtained the experts' 
views on the preliminary results of our analyses. Our analyses are not 
intended to and do not show either the existence or absence of 
discrimination against Hispanics or any other group in the federal 
workforce. Our analyses are at an aggregate level encompassing all 
occupations governmentwide and do not reflect factors that affect 
representation within individual agencies, individual occupations, 
different geographic areas, or any other subsets of the federal 
government. 

To examine the steps that EEOC and OPM have taken in their oversight of 
Hispanic representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, and 
policies relating to Hispanic representation in the federal workforce; 
interviewed EEOC and OPM officials; reviewed relevant documents; and 
analyzed data on Hispanic representation governmentwide. 

To illustrate the efforts related to Hispanic representation within 
federal agencies, we selected five agencies--the U.S. Air Force (USAF), 
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration (SSA)-- 
representing different employee populations, geographic locations, and 
concentrations of jobs by grade level and occupational categories. We 
interviewed representatives from the selected agencies and reviewed 
relevant documents. We also reviewed documents provided by and spoke 
with officials from the White House Initiative on Educational 
Excellence for Hispanic Americans. We conducted our work from October 
2004 to June 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. The details of our objectives, scope, and 
methodology are in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of 
the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the 
federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce. Our 
statistical model showed that after accounting for citizenship, 
Hispanics were nearly as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the 
federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of 
the CLF excluding federal employees). Citizenship is required for most 
federal employment and, in 2005, 99.7 percent of executive branch 
employees were U.S. citizens or nationals. In addition, a greater 
proportion of federal occupations require higher levels of education 
than in the CLF. Our statistical model showed that, as a result, when 
we compared citizens with similar levels of education, Hispanics were 
16 percent or 1.16 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed 
in the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Other 
factors in our model, including age, gender, race, veteran's status, 
English proficiency, and geography (state where employed), had a more 
limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being 
employed in the federal workforce. When all factors were considered, 
our analyses showed that Hispanic citizens were 24 percent or 1.24 
times more likely than non-Hispanic citizens to be employed in the 
federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Our analyses did 
not account for differences across and within individual agencies, by 
grade and pay level, occupational category, individual occupation, 
geographic location, or any other subset of the federal workforce. 

In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM compare and 
report representation levels overall and in subsets of the federal 
workforce and require that agencies conduct analyses of their own 
workforces. EEOC, for example, requires that agencies compare 
representation of racial, ethnic, and gender groups in major 
occupations to representation in similar occupations in the CLF. Where 
these analyses identify differences in representation, EEOC requires 
agencies to determine if there are barriers to participation and, if 
so, develop strategies to address them. However, the CLF benchmarks 
that EEOC, OPM, and agencies use to compare representation do not 
differentiate between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore do not 
identify how citizenship affects the pool of persons qualified to work 
for the federal government. Such information can help to provide a more 
complete picture of where differences in representation may exist. OPM 
provides guidance and resources to assist agencies in implementing 
human capital strategies. Through these efforts, OPM has promoted broad 
outreach to all segments of society and has promoted establishing 
relationships with colleges and universities and the use of student 
employment programs as a source of qualified candidates. Analyzing data 
on agency use of student employment programs, including conversion 
rates of participants to permanent employment, could provide OPM with 
valuable information to assist agencies in incorporating student 
employment programs into their strategic workforce planning as they 
seek to recruit and develop talented employees to support agency 
missions; ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and 
administrative needs; and achieve a diverse, quality workforce. 

The agencies we reviewed used a variety of approaches to address 
Hispanic representation at their agencies. These approaches included 
recruiting at colleges and universities with large Hispanic 
populations, publicizing employment opportunities in Hispanic media, 
reaching out to Hispanic communities and Hispanic-serving 
organizations, and using student employment, internship, career 
development, and training programs. For example, the USAF partnered 
with vocational-technical schools to develop aircraft maintenance 
technicians and NASA staff mentored and tutored students to encourage 
careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. 

We recommend that the Chair of EEOC and the Director of OPM take 
citizenship into account in their comparisons of federal workforce 
representation to the CLF. We also recommend that the Director of OPM 
provide additional tools for agencies to assess the effectiveness of 
student employment programs, such as conversion rates to permanent 
employment by racial/ethnic group. 

We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney 
General, and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for 
their review and comment. DOJ and the Department of Commerce had no 
comments. In its written comments, EEOC said it found the report to be 
a useful addition to the ongoing examination of Hispanic representation 
in the federal workforce and plans to use the report as a resource. 
EEOC agreed that citizenship data are important. However, EEOC did not 
specifically address our recommendation that it take citizenship into 
account in its comparison of federal workforce representation to the 
CLF. EEOC also said that while citizenship data are a useful benchmark 
for broad trending, more refined analyses are necessary, including 
analyses of applicant pools and participation rates for specific 
occupations. OPM provided minor technical comments but did not 
otherwise comment on the report or our recommendations. 

Background: 

For more than 35 years, the federal government has implemented 
authorities--applicable to various demographic groups and some specific 
to Hispanics--calling for agencies to ensure equal opportunity in the 
federal workplace. EEOC and OPM or its predecessor agency, the Civil 
Service Commission (CSC), have leadership roles in furthering these 
authorities. Signed in 1969, Executive Order No. 11478, Equal 
Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, stated that it is the 
policy of the U.S. government to provide equal opportunity in federal 
employment. Later, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act 
of 1972, which extended to federal workers the protections of title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination 
on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. This 
law requires each federal department and agency to prepare plans to 
maintain an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity and 
establish training and education programs. Pursuant to this and other 
authorities, EEOC establishes equal employment program standards, 
monitors federal agencies' compliance with equal employment opportunity 
laws and procedures, and reviews and assesses the effectiveness of 
agencies' equal employment programs. EEOC has carried out its 
responsibilities by issuing regulations and management directives 
providing guidance and standards to federal agencies for establishing 
and maintaining effective programs of equal employment opportunity. 

The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 established the merit 
principles governing employment in the federal workforce. The first 
merit principle states: 

Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate 
sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of 
society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on 
the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and 
open competition which assures that all receive equal 
opportunity.[Footnote 4] 

The CSRA also created the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program 
(FEORP) to carry out the government's policy to ensure equal employment 
opportunity. The act required OPM to evaluate and oversee agency 
programs and issue implementing regulations for the program. These 
regulations provide that recruitment processes prepare qualifiable 
applicants (those who have the potential but do not presently meet 
valid qualification requirements) for job openings through development 
programs. 

Programs specific to Hispanics include the 16-Point Program for Spanish-
Speaking citizens, established in 1970, which outlined steps agencies 
should take to ensure equal opportunity in federal employment for 
Hispanics. In 1997, OPM implemented the 9-Point Plan calling for 
agencies to recruit greater numbers of qualified Hispanic Americans for 
federal service and improve their opportunities for management and 
senior executive positions. More recently, Executive Order No. 13171, 
Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government, signed in 2000, provides 
that agencies, among other actions, (1) develop recruiting plans for 
Hispanics and (2) assess and eliminate any systemic barriers to the 
effective recruitment and consideration of Hispanics. The order 
requires OPM to take the lead in promoting diversity to executive 
agencies and for the director of OPM to establish and chair an 
Interagency Task Force on Hispanic employment in the federal government 
to review best practices, provide advice, assess overall executive 
branch progress, and recommend further actions related to Hispanic 
representation.[Footnote 5] 

As an indicator to Congress and the President of the government's 
progress toward ensuring equal employment opportunity, both EEOC and 
OPM, in their oversight roles, analyze and report on governmentwide and 
agency workforce data. The most recent data show that in September 
2005, Hispanics constituted 7.4 percent of the permanent federal 
workforce while making up 12.6 percent of the CLF. While both EEOC and 
OPM report these data annually, neither agency has assessed on a 
governmentwide level the factors contributing to the differences in 
Hispanic representation between the two workforces. 

Citizenship and Education Had the Largest Effect on Hispanic 
Representation in the Federal Workforce: 

Citizenship and educational attainment had the most effect on the 
likelihood of Hispanics' representation in the federal workforce, 
relative to the nonfederal workforce.[Footnote 6] Other measurable 
factors in our statistical model--gender, veteran's status, race, 
English proficiency, age, disability status, school attendance 
(enrolled or not enrolled), employment status (full or part-time), and 
geography (state where employed)--had a more limited or almost no 
effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being in the federal 
workforce.[Footnote 7] When we analyzed the effect of all the factors 
simultaneously, we found that, among citizens, Hispanics were 24 
percent or 1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in 
the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. (See app. II 
for a detailed discussion of the steps we took to conduct our analyses 
and our results.) 

Effect of Citizenship: 

Our analysis showed that citizenship had the greatest effect of the 
factors we analyzed on Hispanics' representation in the federal 
workforce. We analyzed the effect of citizenship before analyzing any 
other individual factor because of long-standing policy and practice to 
restrict federal government hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals--99.7 
percent of federal executive branch employees were U.S. citizens or 
nationals in 2005. (See app. III for a discussion of the federal 
government's policy and practice on the employment of citizens.) Before 
accounting for the effect of citizenship, Hispanics 18 and older were 
30 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be employed (i.e., 
represented) in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal 
workforce. However, when we analyzed the likelihood of only citizens 18 
and older being employed in the federal workforce, we found that 
Hispanics were 5 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be employed 
in the federal workforce compared to their representation in the 
nonfederal workforce. 

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that Hispanics had lower 
citizenship rates than other racial/ethnic groups, with the exception 
of Asians who had similar rates. In 2000, of those 18 and older in the 
combined federal and nonfederal CLF, 65 percent of the Hispanics were 
U.S. citizens compared with 95 percent of blacks, 96 percent of whites, 
65 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and 96 
percent of American Indians/Native Alaskans. Additionally, Hispanic 
immigrants have lower naturalization rates than other immigrant groups. 
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 27 percent of the adult foreign- 
born Hispanic population in the United States were naturalized citizens 
in 2004 compared with 54 percent of the adult foreign-born non-Hispanic 
population. 

Hispanic-serving organizations have undertaken citizenship initiatives. 
For example, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) 
encourages legal residents of the United States to become citizens and 
reports that it conducts a national drive to have those eligible for 
citizenship apply for and attain citizenship. 

Effect of Education: 

After citizenship, education had the largest effect on Hispanic 
representation in the federal workforce. We compared Hispanic and non- 
Hispanic citizens with similar levels of education. We limited our 
examination of the effect of education to citizens because citizenship 
is a basic qualification for most federal employment. As discussed 
above, among citizens, Hispanics were 5 percent less likely to be 
employed in the federal government. After accounting for education, 
Hispanic citizens were 1.16 times or 16 percent more likely than 
similarly educated non-Hispanic citizens to be in the federal workforce 
than the nonfederal workforce. 

The federal workforce contains a greater percentage of occupations that 
require higher levels of education than the CLF. EEOC divides 
occupations in the federal workforce and the CLF into nine categories, 
including among others professionals, operatives, and laborers. For 
example, in 2000, the year in which EEOC data on the CLF are based, 
occupations in the professional category--those occupations, such as 
lawyers, engineers, accountants, and registered nurses, requiring 
either college graduation or experience of such kind and amount as to 
provide a comparable background--constituted 29 percent of the federal 
workforce versus 18 percent of the CLF. Conversely, occupations in the 
operatives (semiskilled workers) and laborers (unskilled workers) 
categories, which generally do not require high education levels, 
constituted 3 percent of the federal workforce compared to 16 percent 
of the CLF. Figure 1 shows the composition of the federal workforce and 
the CLF by EEOC's occupational categories. 

Figure 1: Composition of Federal Workforce and CLF by EEOC's Nine 
Occupational Categories, 2000: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of the 2000 Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) and 
the Census 2000 Special EEO File. 

Note: Federal workforce percentages do not reflect individuals that 
could not be classified into categories, and CLF percentages do not 
reflect individuals that were unemployed. 

[End of figure] 

Our analyses showed that the likelihood of being a federal worker 
increased with higher levels of education. A person with some college 
was 1.7 times more likely to be a federal worker than a person with 
only a high school diploma, a person with a bachelor's degree was 2.2 
times more likely, and a person with more than a bachelor's degree was 
2.7 times more likely. OPM reported that in 2004, 42 percent of federal 
workers had a bachelor's degree or higher. In addition, approximately 
60 percent of new permanent hires to the federal government in 2005 had 
at least some college--20 percent with some college, 23 percent with a 
bachelor's degree, and 17 percent with more than a bachelor's degree. 

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that regardless of citizenship 
status, Hispanics overall have lower educational attainment than other 
groups, with non-U.S. citizens having the lowest levels of educational 
attainment. Among citizens in the CLF 18 and older, as table 1 shows, 
Hispanics had a higher percentage of those without a high school 
diploma--26.4 percent--and lower percentage of those with a bachelor's 
degree or higher--15.4 percent--than most other racial/ethnic groups. 

Table 1: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Citizens 18 
and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000: 

Percent. 

Less than high school diploma; 
Hispanic: 26.4; 
White: 10.1; 
Black: 18.0; 
Asian: 10.5; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 12.5; 
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 17.6. 

High school diploma; 
Hispanic: 27.0; 
White: 27.9; 
Black: 30.7; 
Asian: 15.8; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 33.1; 
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 29.6. 

Some college; 
Hispanic: 31.2; 
White: 33.2; 
Black: 34.5; 
Asian: 29.7; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 37.0; 
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 37.3. 

Bachelor's degree; 
Hispanic: 10.6; 
White: 18.8; 
Black: 11.5; 
Asian: 28.3; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 12.4; 
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 10.1. 

Graduate degree; 
Hispanic: 4.8; 
White: 10.1; 
Black: 5.3; 
Asian: 15.7; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 5.0; 
American Indian/: Alaska Native: 5.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data. 

[End of table] 

When noncitizens were included, as table 2 below shows, the proportion 
of Hispanics with less than a high school diploma increased and the 
proportion having bachelor's degree or higher decreased. 

Table 2: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among U.S. Residents 
18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000: 

Percent. 

Less than high school diploma; 
Hispanic: 39.0; 
White: 11.3; 
Black: 18.4; 
Asian: 13.2; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 15.3; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 19.3. 

High school diploma; 
Hispanic: 24.2; 
White: 27.5; 
Black: 30.5; 
Asian: 15.8; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 32.4; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 29.2. 

Some college; 
Hispanic: 24.6; 
White: 32.6; 
Black: 34.2; 
Asian: 25.8; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 35.4; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 36.3. 

Bachelor's degree; 
Hispanic: 8.2; 
White: 18.5; 
Black: 11.5; 
Asian: 27.4; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 12.0; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 9.9. 

Graduate degree; 
Hispanic: 4.0; 
White: 10.1; 
Black: 5.4; 
Asian: 17.9; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 4.9; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 5.3. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data. 

[End of table] 

Educational attainment for Hispanics 18 and older in the CLF who were 
not citizens was lower compared with those who were U.S. citizens. 
Table 3 shows that, among Hispanics in the CLF who were not U.S. 
citizens, 62.8 percent had less than a high school diploma while 6.2 
percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. 

Table 3: Highest Level of Educational Attainment among Non-U.S. 
Citizens 18 and Older in the CLF by Ethnicity/Race, 2000: 

Percent. 

Less than high school diploma; 
Hispanic: 62.8; 
White: 39.9; 
Black: 26.2; 
Asian: 18.4; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 32.9; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 54.9. 

High school diploma; 
Hispanic: 19.0; 
White: 20.2; 
Black: 26.3; 
Asian: 15.8; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 27.8; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 20.4. 

Some college; 
Hispanic: 12.0; 
White: 18.1; 
Black: 28.4; 
Asian: 18.4; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 25.3; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 14.7. 

Bachelor's degree; 
Hispanic: 3.6; 
White: 11.5; 
Black: 12.2; 
Asian: 25.7; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 9.8; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 6.1. 

Graduate degree; 
Hispanic: 2.6; 
White: 10.3; 
Black: 6.8; 
Asian: 21.8; 
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 4.2; 
American Indian/ Alaska Native: 3.9. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data. 

[End of table] 

In addition to having lower educational attainment levels than other 
racial/ethnic groups, there were differences in Hispanics' educational 
patterns. For example, Hispanics have enrolled in 2-year colleges at a 
higher rate than other racial/ethnic groups. According to data reported 
in the American Council on Education's Minorities in Higher Education, 
Twenty-First Annual Status Report, 2003-2004, 59 percent of Hispanics 
enrolled in postsecondary institutions are enrolled in community 
colleges, compared to 37 percent of whites, 43 percent of blacks, 41 
percent of Asians, and 50 percent of American Indians. In addition, 
Hispanics are less likely than other groups to complete a bachelor's 
degree. According to data from the National Center for Education 
Statistics' National Educational Longitudinal Study beginning in 
1988,[Footnote 8] by age 26, 47 percent of white students who had 
enrolled in postsecondary education had completed a bachelor's degree 
compared to 23 percent of Hispanics--lower than other racial/ethnic 
groups.[Footnote 9] 

The federal government and Hispanic-serving organizations have 
implemented initiatives to address gaps in Hispanics' educational 
achievement. In October 2001, Executive Order No. 13230 created the 
President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic 
Americans, within the U.S. Department of Education, to examine issues 
related to the achievement gap between Hispanic Americans and their 
peers. The commission issued an interim report in September 2002, The 
Road to a College Diploma: The Complex Reality of Raising Educational 
Achievement for Hispanics in the United States, and a final report in 
March 2003, From Risk to Opportunity: Fulfilling the Educational Needs 
of Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century. The commission's final 
report, concluding its work, contained six recommendations, which 
encompassed the entire education continuum, from early childhood 
through postsecondary, as well as federal accountability and 
coordination and research. According to the White House Initiative on 
Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, which provided the staff 
support and assistance to the commission and continues to work within 
the Department of Education, it is taking steps to implement the 
commission's six recommendations and is working with the Department of 
Education, other federal agencies, and public and private 
organizations. 

In addition to federal government initiatives, Hispanic-serving 
organizations also have ongoing efforts to improve the educational 
attainment of Hispanics. According to LULAC, the organization has 16 
counseling centers whose mission is to increase educational 
opportunities and attainment for Hispanic Americans through the 
development and implementation of programs in Hispanic communities 
throughout the United States. LULAC also reports that it provides 
educational counseling, scholarships, mentorships, leadership 
development, and literacy programs. According to its Web site, the 
National Council of La Raza (NCLR) works to build and strengthen 
community-based educational institutions, to improve the quality of 
instruction for Hispanic students, and to more effectively involve 
Hispanic families in the education of their children. NCLR reports that 
its education program services and activities are targeted to over 300 
affiliated organizations while its education policy work addresses 
national issues in public education. NCLR also reports that it cochairs 
the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national 
organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for 
Latinos living in the United States and Puerto Rico. Other 
organizations such as the Hispanic College Fund also work to provide 
college scholarships for Hispanic youth. 

EEOC and OPM Have Taken Steps in Their Oversight Roles to Address 
Hispanic Representation: 

In their respective oversight roles, both EEOC and OPM report 
representation levels of racial, ethnic, and gender groups overall and 
in subsets of the federal workforce and require that agencies conduct 
analyses of their own workforces. However, the benchmarks that EEOC, 
OPM, and agencies use to compare federal workforce representation 
levels to the CLF do not differentiate between citizens and 
noncitizens, and therefore do not identify how citizenship affects the 
pool of persons qualified to work for the federal government. Where 
differences in representation occur, such as within occupations or by 
grade, agencies are to determine if there are barriers to participation 
and, if so, develop strategies to address any barriers. OPM provides 
human resource guidance and resources to agencies to assist agencies in 
implementing these strategies. 

EEOC and OPM Reports on the Federal Workforce: 

In its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, prepared pursuant to its 
oversight responsibilities, EEOC provides data on the representation of 
racial, ethnic, and gender groups, including Hispanics, compared to the 
CLF overall, by senior pay and average grade level, and for selected 
agencies with 500 or more employees. To make its comparisons, EEOC uses 
the Census 2000 Special EEO File, which provides workforce data on the 
CLF. The Census 2000 Special EEO File is a special tabulation 
constructed by the U.S. Census Bureau according to the specifications 
of, and under a reimbursable agreement with, a consortium of agencies-
-EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and the Department of Labor (DOL). The Special EEO 
File, which has been prepared every 10 years since 1970 based on the 
Decennial Census, serves as the primary external benchmark to compare 
the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of each employer's workforce 
to its available labor market. The datasets on the Census 2000 Special 
EEO Tabulation present data on race and ethnicity cross-tabulated by 
other variables such as detailed occupations, occupational groups, 
gender, worksite geography, residence geography, education, age, and 
industry. Data are available at the national level and by state, 
metropolitan area, county, and place.[Footnote 10] 

However, the Census 2000 Special EEO File data does not include 
citizenship data. According to a Census Bureau official, at DOJ's 
request, the Census 2000 Special EEO File specifications originally 
included citizenship data for metropolitan statistical areas in four 
states for persons in the CLF 20 to 34 years of age, with 4 or more 
years of high school, by race and ethnicity. Because of narrow data 
specifications, concerns were raised about the privacy of Census 
respondents and the request was withdrawn. The consortium and Census 
are planning the 2010 Special EEO File, which will be based on 5 years 
(2005-2009) of American Community Survey (ACS) data--which is replacing 
the long form of the Decennial Census. Subsequent to the completion of 
our audit work, EEOC sent a letter requesting that the Census Bureau 
review the possibility of including citizenship data in the 2010 
Special EEO File. According to the Census Bureau, citizenship data can 
be included but at an additional cost to consortium members based on 
the extent of data requested (e.g., geographic or occupational 
specificity) and amount of staff and programming resources to produce 
the requested data. In addition, the Census Bureau said that the extent 
of geographic or occupational specificity of citizenship data could be 
limited based on the risk of disclosing the identity of a respondent. 
Census Bureau officials also noted that because the 2010 Special EEO 
File will be based on a 5-year roll up of annual ACS data, current 
plans are to produce an updated Special EEO File every 5 years. 

OPM also presents data on Hispanic representation in its reports to the 
President under Executive Order No. 13171 and to Congress under the 
FEORP. In its Annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in 
the Federal Government, prepared pursuant to Executive Order No. 13171, 
and in Statistical Information on Hispanic Employment in Federal 
Agencies, OPM has included data on Hispanic representation overall, for 
each agency, by pay plan/group, and among new hires.[Footnote 11] The 
FEORP report compares overall representation levels in the federal 
workforce to the CLF and provides representation levels by pay group, 
in occupational categories, and within each agency. OPM also uses the 
Census 2000 Special EEO File when comparing representation of women and 
minorities within agencies to the relevant CLF (the labor force 
comprising only the particular occupations for the particular agency) 
for its FEORP report. However, in making comparisons of the demographic 
composition of the overall federal workforce to the CLF for the FEORP 
and the statistical reports on Hispanic employment, OPM has used the 
Current Population Survey (CPS). By using the CPS, OPM reports more- 
current CLF data than EEOC's and reflects the changing composition of 
the CLF. At the time of our review, OPM was benchmarking to the 
September 2005 CPS, which showed Hispanic representation in the CLF to 
be 12.6 percent. In its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, EEOC 
uses the 2000 Special EEO File as its benchmark showing Hispanic 
representation in the CLF to be 10.7 percent. Although using the CPS 
enables OPM to report more-current data on Hispanic representation in 
the CLF, OPM does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens in 
its analysis of the CPS data. 

Figure 2 shows Hispanic representation in the permanent federal 
workforce compared to the CLF with and without noncitizens from 1994 to 
2005, based on data from the CPS and OPM. These data show how 
citizenship affects the pool of Hispanics eligible for federal 
employment and that, when only citizens are considered in the CLF, 
Hispanic representation in both the federal workforce and CLF is more 
comparable. 

Figure 2: Hispanic Representation in the Permanent Federal Workforce, 
CLF, and among U.S. Citizens in the CLF, 1994-2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OPM's Hispanics in the Federal Government, A Statistical 
Profile, for 1994 federal workforce data, and OPM's Fifth Annual Report 
to the President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government for 
1995-2004 federal workforce data. Gao's analysis of the Current 
Population Survey (CPS), 1994-2002 Annual Demographic File and CPS, 
2003-2005 Annual Social and economic Supplemental for the CLF data. 

Note: Prior to 1994, citizenship was not a variable in the CPS. 

[End of figure] 

EEOC and OPM Guidance on Workforce Analyses: 

EEOC's Management Directive 715 (MD-715) provides guidance and 
standards to federal agencies for establishing and maintaining 
effective equal employment opportunity programs, including a framework 
for agencies to determine whether barriers to equal employment 
opportunity exist and to identify and develop strategies to mitigate 
the barriers to participation. EEOC defines barriers as agency 
policies, principles, or practices that limit or tend to limit 
employment opportunities for members of a particular gender, race, or 
ethnic background, or based on an individual's disability status. EEOC 
requires agencies to report the results of their analyses annually. 

The initial step is for an agency to analyze its workforce data with 
designated benchmarks. As part of this analysis, in addition to 
comparing the overall workforce to the CLF, EEOC instructs agencies to 
compare major (mission-related and heavily populated) occupations to 
the CLF in the appropriate geographic area in order to get a more 
accurate picture of where differences in representation may exist and 
to guide further analysis. Agencies may use the Census 2000 Special EEO 
File and the Census 2000 EEO Data Tool, which allows agencies to tailor 
the Special EEO File data in accordance with EEOC instructions. In 
their analyses, agencies may find that Hispanic representation in some 
of their major occupations is higher than in similar occupations in the 
CLF, but lower in others. Similarly, our review of data on the 47 
occupations with 10,000 or more federal employees showed that Hispanic 
representation was higher in the 2005 federal workforce than the 2000 
CLF in 22 of those occupations and lower in 25.[Footnote 12] (See app. 
IV.) EEOC also instructs agencies to analyze workforce data by grade 
level, applicants, new hires, separations, promotions, career 
development programs, and awards to identify where there may be 
barriers to participation. With respect to grade level, our review of 
data on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce showed that 
Hispanics are more highly represented in the lower grade levels than in 
higher grade levels (see app. IV). Our review was based on descriptive 
data and did not take into account citizenship, education, or other 
factors that can affect an individual's placement in the federal 
government. 

When numerical measures indicate low representation rates, EEOC 
instructs that agencies conduct further inquiry to identify and examine 
the factors that contributed to the situation revealed by the data. 
Below is an example from EEOC's MD-715 instructions of such an analysis 
to determine the existence of limits or barriers to participation. 

An agency has uncovered a lack of Black women in its program analyst 
occupation at the grade 13 level and above. However, below the grade 13 
level the program analyst occupation is quite diverse, including a 
significant number of Black females. Further examination of the matter 
reveals that several years ago the agency instituted a requirement that 
program analysts hold a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree 
in order to be promoted to the grade 13 level or above. Few internal 
candidates, and none of the Black female program analysts employed by 
the agency, hold an MBA. Therefore, the agency was recruiting higher 
level program analysts from a local business school with a student 
population comprised of primarily White males. Over time, program 
analysts at the grade 13 and above did not reflect the racial diversity 
of the program analysts at the lower grade levels. 

First, the agency should re-visit the issue of whether the skill set 
represented by an MBA is available by some alternative means such as 
years of work experience in certain areas. This experience might be 
substituted for holding an MBA in rendering an applicant qualified for 
consideration for a higher-graded position. If it is determined that 
the agency's requirement for an MBA is in fact job-related and 
consistent with business necessity, the agency should consider whether 
other alternatives exist which will have less impact on a particular 
group. Most obviously, the agency could recruit MBAs from other schools 
with more diverse student populations. In addition, the agency might 
consider steps it could take to facilitate its own lower-graded 
employees obtaining MBAs. 

Under OPM's FEORP regulations and guidance under the Human Capital 
Accountability and Assessment Framework (HCAAF), agencies are also to 
analyze their workforces. Under FEORP, agencies are required to 
determine where representation levels for covered groups are lower than 
the CLF and take steps to address them. Agencies are also required to 
submit annual FEORP reports to OPM in the form prescribed by OPM. These 
have included (1) data on employee participation in agencywide and 
governmentwide career development programs broken out by race, national 
origin, gender, and grade level and (2) a narrative report identifying 
areas where the agencies had been most successful in recruiting, 
hiring, and formal training of minorities and women, and how they were 
able to achieve those results. The HCAAF, according to OPM, fuses human 
capital management with merit system principles and other civil service 
laws, rules, and regulations and consists of five human capital systems 
that together provide a consistent, comprehensive representation of 
human capital management for the federal government. According to 
recently proposed regulations, each system consists of standards 
against which agencies can assess their management of human capital and 
related metrics.[Footnote 13] The HCAAF practitioners guide outlines 
suggested performance indicators reflecting effective practices in 
meeting these standards. One suggested performance indicator, for 
example, is that agencies have systems that track and analyze workforce 
diversity trends in mission-critical occupations in order to 
continually adjust the agency's recruitment and retention strategy to 
its current state of need. 

OPM Assistance to Agencies: 

OPM provides assistance to agencies in recruiting Hispanics as part of 
broad-based recruitment efforts and developing employees onboard 
through (1) governmentwide outreach and recruitment initiatives; (2) 
providing information on student employment programs; (3) disseminating 
information on leading practices; and (4) providing guidance on 
training and development of employees. 

Governmentwide Outreach and Recruitment Initiatives: 

In 2003 and 2004, OPM held recruitment fairs in cities across the 
country, including those with high concentrations of Hispanics, such as 
Los Angeles, San Antonio, Tucson, Miami, and New York. Additionally, in 
2005, OPM participated in 25 career fairs sponsored by others including 
LULAC, the National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives, and the 
University of New Mexico. Under its Veteran Invitational Program, 
launched in 2004, OPM has conducted career fairs, visited military 
installations and veterans' medical facilities, and provided 
information on employment opportunities for veterans on its Web site. 
In 2004, OPM signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the American GI- 
Forum--an organization that works on behalf of Hispanic veterans--in 
support of Executive Order No. 13171. 

OPM has also taken steps to improve the USAJOBS Web site, the federal 
government's official source for jobs and employment information. As 
part of its Recruitment-One Stop Initiative, launched in 2003, OPM 
reports that the Web site contains improved search capability options, 
a more user-friendly resume builder, and a streamlined job application 
process. USAJOBS also links to OPM's Student Jobs Web site, which 
contains listings of federal student employment positions, and e- 
scholar, a listing of federal educational scholarships, fellowships, 
grants, internships, apprenticeships, and cooperative programs offered 
by federal departments and agencies and partnering organizations. The 
USAJOBS Web site provides information in both English and Spanish. 

Student Employment Programs: 

According to OPM, student employment programs can help agencies recruit 
and develop talented employees to support agency missions; 
ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and 
administrative needs; and achieve a diverse, quality 
workforce.[Footnote 14] OPM assists agencies on the use of student 
employment programs by issuing regulations and providing technical 
assistance through its Web site. There are three federal student 
employment hiring programs that can lead to noncompetitive conversion 
to permanent employment--the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP), 
Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP), and Presidential Management 
Fellows Program (PMF). 

Under SCEP, agencies may hire students as interns while they are 
pursuing high school diplomas or equivalent vocational or technical 
certificates, and associate's, bachelor's, graduate, or professional 
degrees. Upon completion of their degree program and SCEP requirements, 
agencies may noncompetitively convert participants to permanent 
employment. Recently revised SCEP regulations allow agencies to credit 
up to 320 hours of the 640 hours of career-related work experience 
required for conversion from active duty military service or from 
comparable nonfederal internship, work-study, or student volunteer 
programs where work is performed at federal agencies.[Footnote 15] 
Comparable work experience can include those internships sponsored by 
the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities' (HACU) National 
Internship Program. The regulations also permit agencies to waive up to 
320 SCEP hours of required work experience for students who have 
demonstrated exceptional job performance and outstanding academic 
achievement. 

Under FCIP, agencies may appoint individuals to 2-year internships in 
entry-level positions that would lend themselves to internal formal 
training/developmental programs.[Footnote 16] After 2 years, if program 
requirements are met, an agency can noncompetitively convert them to 
competitive civil service status. OPM issued final regulations on FCIP 
in 2005.[Footnote 17] 

The Presidential Management Fellows (PMF) Program is a 2-year 
internship program open to students who have completed graduate degree 
programs, been nominated by their school officials, and passed OPM's 
assessment. In 2005, OPM issued final regulations implementing 
Executive Order No. 13318, issued in 2003,[Footnote 18] removing the 
cap on the number of PMF appointments, providing agencies greater 
flexibility in promoting fellows, and establishing training and 
development requirements.[Footnote 19] 

Other organizations have also realized that various intern programs 
provide valuable recruitment sources. According to the Partnership for 
Public Service, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to revitalizing 
public service, internship programs such as SCEP provide agencies a 
pool of diverse, tested, and easy-to-hire potential employees.[Footnote 
20] Yet, the Partnership found that very few are drawn from the pool 
into permanent federal jobs. On the basis of the Partnership's analysis 
of the rates at which SCEP program participants are converted to 
permanent federal employment, agencies may not be realizing the full 
potential of this program. The Partnership reported that in 2001, 
agencies converted 17 percent of SCEP participants to permanent federal 
employment, and in 2000, 11 percent. In contrast, the Partnership's 
report stated that more than 35 percent of interns in the private 
sector accepted jobs with the companies for which they interned. 

While OPM has reported data on SCEP participants governmentwide by 
racial/ethnic group in its Fact Book and on SCEP new hires by agency in 
its statistical reports on Hispanic employment, OPM does not report 
demographic data on SCEP participants by agency and on FCIP and PMF 
participants governmentwide or by agency, or rates of conversion to 
permanent positions for SCEP, FCIP, and PMF either governmentwide or by 
agency. According to OPM, data on conversions to permanent employment 
by racial/ethnic group for SCEP and FCIP are available from the Central 
Personnel Data File (CPDF). Currently, OPM does not analyze these data. 
Similar data are available for the PMF. Analyzing data on conversion 
rates could provide OPM with valuable information on agencies that 
appear to be maximizing their use of these programs as well as those 
that are not fully utilizing them. With this information, OPM could 
then provide assistance to agencies to help them incorporate student 
employment programs into their strategic workforce planning as they 
seek to recruit and develop talented employees to support agency 
missions; ensure that they can meet their professional, technical, and 
administrative needs; and achieve a diverse, quality workforce. Such 
information from OPM could also enable agencies to perform more 
complete assessments of their programs. 

Leading Practices: 

OPM disseminates leading-practices information through the reports it 
issues pursuant to FEORP and Executive Order No. 13171 and through the 
Interagency Task Force on Hispanic employment, chaired by the Director 
of OPM. In its annual FEORP reports, OPM presents a summary of agency 
practices on workforce planning, recruitment and outreach, mentoring, 
and career development based on the information agencies submit to OPM 
in their annual FEORP reports. In its Annual Report to the President on 
Hispanic Employment, OPM presents what agencies report as effective 
recruitment, outreach, career development, and accountability 
practices. To prepare the reports pursuant to the order, OPM annually 
asks agencies to submit information concerning steps taken related to 
these areas. OPM also shares information on leading practices at 
meetings of the Interagency Task Force. Through this guidance, OPM 
promotes broad outreach to all groups and encourages agencies to 
establish relationships with colleges and universities as a means to 
attract qualified candidates. 

Training and Development: 

Once onboard, training and development programs can assist employees in 
further developing skills and helping them qualify for higher-level 
positions. OPM provides guidance to agencies on its training and 
development Web page and has issued regulations on training and 
development tools available to agencies, such as academic degree and 
other employee training programs. In 2004, OPM finalized 
regulations[Footnote 21] on a training provision of the Chief Human 
Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act), 
which expanded agency authority to pay or reimburse employees for the 
cost of academic degree training when such training contributes 
significantly to meeting an identified agency training need, resolving 
an identified agency staffing problem, or accomplishing goals in an 
agency's human capital management strategic plan.[Footnote 22] 

Agencies Take Steps to Recruit and Develop Hispanics in the Federal 
Workforce: 

The five agencies in our review have taken a variety of approaches to 
address issues concerning Hispanic representation in their workforces, 
particularly in competing for a limited number of qualified candidates 
and addressing Hispanic representation at higher levels. At NASA, where 
Hispanics represented 5.3 percent of the workforce in 2005, one of the 
major occupations is aerospace engineering.[Footnote 23] There, 
Hispanics represented 5.0 percent of aerospace engineers, according to 
EEOC's Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, 2004. In the CLF, 
Hispanics represented 4.6 percent of aerospace engineers, according to 
the Census 2000 Special EEO File. NASA said it must compete with the 
private sector for the pool of Hispanics qualified for aerospace 
engineering positions, which is often attracted by more-lucrative 
employment opportunities in the private sector in more-preferable 
locations. FNS, where Hispanics represented 7 percent of the workforce 
in 2005,[Footnote 24] reports that its ability to successfully recruit 
Hispanics was affected by low Hispanic representation in areas where 
some of its regional offices are located. Similarly, the USAF, with 7.4 
percent of its workforce Hispanic in 2005, also reported difficulties 
in recruiting Hispanics at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, 
Ohio, where Hispanics represent approximately 2 percent of the local 
CLF, according to the USAF. Moreover, the USAF attributes, in part, the 
decrease in overall Hispanic representation levels (from 7.7 percent in 
2000 to 7.4 percent in 2005) to the closure of Air Force bases in the 
southwestern United States where Hispanics were more highly represented 
than at other bases. Finally, agencies also reported that Hispanic 
representation in mid-and upper-level positions was an issue they were 
addressing. While both SSA, where Hispanics represented 12.5 percent of 
the workforce in 2005, and the SBA, where Hispanics represented 10.8 
percent in 2005, reported success recruiting Hispanics for lower-level 
positions, each noted that Hispanic representation in certain mid-or 
upper-level positions was lower. 

Steps Agencies Have Taken: 

The agencies reported using a variety of approaches that enhanced their 
ability to recruit and develop Hispanic employees. These included 
outreach to the Hispanic community and Hispanic-serving organizations, 
including participating in conferences sponsored by LULAC and others; 
recruiting at Hispanic-Serving Institutions--defined by statute as an 
eligible institution having an undergraduate enrollment of at least 25 
percent Hispanic full-time students and at least 50 percent of the 
institution's Hispanics students qualifying as low income;[Footnote 25] 
sponsoring interns through the HACU National Internship Program; use of 
student employment programs such as SCEP and FCIP; advertising in both 
English-and Spanish-language Hispanic media; and career development and 
training programs. Below we describe some of the specific approaches 
agencies in our study used to recruit and provide training and 
development opportunities for Hispanics. While data on the outcomes are 
limited and we have not assessed the effectiveness of these programs, 
the agencies reported that these approaches have enhanced their ability 
to recruit and develop qualified Hispanics. 

Outreach to the Hispanic Community: 

NASA--Part of NASA's strategy to recruit Hispanics centers on 
increasing educational attainment, beginning in kindergarten and 
continuing into college and graduate school, with the goal of 
attracting students into the NASA workforce and aerospace community. 
NASA centers sponsor, and its employees participate in, mentoring, 
tutoring, and other programs to encourage Hispanic and other students 
to pursue careers in science, engineering, technology, and math. For 
example, the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama, annually 
sponsors a Hispanic Youth Conference attended by students from across 
Alabama that includes workshops on leadership development and pursuing 
NASA career fields and provides opportunities to establish mentoring 
relationships. NASA also provides grants to fund educational support 
programs including in locations where there are high concentrations of 
Hispanics. For example, the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, 
California, provided a grant for the development and implementation of 
a K-12 technology-awareness program designed to expose students to NASA 
and higher education through competitive team activities based on key 
aeronautic concepts. The program has been implemented in schools 
throughout California that have a high percentage of Hispanic students. 
Various centers also participate in high school and college internship 
programs, such as the Summer High School Apprenticeship Research 
Program where high school students spend 8 weeks working with engineers 
on scientific, engineering, mathematical, and technical projects. NASA 
centers also provide scholarships and research grants. For example, 
Ames provides scholarships to Hispanic college students at a community 
college and the Dryden Flight Research Center sponsors fellowships for 
students in engineering and science to continue their graduate studies. 
In addition, NASA has recently developed the Motivating Undergraduates 
in Science and Technology scholarship program designed to stimulate a 
continued interest in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics. 

USAF--To reach potentially qualified Hispanics from all areas of the 
country, the USAF outreach strategy focuses on partnering and improving 
working relationships with Hispanic-serving organizations at the 
national, regional, and local levels. At the national level, the USAF 
has established relationships with professional, educational, and broad-
based Hispanic-serving organizations. For example, it signed a 
memorandum of understanding with LULAC agreeing to collaborate on, 
among other things, increasing USAF career opportunities. Through the 
Department of Defense partnership with HACU, the USAF participates in a 
national working group that meets semiannually to develop initiatives 
to expand recruitment at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. At the local 
and regional levels, the USAF has a variety of outreach efforts that 
involve both providing information to, and gaining feedback from, the 
Hispanic community. It works with organizations to educate potential 
employees on the application process. For example, Kirtland Air Force 
Base in New Mexico has sponsored "train the trainer" workshops with 
area organizations, high schools, and colleges and universities. The 
USAF also participates in programs working directly with local 
students, such as serving as mentors for Hispanic students. In 
addition, the USAF regularly provides vacancy announcements to, and has 
ongoing dialogues with, local Hispanic community organizations. 

Use of Student Hiring Authorities: 

NASA--During fiscal year 2004, NASA implemented the corporate college 
recruitment initiative using FCIP hiring authority to recruit 
individuals to mission-critical positions. As part of this strategy, 
NASA participates in recruitment events at colleges and universities 
and conferences around the country, which it selects based on academic 
programs, diversity of attendee population, or involvement in NASA 
research. For each recruitment site, it invites academic institutions 
within reasonable geographical proximity, allowing it to maximize 
opportunities to reach students at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In 
fiscal year 2004, 15 Hispanic-Serving Institutions participated from 
Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, New York, Puerto Rico, and 
Texas, which included universities with well-established engineering, 
science, and technology curricula. Prior to each event, NASA publishes 
event-specific vacancies and encourages students to apply in advance in 
order to create a pool of applicants from which to schedule interviews 
at the site. NASA reported that it was most successful in competing for 
top talent and filling critical competency positions at the earliest 
possible time when it extended job offers at the recruitment site or 
within 30 days after the conclusion of the recruitment visit. 

USAF--The USAF uses student employment programs to attract Hispanics 
and other qualified applicants for positions ranging from those 
requiring training at the vocational-technical schools to the graduate 
level. The USAF--which employs approximately half of the federal 
government's civilian aircraft maintenance workers--has implemented the 
"Grow Your Own" aircraft maintenance program at three of its Texas 
bases. In partnership with vocational-technical schools, the program 
includes both on-the-job training and classroom education. It provides 
the USAF with a pool of trained candidates to replace retiring federal 
employees and a vehicle to increase Hispanic representation. Students 
are initially appointed through SCEP, and upon completion of the 
educational program and 640 hours of career-related work, students may 
be converted to permanent employment within 120-days without further 
competition. 

Using FCIP authority, the USAF hires recent college graduates into its 
PALACE Acquire and Copper Cap internship programs. The Copper Cap 
program is designed to train college graduates as contract specialists 
by assigning them to work with professional contracting officers. The 
PALACE Acquire program fills a variety of positions in approximately 20 
career fields including logistics, civilian personnel, scientists and 
engineers, criminal investigator, intelligence specialists, public 
affairs, and education specialists. Participants may be promoted in 1- 
year intervals up to a certain level based on satisfactory or 
successful performance and are eligible for student loan repayment and 
tuition assistance for graduate school. 

Career Development Programs: 

SBA--The SBA's District Director Candidate Development Program (DDCDP) 
is designed to recruit and develop a diverse group of highly qualified 
and trained managers at the General Schedule grade 13, 14, and 15 
levels to fill district director positions on a noncompetitive basis as 
they become vacant. At the SBA, district director positions are key 
managerial career positions responsible for providing agency services 
to the small business community. The program is a 6-to 18-month 
development program and candidates who are competitively selected for, 
and successfully complete, the DDCDP program are eligible for 
noncompetitive selection for a period of 3 years from the time they 
have successfully completed the program. 

FNS--Since 2000, FNS has sponsored the Leadership Institute, which is a 
15-month full-time leadership training program. The program focuses on 
five core competencies: leading change, leading people, achieving 
results, business acumen, and building coalitions/communications. 
Participants, who are competitively selected from grades 11-14, attend 
core seminars on such topics as leading teams, problem solving, and 
decision making and participate in individual and team projects. As of 
February 2006, there were 98 graduates from five classes. 

SSA--SSA sponsors national, headquarters, and regional career 
development programs for employees in grades 5 to 15. At the national 
level, the Leadership Development Program is an 18-month program 
designed to provide employees in grades 9 to 12 with developmental 
experiences through placement in designated trainee positions. The 
Advanced Leadership Program is an 18-month program designed to provide 
employees in grades 13 and 14 experience to become future agency 
leaders through rotational assignments, training, and other 
developmental experiences. Upon successful completion of these 
programs, participants receive a 3-year Certificate of Eligibility for 
a onetime, noncompetitive promotion, used at the discretion of SSA 
management. SSA also has a 12-to 18-month Senior Executive Service 
Candidate Development Program to prepare individuals in grade 15 or 
equivalent to assume senior executive-level responsibilities and 
develop their executive core qualifications. For employees in grades 5 
through 8, SSA offers career development programs in its Office of 
Central Operations based in Baltimore and Office of Disability 
Adjudication and Review, which has regional and local hearing offices 
throughout the country. These, as well as other regional and 
headquarters component career development programs, are modeled after 
its three national programs for which employees are competitively 
selected. 

Educational Assistance Programs: 

USAF--The USAF provides a variety of opportunities for current 
employees to increase their educational attainment through tuition 
assistance and degree completion programs, in-residence and distance- 
learning educational programs, and long-term academic programs. Its 
tuition assistance program covers mission-related coursework for 
designated positions toward degrees at a higher-level than the employee 
has already attained. Employees attend courses on a voluntary off-duty 
basis. Degree completion programs offer selected employees in 
designated career fields the opportunity to complete their degree 
during duty hours on a full-or part-time basis. In addition, the USAF 
also provides opportunities for employees to earn graduate degrees from 
its academic institutions, such as the Air Force Institute of 
Technology. Moreover, its professional military education programs-- 
such as the Squadron Officer College and Air War College--are available 
for civilian employees depending upon grade level. These programs are 
offered in residence and by correspondence. Both provide opportunities 
for participants to earn credits toward degree programs. 

The USAF has obtained the recommendations on college credit for these 
and other courses and training programs from the American Council on 
Education's (ACE) College Credit Recommendation service. ACE is an 
association of approximately 1,800 accredited, degree-granting colleges 
and universities as well as higher-education-related associations, 
organizations, and corporations. It reviews training programs and 
courses offered by government agencies and corporations and other 
training providers at the providers' request and makes recommendations 
concerning the type of academic credit, if any, appropriate for the 
program. Approximately 1,200 accredited colleges or universities have 
agreed to consider ACE recommendations for courses, apprenticeship 
programs, and examinations, including community colleges and 
universities such as the University of California at Berkeley, George 
Washington University, and Indiana University, Bloomington.[Footnote 
26] ACE has also recommended credit for various courses from NASA's 
Academy of Program and Project Leadership that may be used toward a 
graduate degree. 

Agencies Identify Lessons-learned in Addressing Hispanic 
Representation: 

In response to our inquiry, the agencies included in our review 
reported three primary lessons important to the success of their 
efforts--commitment of agency leadership, taking a strategic workforce 
planning approach, and working with the Hispanic community: 

* Commitment of agency leadership: Agencies reported that their 
programs were most successful when agency leadership was committed to 
addressing Hispanic representation. As we found in our prior work on 
diversity management, leaders and managers within organizations are 
primarily responsible for the success of diversity management because 
they must provide the visibility and commit the time and necessary 
resources.[Footnote 27] For example, SSA included diversity as part of 
its strategic and human capital plans and developed an agencywide 
marketing and recruitment strategy to address the representation of any 
underrepresented group, including Hispanics. Additionally, it tracks 
the outcomes of its recruitment and hiring initiatives. 

* Strategic workforce planning: Agencies also recognized the importance 
of taking a strategic workforce planning approach in their efforts to 
recruit a diverse workforce. Strategic workforce planning addresses two 
critical needs: (1) aligning an organization's human capital program 
with its current and emerging mission and programmatic goals and (2) 
developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and 
retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals.[Footnote 28] For 
example, NASA's recruitment strategy focuses on both developing the 
pipeline to fill its mission-critical occupations by encouraging 
students to pursue degrees in science, technology, engineering, and 
math and attracting graduates into the NASA workforce and aerospace 
community. Additionally, SSA developed a business case for bilingual 
public contact employees in its field offices and bicultural employees 
in policy-making staff positions in its regional offices and 
headquarters components. Similarly, FNS said it began to realize the 
need for bilingual professionals, and as a result, has advertised 
positions requiring fluency in Spanish. 

* Working with Hispanic communities: Finally, agencies told us that it 
is important to work with Hispanic communities to understand one 
another's needs and find mutually beneficial solutions. The USAF at 
Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has taken steps in 
this regard. In this geographic area where Hispanics represented 41.6 
percent of the population according to the 2000 Census, the base has an 
alliance with the local public schools and colleges and universities to 
ensure that it is providing career and mentoring opportunities for area 
students and that schools are producing a pipeline of qualified 
students to meet base needs. Base representatives also work with the 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on issues pertaining to Hispanic 
communities. 

Conclusions: 

Providing federal agencies with benchmarks that consider citizenship 
would allow agencies to get a more accurate picture of differences in 
representation levels and more effectively identify and address 
barriers to equal employment opportunity. Current CLF benchmarks do not 
include citizenship; however, two annual official data sources--the CPS 
and ACS--are available that would allow EEOC and OPM to separate 
citizens and noncitizens in analyzing federal workforce representation 
by racial, ethnic, and gender groups. Additionally, agencies analyze 
their workforces using the Census Special EEO Files prepared at the 
direction of the consortium of agencies--EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and DOL. 
Although the 2000 Special EEO File did not contain citizenship data, 
EEOC and DOJ have expressed interest in and the need for including such 
data in the 2010 Special EEO File but must address issues including 
cost and privacy. 

As part of their barrier analyses, where representation differences 
between occupations in their workforces and similar ones in the CLF 
exist, agencies are to determine whether the qualifications established 
for those occupations are appropriate. Additionally, agencies are 
required to determine whether they have considered all sources of 
qualified individuals. OPM currently provides guidance to federal 
agencies on recruiting at colleges and universities. Because the 
majority of Hispanics enrolled in postsecondary education attend 
community colleges and vocational schools, identifying effective 
outreach practices to such schools could help those agencies that have 
occupations requiring the education and training provided at these 
institutions to meet workforce needs and further equal employment 
opportunity. OPM already shares effective recruiting practices through 
its Annual Report to the President under Executive Order No. 13171. 

OPM has recognized the importance of student employment programs, in 
particular SCEP, in providing a unique opportunity for agencies to 
recruit students from high school through graduate school, depending on 
agencies' needs. These programs not only serve as a mechanism to 
address future federal workforce needs, they offer students the 
incentive to complete their education as well. OPM has provided data on 
SCEP new hires in its statistical reports on Hispanic employment and 
SCEP participants governmentwide in its Fact Book. While data on 
conversation rates for SCEP and FCIP are available from the CPDF, OPM 
does not analyze these data by agency or governmentwide. Such analyses 
could provide OPM with valuable information to help agencies maximize 
their use of these programs as part of their overall strategic 
workforce planning. Additionally, such information from OPM could 
enable agencies to perform more complete assessments of their programs. 

While federal agencies are taking steps to address Hispanic 
representation issues, as an employer, the federal government is 
limited in its ability to address the effects of citizenship and 
education on Hispanic representation throughout the federal workforce. 
As these are multifaceted issues, developing strategies to address them 
will require partnerships between Hispanic-serving organizations, 
federal agencies, state and local governments, educational 
institutions, and other interest groups. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Director of OPM and the Chair of EEOC do the 
following: 

* Include citizenship in their annual comparisons of representation in 
the federal workforce to the CLF. To help ensure consistency, both 
agencies should agree upon a single source of citizenship data. 

* Work with other Consortium agencies and the Census Bureau to 
incorporate citizenship data into the 2010 Census Special EEO File and 
incorporate such data into analyses under MD-715, FEORP, and Executive 
Order No. 13171. 

We recommend that the Director of OPM do the following: 

* Assess the extent of participation by racial and ethnic groups in 
student employment programs--SCEP, FCIP, and PMF--to help agencies 
maximize the use of these programs in their overall strategic workforce 
plan. This effort should include: 

* analyzing participation in, and conversion rates to, permanent 
positions from these programs and: 

* reporting governmentwide and agency-specific demographic data for the 
different racial and ethnic groups reflecting participation in, and 
rates of conversion to, permanent employment from these programs. These 
data are in addition to the data already reported on these programs in 
its reports, such as in its statistical reports on Hispanic employment 
and in the Fact Book. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided the Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney 
General, and the Secretary of Commerce with a draft of this report for 
their review and comment. In an e-mail, DOJ said it had no comments. In 
a written response, the Department of Commerce said it had no comments. 
(See app. V.) In its written comments, EEOC said it found the report to 
be an extremely interesting and useful addition to the ongoing 
examination of Hispanic representation in the federal workforce and 
indicated its plans to use the report as a resource. EEOC agreed that 
citizenship data are an important aspect that appears applicable not 
only to Hispanics, but to other census population groups as well. In 
this regard, EEOC has requested that the Census Bureau review the 
possibility of including citizenship data in the 2010 Special EEO File. 
The availability of citizenship data would enhance the analyses 
required under MD-715. However, EEOC did not address our recommendation 
that it include citizenship data in its annual comparisons of 
representation in the federal workforce to the CLF, which can be based 
on currently available CPS or ACS data. EEOC also said that while 
citizenship data are a useful benchmark for broad trending, more 
refined analyses are necessary, including analyses of applicant pools 
and participation rates for specific occupations. EEOC also said that 
analysis of the on-board federal workforce, such as analysis of 
promotions and participation in career development, employee 
recognition, and awards programs, is important in assessing equality of 
opportunity. We agree with EEOC that more refined analyses are 
necessary to assess equality of opportunity. EEOC's comments are 
reprinted in appendix VI. OPM provided minor technical comments via e- 
mail, which we incorporated as appropriate, but did not otherwise 
comment on the report or our recommendations. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
after its issue date. We will then send copies of this report to the 
Chair of EEOC, the Director of OPM, the Attorney General, the Secretary 
of Commerce, and other interested parties. Copies will be made 
available to others upon request. This report will also be available at 
no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9490. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Staff who made major contributions to this report 
are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

George H. Stalcup Director, Strategic Issues: 

List of Requesters: 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Danny K. Davis: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Grace Flores Napolitano: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Charles A. Gonzalez: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) identify and analyze the factors that are 
affecting Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, (2) examine 
the steps that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in their oversight roles, are 
taking related to Hispanic representation, and (3) illustrate the 
efforts within selected federal agencies related to Hispanic 
representation. 

To answer our first objective, we interviewed representatives from 
Hispanic-serving and other relevant organizations,[Footnote 29] and 
federal agency officials; reviewed previous studies; and obtained the 
opinions of experts identified by the National Academy of Sciences to 
identify possible factors that affect Hispanic representation in the 
federal workforce. Next, we researched available data sources that 
included sufficiently detailed data on Hispanic ethnicity, employer 
(federal or nonfederal), and the identified factors that could be 
reliably measured. We concluded that the 2000 Decennial Census Public 
Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent File was the best data source for 
our purposes. We conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses of data 
from the 2000 Decennial Census PUMS to determine the effect of the 
identified factors that could be reliably measured in this dataset on 
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. Our methodology and 
results of these analyses are more specifically described in appendix 
II. We obtained opinions on our methodology from EEOC, OPM, the Census 
Bureau, and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The experts identified by 
the National Academy of Sciences also reviewed and provided comments on 
both our methodology for conducting these analyses and our preliminary 
results. Our analyses are not designed to prove or disprove 
discrimination in a court of law like analyses conducted by EEOC or 
DOJ, nor do they establish whether the differences would require 
corrective action by any federal agency. Rather, our analyses use a 
standard statistical method designed to provide information at an 
aggregate level about factors that explain levels of Hispanic 
representation in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal 
workforce. 

To determine steps EEOC and OPM have taken related to Hispanic 
representation, we reviewed the statutes, regulations, executive 
orders, policies, guidance, program information, and reports issued 
related to Hispanic representation in the federal government. At EEOC, 
we met with officials and representatives, including from its Office of 
Federal Operations, Office of General Counsel---Research and Analytic 
Services, and Office of Legal Counsel. At OPM, we met with officials, 
including from the Human Capital Leadership and Merit System 
Accountability Division, Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, and 
the Office of General Counsel. 

To illustrate the efforts of federal agencies, we selected five Chief 
Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies or their subagencies of different 
sizes, geographic locations, concentrations of jobs by grade level, and 
OPM's occupational categories.[Footnote 30] They were the United States 
Air Force, Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Small 
Business Administration, and Social Security Administration. We 
provided written questions and document requests to agency officials 
and reviewed the responses received from each of the five agencies. We 
also had discussions at each agency with officials that oversee offices 
and programs related to Hispanic representation. We also reviewed 
documents provided by, and spoke with officials from, the White House 
Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. 

In addition, we analyzed Hispanic representation in the federal 
workforce governmentwide (1) compared to the Civilian Labor Force 
(CLF), including and excluding noncitizens; (2) in federal occupations 
compared to similar occupations in the CLF;[Footnote 31] and (3) by pay 
plan/grade. 

* To compare Hispanic representation in the federal workforce 
governmentwide[Footnote 32] to the CLF, we used data from 1994 to 2005. 
For the federal workforce, we used data reported by OPM on the 
permanent federal workforce. For the CLF, which includes both permanent 
and nonpermanent employees, we analyzed the March supplements to the 
Current Population Survey (CPS)--the 1994-2002 Annual Demographic Files 
and the 2003-2005 Annual Social and Economic Supplements 
(ASEC).[Footnote 33] 

* To compare Hispanic representation in federal occupations to similar 
occupations in the CLF, we selected the occupations which in September 
2004 had 10,000 or more federal employees, 47 occupations in total (see 
app. IV). For this analysis, we included both permanent and 
nonpermanent federal employees for comparability to the CLF. For 
Hispanic representation in these occupations in the federal workforce, 
we analyzed the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) for 2000-2005. For 
Hispanic representation in these occupations in the CLF, we analyzed 
the Census 2000 Special EEO File, which was created from the 2000 
Census.[Footnote 34] To determine occupations that are similar in the 
CLF and the federal workforce, we used the crosswalk for 2000 provided 
to us by EEOC to match federal occupations with similar occupations in 
the CLF. 

* To examine Hispanic representation by grade governmentwide, we 
analyzed 1990-2005 CPDF data for permanent and nonpermanent employees 
in groupings of General Schedule grades 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12, separately 
for grades 13, 14, and 15, and separately for those in the Senior 
Executive Service, in Senior Level/Senior Technical positions, and 
under the Executive Schedule. (See app. IV.) 

We believe the CPDF, CPS, and Census 2000 Special EEO File are 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study. Regarding the 
CPDF, we have previously reported that governmentwide data from the 
CPDF for the key variables in this study--race/Hispanic origin, 
occupation, and pay plan/grade--were 97 percent or more 
accurate.[Footnote 35] We believe the CPDF data are sufficiently 
reliable for purposes of this study. Regarding the CPS, to assess the 
reliability of its data, we reviewed the technical documentation for 
these data files, including the coding and definition of variables of 
interest, the procedures for handling missing data, coding checks, and 
imputation procedures for missing data. We also interviewed Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS) staff about how federal employment and race/ 
ethnicity are reported and imputed and to determine how this would 
affect our analyses. We considered the response rate, allocation rate 
(or the rate at which responses are imputed for unanswered questions), 
and size of confidence intervals. Because the CPS had a very high 
response rate, a low allocation rate, and narrow confidence intervals, 
the 1994-2005 CPS data were sufficiently reliable. Regarding the Census 
2000 Special EEO File, although we and others have cited a number of 
limitations of Census 2000 data, we believe these data are sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes of this study (see app. II for a full 
description of what we did to assess the reliability of Census data). 

We conducted our work from October 2004 to June 2006 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Affecting Hispanic 
Representation in the Federal Workforce: 

This appendix describes our analyses of factors that are affecting 
Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. We included those 
factors identified by representatives of Hispanic-serving 
organizations, agency officials, outside experts, and previous studies, 
which could be reliably measured in the data set we used. These factors 
were citizenship, gender, education, veteran's status, race, English 
proficiency, age, disability status, in-school status, employment 
status (full-or part-time), and geography (state where employed). To 
assess the effect of these factors on Hispanic representation in the 
federal workforce, we analyzed how these factors affect the likelihood 
of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce 
as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. We used logistic regression 
models to estimate likelihood of federal employment. This is a widely 
accepted method of analyzing dichotomous or binomial outcomes--like 
being in the federal versus nonfederal workforce--when the interest is 
in determining the effects of multiple factors that may be related to 
one another. In developing the model, we solicited the opinions of 
experts identified by the National Academy of Sciences as well as 
officials from OPM, EEOC, DOJ, and the Census Bureau. We also sought 
the experts' views on the preliminary results of our analysis.[Footnote 
36] 

Data Sets Used: 

We analyzed data from the 2000 Decennial Census Public Use Microdata 
Sample (PUMS) 5-Percent File because it (1) included variables needed 
for our analyses and (2) had the largest sample size of the datasets 
containing the variables in our analyses.[Footnote 37] To confirm our 
results, we also analyzed data from the 2004 American Community Survey 
(ACS) because it contains more recent data. In this appendix, however, 
we present only the results using the PUMS data because its larger 
sample size makes it less prone to sampling error than the ACS 
data.[Footnote 38] In addition, the results of the analyses of the ACS 
data were largely consistent with the results using the PUMS data. 

To assess the reliability of the PUMS and ACS, we reviewed the 
technical documentation for these data files, including the coding and 
definition of variables of interest, the procedures for handling 
missing data, coding checks, and imputation procedures for missing 
data. We also interviewed Census Bureau staff about how federal 
employment and race/ethnicity are reported and imputed and to determine 
how this would affect our analyses. We considered the response rate, 
allocation rate (or the rate at which responses are imputed for 
unanswered questions), and size of confidence intervals. Because PUMS 
and ACS both had a very high response rate, a low allocation rate, and 
narrow confidence intervals, the 2000 PUMS and 2004 ACS were 
sufficiently reliable for our objectives. 

The PUMS and ACS both contain self-reported data on whether someone is 
part of the CLF. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines the CLF 
as including persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 
states and the District of Columbia, who are not institutionalized 
(i.e., in penal and mental facilities, or homes for the aged) and who 
are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.[Footnote 39] For purposes 
of our logistic regression models, we divided the CLF into two groups-
-the federal workforce and the nonfederal workforce.[Footnote 40] 
Further, we restricted our analyses to individuals 18 and older 
because, with a few exceptions, 18 years is the minimum age for federal 
employment and our analysis of the government's official personnel 
data--the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)--showed that in September 
2004 individuals under 18 years of age constituted only 0.10 percent of 
the federal workforce. 

Methodology: 

We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models to 
estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the 
federal workforce relative to being in the nonfederal workforce. There 
were four steps to these analyses. 

1. For the first step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to 
estimate the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the 
likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce, relative to the 
nonfederal workforce, before controlling for any of the identified 
factors. 

2. For the second step, we used bivariate logistic regression models to 
determine how our estimated difference in likelihood of Hispanics and 
non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to the 
nonfederal workforce was affected by U.S. citizenship. We estimated the 
difference in likelihood between Hispanic citizens and non-Hispanic 
citizens being employed in the federal workforce relative to the 
nonfederal workforce and compared it to the difference in likelihood of 
federal employment among both citizens and noncitizens combined, 
obtained in step 1. We analyzed the effect of citizenship before all 
other factors because the federal government has a general policy and 
practice of restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals. 

3. For the third step, we restricted our analyses to citizens only and 
used a series of multivariate logistic regression models, controlling 
for each factor one at a time, to estimate how each of the other 
factors affected the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic citizens 
and non-Hispanic citizens being in the federal workforce relative to 
the nonfederal workforce. Because of the large effect of education on 
the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics that was revealed in 
this step, we ran a bivariate model that estimated the effect of 
education among all individuals--citizens and noncitizens combined--on 
the likelihood of being in the federal workforce relative to the 
nonfederal workforce. 

4. In the fourth step, we used a multivariate logistic regression model 
that estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanic and non- 
Hispanic citizens being employed in the federal workforce versus the 
nonfederal workforce after controlling for all other factors 
simultaneously. Among citizens, we controlled simultaneously for 
gender, education, veteran's status, race, English proficiency, age, 
disability status, school attendance (enrolled or not enrolled), 
employment status (full-or part-time), and geography (state where 
employed). 

In our analyses, we express differences in the likelihoods of being in 
the federal workforce rather than the nonfederal workforce using odds 
ratios.[Footnote 41] An odds ratio is generally defined as the ratio of 
the odds of an event occurring in one group compared to the odds of it 
occurring in another group--the reference or comparision group. In our 
analyses, the event of interest to us was employment in the federal 
workforce versus employment in the nonfederal workforce. We computed 
odds ratios to indicate the difference between Hispanics and non- 
Hispanics in the likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce 
(1) before controlling for any of the other factors, (2) after 
controlling for all of the factors one at a time, and (3) controlling 
for all factors simultaneously. 

In our analyses, an odds ratio of 1.0 would indicate that Hispanics and 
non-Hispanics were equally likely to be employed in the federal 
workforce as in the nonfederal workforce, or that the ratio of 
Hispanics to non-Hispanics was the same in the two workforces. An odds 
ratio of less than 1.0 would imply that Hispanics were less likely than 
non-Hispanics to be in the federal workforce as opposed to the 
nonfederal workforce, while an odds ratio greater than 1.0 would imply 
that Hispanics were more likely. For example, an odds ratio of 0.5 
would indicate that Hispanics were only half or 50 percent as likely as 
non-Hispanics to be in the federal workforce as opposed to the 
nonfederal workforce. An odds ratio of 2.0 would indicate that 
Hispanics were twice as likely as non-Hispanics to be in the federal 
workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce. We also use odds 
ratios to indicate the effects of the other factors we considered 
(i.e., education, race, etc.), and they can be similarly interpreted. 

Given the large sample size of the PUMS file, all of the results 
reported are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence 
level. Thus, we concentrated our analysis on the size or magnitude of 
the odds ratio--that is, how much smaller or larger than 1.0 they were-
-rather than the statistical significance of the odds ratios. 

The Difference between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of 
Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce: 

We initially estimated the difference in the likelihood of Hispanics 
and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce versus the 
nonfederal workforce before controlling for any of the identified 
factors. Table 4 shows the numbers, odds, and odds ratio derived from 
the PUMS to estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics 
being employed in the federal workforce relative to being in the 
nonfederal workforce. The odds ratio of 0.698 indicates that the odds 
of Hispanics being in the federal workforce rather than the nonfederal 
workforce were about 30 percent lower than the corresponding odds for 
non-Hispanics. 

Table 4: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees 
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens and Noncitizens, and 
Odds and Odds Ratios Derived from Them, 2000: 

Ethnicity: Hispanic; 
Number in federal workforce: 219,893; 
Number in nonfederal workforce: 15,228,215; 
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0144; 
Odds ratio: [Empty]. 

Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic; 
Number in federal workforce: 2,438,122; 
Number in nonfederal workforce: 117,921,113; 
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0207; 
Odds ratio: 0.698. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data. 

[End of table] 

We calculated the odds ratio of 0.698 by first deriving the odds of 
being a federal employee rather than a nonfederal employee for both 
Hispanics and non-Hispanics. For Hispanics, we divided the number of 
the Hispanic federal employees by the number of Hispanic nonfederal 
employees, or 219,893/15,228,215, which equals 0.0144. This implies 
that the odds of being a federal employee among Hispanics were 0.0144; 
that is, there were 14.4 Hispanics who are federal employees for every 
1,000 Hispanics who were nonfederal employees. For non-Hispanics, by 
comparison, the odds were 2,438,122/117,921,113 = 0.0207, which means 
that there were 20.7 non-Hispanics who were federal employees for every 
1,000 non-Hispanics who are nonfederal employees. The odds ratio, or 
ratio of these two odds, which is 0.0144/0.0207 = 0.698, indicates that 
the odds on being a federal employee (i.e., represented in the federal 
workforce) were lower for Hispanics than non-Hispanics, by a factor of 
0.698. 

The Effect of Citizenship on the Difference between Hispanics' and Non- 
Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal Workforce versus the 
Nonfederal Workforce: 

We examined the effect of citizenship on the difference in the 
likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the federal 
workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce, before examining the 
effect of all other factors because the federal government has a 
general policy and practice of restricting hiring to U.S. citizens and 
nationals. Table 5 shows the odds and odds ratio that are obtained when 
citizens only are used to estimate the likelihood of Hispanics and non- 
Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce relative to being in 
the nonfederal workforce. When these same odds and odds ratio were 
calculated for citizens only, the odds were similar (0.0200 and 
0.0210), and the odds ratio of 0.953 implies that the odds of being a 
federal employee, among Hispanic citizens, were lower than for non- 
Hispanic citizens by about 5 percent. Comparing this to the odds ratio 
indicating the difference in the likelihood of Hispanics and non- 
Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce among the both 
citizens and non-citizens--0.698--indicates that citizenship accounts 
for much of the difference in the likelihood of federal employment 
between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, since the difference in the odds 
changes from about 30 percent to roughly 5 percent. 

Table 5: Weighted PUMS Numbers of Federal and Nonfederal Employees 
among Hispanics and Non-Hispanics, for Citizens Only, and Odds and Odds 
Ratio Derived from Them, 2000: 

Ethnicity: Hispanic; 
Number in federal workforce: 198,603; 
Number in nonfederal workforce: 9,905,447; 
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0200; 
Odds ratio: [Empty]. 

Ethnicity: Non-Hispanic; 
Number in federal workforce: 2,386,192; 
Number in nonfederal workforce: 113,424,164; 
Odds of being in federal workforce: 0.0210; 
Odds ratio: 0.953. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data. 

[End of table] 

Effect of Remaining Factors among Citizens on the Difference between 
Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the Federal 
Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce: 

To determine the effect of the remaining factors on likelihood of 
Hispanics and non-Hispanics being in the federal workforce relative to 
being in the nonfederal workforce, we restricted our analysis to U.S. 
citizens because the federal government has a general policy and 
practice of hiring only U.S. citizens. We then controlled for each of 
the other factors one at a time among U.S. citizens in a series of 
multivariate logistic regression models. Table 6 shows the odds ratios 
representing the difference between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the 
likelihood of being employed in the federal workforce relative to the 
nonfederal workforce, when the other factors are controlled one at a 
time. The effect that each factor has on the difference between 
Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being in the federal 
workforce as opposed to the nonfederal workforce can be discerned by 
comparing each of the odds ratios in Table 6 to 0.95--the odds ratio 
indicating the likelihood of Hispanic and non-Hispanic citizens being 
employed in the federal workforce before controlling for the other 
factors. For example, as table 6 shows, controlling for differences in 
education--or estimating the effect of being Hispanic on the likelihood 
of being in the federal workforce after allowing for the differences in 
education between Hispanics and non-Hispanics--changes the odds ratio 
from 0.95 to 1.16. That is, among similarly educated workers, Hispanic 
citizens were more likely than non-Hispanic citizens, by a factor of 
1.16, or 16 percent, to be in the federal workforce as opposed to the 
nonfederal workforce. Controlling for race, veteran status, and to a 
lesser extent age also changed slightly the estimated difference 
between Hispanic and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of being a federal 
employee. 

Table 6: Odds Ratios Indicating the Difference in Likelihood of 
Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Citizens Being Employed in the Federal 
Workforce After Controlling for Different Factors: 

Factor: Gender; 
Category: Female; 
Reference group: Male; 
Odds ratio: 0.95. 

Factor: Level of education; 
Category: Bachelor's degree; 
Reference group: High school diploma; 
Odds ratio: 1.16. 

Factor: Veteran's status; 
Category: Veteran; 
Reference group: Not veteran; 
Odds ratio: 1.04. 

Factor: Race; 
Category: Black; 
Other nonwhite; 
Reference group: White; 
Odds ratio: 0.86. 

Factor: English proficiency; 
Category: Not English-proficient[A]; 
Reference group: English-proficient[B]; 
Odds ratio: 1.01. 

Factor: Age; 
Category: [C]; 
Reference group: [C]; 
Odds ratio: 1.03. 

Factor: Disability status; 
Category: Disabled; 
Reference group: Not disabled; 
Odds ratio: 0.96. 

Factor: School attendance; 
Category: Enrolled in School; 
Reference group: Not enrolled; 
Odds ratio: 0.96. 

Factor: Work status; 
Category: Full-time; 
Reference group: Part-time; 
Odds ratio: 0.97. 

Factor: State employed; 
Category: Each state except reference group; 
Reference group: Ohio; 
Odds ratio: 0.98. 

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 PUMS data. 

[A] "Not English-proficient" includes responses of "not very well" and 
"not at all" to Census questions about English proficiency. 

[B] "English-proficient" includes responses of "well" and "very well" 
to Census questions about English proficiency. 

[C] Age (in years) was entered in our models as a linear covariate; 
thus, the odds ratio for age represents the effect that a 1-year 
difference in age makes with respect to the likelihood of being a 
federal employee. 

[End of Table] 

Because of the large effect of education on the difference between 
Hispanics and non-Hispanics, we also analyzed the effect of education 
among all individuals. The odds ratios indicating the differences in 
the likelihood of being in the federal workforce between workers who 
have some college, a bachelor's degree, and more than a bachelor's 
degree, relative to workers with a high school diploma, were 1.74, 
2.15, and 2.69, respectively. In other words, each of those three 
categories of workers was almost twice as likely (1.74) or more than 
twice as likely (2.15 and 2.69) to be employed in the federal workforce 
relative to the nonfederal workforce as workers with only a high school 
diploma. Persons with less than a high school degree, by contrast, were 
less than half as likely as persons with a high school degree to be 
employed in the federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce. 

Effect of All Factors Considered Simultaneously on the Difference 
between Hispanics' and Non-Hispanics' Likelihood of Employment in the 
Federal Workforce versus the Nonfederal Workforce: 

When we estimated the difference in the likelihood of being in the 
federal workforce between Hispanics and non-Hispanics using a 
multivariate model that accounted for all of the factors simultaneously 
among citizens, we found that the odds of being a federal rather than a 
nonfederal employee were higher for Hispanic citizens than for non- 
Hispanic citizens, by a factor of 1.24. That is, when all other factors 
we examined were controlled, the odds of being in the federal workforce 
relative to the nonfederal workforce were 24 percent higher for 
Hispanics than non-Hispanics. 

Additional Explanatory Analyses: 

In response to comments from expert reviewers on a preliminary draft of 
these results, we conducted additional analyses to determine whether 
(1) our results were affected by the method we used to control for 
citizenship, (2) there was any difference between the effect of 
education for Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and (3) Hispanics' odds of 
federal employment were affected by changing the reference group from 
all non-Hispanics to white non-Hispanics. 

First, we analyzed whether controlling for citizenship by excluding 
noncitizens produced different results than controlling for citizenship 
by including both groups in our model and introducing a control 
variable for citizenship status. We used a multivariate logistic 
regression model controlling for all the factors simultaneously among 
both citizens and noncitizens and controlled for citizenship status 
using a dummy variable (rather than excluding them). When we controlled 
for citizenship status using a dummy variable for citizenship status, 
the odds ratio indicating the difference between Hispanics and non- 
Hispanics in the likelihood of being in the federal workforce was 1.22, 
not appreciably different from the odds ratio of 1.24 reported above. 

Second, we analyzed whether the effect of education on being employed 
in the federal workforce was different for Hispanics and non-Hispanics. 
We used an interaction model, which allowed us to assess whether the 
effect of education on the odds of federal employment varied between 
Hispanics and non-Hispanics. This model revealed that while education 
affected the odds of federal employment for both Hispanics and non- 
Hispanics, the effect of education was generally more pronounced for 
Hispanics than non-Hispanics. For example, Hispanics with a bachelor's 
degree were 2.27 times more likely to be employed in the federal 
workforce than Hispanics with a high school diploma. Among non- 
Hispanics, those with a bachelor's degree were 2.04 times more likely 
than those with only a high school diploma to be employed in the 
federal workforce. 

Third, to analyze whether Hispanics' odds of federal employment were 
affected by changing the reference group from all non-Hispanics to 
white non-Hispanics, we used dummy variables for race and ethnicity 
when comparing Hispanics, black non-Hispanics, and other nonwhite non- 
Hispanics, to white non-Hispanics as opposed to comparing Hispanics to 
non-Hispanics when controlling for all other factors. Including dummy 
variables for race and ethnicity yielded an odds ratio distinguishing 
Hispanics from white non-Hispanics of 1.55, which is greater than the 
odds ratio of 1.24 distinguishing Hispanics and non-Hispanics. The 
greater odds ratio resulted from black non-Hispanics and other nonwhite 
non-Hispanics--who were 1.82 and 1.89 times more likely to be employed 
in the federal workforce than white non-Hispanics--being taken out of 
the reference category. We did not analyze the effect of the 
interaction between race and Hispanic ethnicity; that is, comparing 
odds of federal employment among white Hispanics, black Hispanics, and 
other Hispanics because of differences in the reporting of race between 
Hispanics and non-Hispanics.[Footnote 42] 

Limitations: 

Due to limitations in the data and the methods we used, we did not 
include in our analyses some variables that were identified during the 
course of our research that could potentially affect Hispanic 
representation in the federal workforce. We did not analyze whether 
discrimination against or attitudes towards Hispanics or any other 
group affected representation in either the federal or nonfederal 
workforces because, using our data sources, it was not possible to 
conduct such an analysis. We did not analyze Hispanic subgroup data 
because of concerns we expressed in our prior work and those expressed 
by the Census Bureau and outside researchers.[Footnote 43] 
Additionally, some factors identified were not asked on the Census and 
we could not identify an adequate proxy suitable for our methodology; 
we cannot say how, or if, these factors would affect the results of our 
analyses. Variables for which we could not control include experience 
in a particular occupation, number of years naturalized U.S. citizens 
have been citizens of the United States, and an individual's preference 
for employment in either the federal or nonfederal workforce. 
Additionally, we did not control for Standard Metropolitan Statistical 
Area or other geographical units smaller than states because these 
would result in sample sizes too small to control for the full range of 
factors. For foreign-born respondents, we did not control for years 
since arrival in the United States because the data were insufficiently 
reliable. Finally, we could not control for how unemployment affects 
the likelihood of being in the federal workforce because unemployment 
perfectly predicts not being in the federal workforce; however, 
unemployed individuals are considered part of the CLF. 

Additionally, with respect to race--one of the factors for which we 
controlled--some have suggested that many Hispanics view race 
differently than non-Hispanics and consider their ethnicity as a 
separate racial category.[Footnote 44] Such differences in the 
perception of race could affect our estimates on the effect of race on 
the likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed in the 
federal workforce relative to the nonfederal workforce. According to 
the U.S. Census Bureau, among Hispanics in the 2000 Decennial Census, 
47.9 percent reported themselves as white, 2.0 percent as black, 1.2 
percent as American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.3 percent as Asian, 0.1 
percent as native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 6.3 percent as 
two or more races, and 42.2 percent as some other race.[Footnote 45] 
Among non-Hispanics, 79.1 percent reported themselves as white, 13.8 
percent as black, 0.8 percent as American Indian/Alaska Native, 4.1 
percent as Asian, 0.1 percent as native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 
Islander, 1.9 percent as two or more races, and 0.2 percent as some 
other race. Some studies suggest that the difference in the percentage 
of "other race" responses between Hispanics and non-Hispanics--42.2 and 
0.2--reflects many Hispanics' view that their race is Hispanic, rather 
than one of the racial categories listed in the Census.[Footnote 46] 

Additionally, while assessing the reliability of the PUMS for our 
analysis, we found that the number of federal employees reflected in 
the PUMS was larger than the number reported in either OPM's Central 
Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of September 2000 or OPM's report 
Employment and Trends (March 2000). In the PUMS there were about 
2,658,000 federal employees (excluding the Postal Service) compared to 
slightly less than 2 million reported by OPM for 2000 in either of its 
sources. There was also a similar discrepancy in 2004, with nearly 2 
million federal employees reported by OPM (CPDF as of September 2004, 
Employment and Trends, March 2004) compared to about 2,757,000 
identified in the ACS. 

Although we were unable to fully account for these differences, we did 
identify some known sources for lower numbers of federal employees 
reported by OPM. Neither of OPM's data sources include (1) federal 
employees working for the intelligence agencies such as the Central 
Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, National Geospatial- 
Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency; (2) most 
personnel on federal installations paid from non-appropriated funds, 
such as workers in military commissaries; and (3) those in the 
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service and National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, OPM's CPDF data do not 
include judicial and some legislative branch employees and employees of 
the Tennessee Valley Authority. Another potential source of the 
difference in the number of federal employees is that employees of 
federal contractors who work at federal agencies or on military 
installations might have responded on the Census that they were 
employees of the federal government. Several experts who commented on 
our methodology and results expressed a similar view. 

To assess whether our results were affected by the difference in the 
number of federal employees in the PUMS and CPDF datasets, we 
substituted the federal employees from the CPDF for the federal 
employees in the PUMS. Our analysis, using the combined CPDF and PUMS 
data, confirmed that citizenship and education accounted for the 
difference in likelihood of Hispanics and non-Hispanics being employed 
in the federal workforce. Given these, the large sample size of PUMS, 
the high response rate to the Census 2000 long form that is the basis 
for PUMS, and the quality control measures Census uses in collecting 
the PUMS data, we believe our reported results are sound and the 
conclusions we reached are reasonable. 

Like reported federal employment in PUMS, reports of citizenship in 
self-reporting surveys may be inflated. As we lacked benchmark data to 
assess the potential effect of misreporting of citizenship, we cannot 
say if or how the results would be affected by such misreports. 
Additionally, because we used data from a single census, we cannot make 
statements regarding future trends in the estimates. For example, 
changes in the number or geographic distribution of Hispanics might 
affect the likelihood of federal employment in future censuses. 

Finally, our results are limited and intended to only reflect the 
effect of selected factors on Hispanic employment in the overall 
federal workforce and cannot be applied to individual occupations, 
grades, agencies, or other subsets of the federal government. We 
attempted to analyze the effect of selected factors on the federal 
occupations that employed 10,000 or more federal employees in 2004 and 
similar occupations in the nonfederal workforce, but we found that our 
results were not reliable. First, sample size within job categories is 
much smaller and subject to much greater sampling variability than in 
the full data set. Sample sizes this small preclude controlling for the 
full range of factors considered in our model. Second, PUMS data and 
our models cannot account for specific skills and certification, which 
might be particularly relevant for a given occupation. For example, the 
education categories do not distinguish between a bachelor's degree in 
chemistry or in English literature. Third, we could not account for the 
specific career paths required for certain occupations or those that 
can only be obtained on the job. For example, job seekers with a 
background in policing may be more qualified to be a federal officer. 
Fourth, we could not account for individuals who may be qualified for a 
given occupation, but holding a different one. For example, some of the 
individuals coded as accountants may be qualified to be financial 
specialists, a separate occupation. Restricting the sample to financial 
specialists might result in an understated pool of qualified workers. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Authorities Related to the Hiring of U.S. Citizens and 
Nationals: 

Various authorities have restricted hiring for most federal employment 
to U.S. citizens and nationals. Under Executive Order No. 11935, only 
U.S. citizens and nationals may be appointed into competitive service 
positions.[Footnote 47] In 2005, 72 percent of executive branch 
employees were in the competitive service.[Footnote 48] In rare cases, 
noncitizens may be appointed when necessary to promote the efficiency 
of the service, such as if an agency is unable to find a qualified 
citizen to fill a position (5 C.F.R. §7.3(c) and §338.101). Such 
appointments, however, must also be in compliance with other laws on 
federal hiring of noncitizens.[Footnote 49] 

For decades, Congress has passed an annual ban on the use of 
appropriated funds for compensating federal employees who are not U.S. 
citizens or nationals.[Footnote 50] Broader in scope than the Executive 
Order, the appropriation ban applies to all compensable positions 
within the federal government, not just to competitive service 
positions. There are exceptions to this ban that permit the 
compensation of non-U.S. citizens who are from certain countries or 
under special circumstances. For example, South Vietnamese, Cambodian, 
or Laotian refugees paroled in the United States after January 1, 1975, 
are excluded from the ban. Also, citizens from Ireland, Israel, or the 
Republic of the Philippines, or nationals of countries "allied with the 
United States in a current defense effort" are excluded from coverage 
of the appropriation ban. Even though the appropriation ban may not 
apply under a particular circumstance, the hiring of a noncitizen may 
nevertheless be prohibited because the position is within the 
competitive service and covered by the Executive Order ban. 

Congress has excluded some agencies (or certain types of positions 
within some agencies) from the restrictions on hiring or compensating 
noncitizens. For example, the Department of Defense is excluded from 
restrictions on employment and payment of noncitizens.[Footnote 51] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Hispanic Representation by Pay Plan/Grade and Federal 
Occupation: 

Table 7: Hispanic Representation in the Federal Workforce by Pay Plan 
and Grade, 1990-2005: 

Percent. 

Payplan/grade: Blue Collar; 
1990: 7.38; 
1991: 7.37; 
1992: 7.49; 
1993: 7.50; 
1994: 7.56; 
1995: 7.75; 
1996: 8.01; 
1997: 8.17; 
1998: 8.01; 
1999: 7.66; 
2000: 7.57; 
2001: 7.61; 
2002: 7.58; 
2003: 7.60; 
2004: 7.75; 
2005: 7.81. 

Payplan/grade: Grades 1-4; 
1990: 7.08; 
1991: 7.18; 
1992: 7.31; 
1993: 7.44; 
1994: 7.48; 
1995: 7.84; 
1996: 8.00; 
1997: 8.22; 
1998: 8.44; 
1999: 7.65; 
2000: 7.73; 
2001: 7.74; 
2002: 7.80; 
2003: 9.16; 
2004: 9.55; 
2005: 9.70. 

Payplan/grade: Grades 5-8; 
1990: 5.67; 
1991: 5.89; 
1992: 6.11; 
1993: 6.24; 
1994: 6.43; 
1995: 6.78; 
1996: 7.10; 
1997: 7.43; 
1998: 7.62; 
1999: 7.75; 
2000: 7.98; 
2001: 8.30; 
2002: 8.64; 
2003: 8.87; 
2004: 8.84; 
2005: 8.83. 

Payplan/grade: Grades 9-12; 
1990: 4.86; 
1991: 4.97; 
1992: 5.06; 
1993: 5.21; 
1994: 5.39; 
1995: 5.55; 
1996: 5.74; 
1997: 5.98; 
1998: 6.24; 
1999: 6.45; 
2000: 6.60; 
2001: 6.76; 
2002: 6.94; 
2003: 7.20; 
2004: 7.62; 
2005: 7.94. 

Payplan/grade: Grade 13; 
1990: 2.87; 
1991: 3.05; 
1992: 3.21; 
1993: 3.34; 
1994: 3.51; 
1995: 3.68; 
1996: 3.81; 
1997: 4.00; 
1998: 4.13; 
1999: 4.24; 
2000: 4.30; 
2001: 4.43; 
2002: 4.58; 
2003: 4.69; 
2004: 4.94; 
2005: 5.08. 

Payplan/grade: Grade 14; 
1990: 2.26; 
1991: 2.39; 
1992: 2.51; 
1993: 2.64; 
1994: 2.78; 
1995: 2.92; 
1996: 3.09; 
1997: 3.23; 
1998: 3.42; 
1999: 3.64; 
2000: 3.66; 
2001: 3.74; 
2002: 3.83; 
2003: 3.94; 
2004: 4.11; 
2005: 4.21. 

Payplan/grade: Grade 15; 
1990: 2.31; 
1991: 2.29; 
1992: 2.40; 
1993: 2.50; 
1994: 2.62; 
1995: 2.75; 
1996: 2.84; 
1997: 2.97; 
1998: 3.09; 
1999: 3.14; 
2000: 3.28; 
2001: 3.40; 
2002: 3.43; 
2003: 3.52; 
2004: 3.63; 
2005: 3.71. 

Payplan/grade: SES[A]; 
1990: 1.28; 
1991: 1.39; 
1992: 1.51; 
1993: 1.54; 
1994: 1.69; 
1995: 1.85; 
1996: 1.94; 
1997: 2.09; 
1998: 2.28; 
1999: 2.47; 
2000: 2.64; 
2001: 2.68; 
2002: 2.95; 
2003: 3.01; 
2004: 3.20; 
2005: 3.40. 

Payplan/grade: SL/ST[B]; 
1990: 0.62; 
1991: 1.30; 
1992: 1.19; 
1993: 0.90; 
1994: 1.22; 
1995: 1.49; 
1996: 1.49; 
1997: 1.14; 
1998: 1.39; 
1999: 1.46; 
2000: 1.94; 
2001: 1.90; 
2002: 1.94; 
2003: 1.87; 
2004: 2.01; 
2005: 2.59. 

Payplan/grade: Executives[C]; 
1990: 3.21; 
1991: 3.42; 
1992: 4.90; 
1993: 4.68; 
1994: 4.39; 
1995: 5.22; 
1996: 5.29; 
1997: 5.50; 
1998: 5.39; 
1999: 6.39; 
2000: 6.39; 
2001: 5.10; 
2002: 5.43; 
2003: 6.09; 
2004: 7.16; 
2005: 7.25. 

Payplan/grade: Other[D[; 
1990: 4.28; 
1991: 3.62; 
1992: 4.34; 
1993: 4.38; 
1994: 4.57; 
1995: 5.25; 
1996: 5.65; 
1997: 5.17; 
1998: 5.35; 
1999: 5.65; 
2000: 5.58; 
2001: 5.65; 
2002: 6.54; 
2003: 7.33; 
2004: 7.55; 
2005: 7.91. 

Source: GAO analysis of the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), 1990- 
2005 for the permanent and nonpermanent federal workforce. 

[A] SES includes those in the Senior Executive Service and those in the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who have equivalent positions. 
These are the highest non-politically-appointed leaders in the federal 
workforce. 

[B] SL/ST includes those in the Senior Level and Senior Technical pay 
plans and those in FAA who have equivalent positions. These are 
primarily engineers, scientists, and other top-level professionals. 
They do not have the leadership roles of the SES. 

[C] Executives include agency leaders who are political appointees 
above the General Schedule grade 15 level who are not in the SES. 

[D] Other includes those that could not be placed in one of the above 
pay plans or grades. From 1990 to 2005, the percentage of federal 
employees that could not be placed in a pay plan or grade increased 
from about 4 percent to 8 percent. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Hispanic Representation in the 2000 CLF and 2000-2005 Federal 
Workforce by Federal Occupation: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of (1) the Census 2000 Special EEO File to 
determine Hispanic representation in the CLF, (2) the CPDF, 2000-2005, 
to determine Hispanic representation in the permanent and nonpermanent 
federal workforce for each occupation, and (3) OPM's Fifth Annual 
Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal 
Government for Hispanic representation in the overall 2000-2005 
permanent federal workforce. 

[A] Data are listed by OPM's occupational codes and OPM job titles. The 
EEOC crosswalk also contains Census job codes and job titles, and 
Bureau of Labor Statistics job codes. We analyzed federal occupations 
that had 10,000 or more federal employees as of September 2004. 

[B] The overall Hispanic representation is based on all occupations in 
the CLF, according to the Census 2000 Special EEO File, and the 
permanent federal workforce, according to OPM. 

[C] Federal occupation code 1895 did not exist until 2004. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department Of Commerce: 
The Under Secretary far Economic Affairs: 
Washington, D.C. 20230: 

Jul 07 2006: 

Mr. George Stalcup: 
Director: 
Strategic Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stalcup: 

The U.S. Department of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to comment 
on the United States Government Accountability Office draft report (GAO-
06-832) entitled The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could 
Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation. The 
Department has no comments on this report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Elizabeth R Anderson: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 
Washington, D.C. 20507: 

July 11, 2006: 

Mr. George Stalcup Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Stalcup, 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on your 
report, "The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance 
Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation" (GAO-06-832). We 
found the report an extremely interesting and useful addition to the on-
going examination of Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. 
Certainly, an important aspect of the report is the data on citizenship 
and although the focus of the report was on Hispanic representation, 
the report's essential findings will be very useful as they also appear 
applicable to other census population groups. 

While data on the civilian labor force can serve as a benchmark, such 
data has flaws that limit its usefulness to broad trending. Therefore, 
under Management Directive 715, EEOC requires agencies to carefully 
assess the participation of all EEO groups in their workforce by 
conducting more refined analyses, including data on applicant pools and 
participation rates for specific occupations, where the appropriate 
benchmarks for relevant educational requirements are already 
incorporated. 

In other refined analyses, the appropriate benchmark is not the 
civilian labor force but the on-board workforce, such as promotions and 
participation in career development, employee recognition and awards 
programs. Without these refined analyses called for under Management 
Directive 715, it would be imprudent to assess the degree to which any 
EEO group enjoys equality of opportunity. 

Again, thank you for allowing us to review this report and to use it as 
a resource in the work that we do here at the EEOC. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Carlton M. Hadden, 
Director: 
Office of Federal Operations: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

George H. Stalcup, (202) 512-9490 or stalcupg@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Belva M. Martin, Assistant 
Director; Carl S. Barden; Jeffrey A. Bass; Benjamin A. Bolitzer; Karin 
K. Fangman; Anthony P. Lofaro; Anna Maria Ortiz; Rebecca Shea; Douglas 
M. Sloane; Tamara F. Stenzel; and Gregory H. Wilmoth made major 
contributions to this report. 

(450361): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] The CLF is defined as those 16 and older (including federal 
workers) who are employed or looking for work and not in the military 
or institutionalized. 

[2] These percentages are based on the permanent federal workforce. 

[3] For purposes of our logistic regression models, we divided the CLF 
into two groups--the federal workforce and the nonfederal workforce, 
and we restricted our analyses to individuals 18 and older because, 
with a few exceptions, 18 years is the minimum age for federal 
employment. 

[4] 5 U.S.C. sec. 2301(b)(1). 

[5] For further discussion on the government's policy framework for 
equal employment opportunity and EEOC's and OPM's roles and 
responsibilities, see GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: The Policy 
Framework in the Federal Workplace and the Roles of EEOC and OPM, GAO- 
05-195 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2005) and Equal Employment 
Opportunity: Improved Coordination Needed Between EEOC and OPM in 
Leading Federal Workplace EEO, GAO-06-214 (Washington, D.C.: June 16, 
2006). 

[6] Our multivariate analyses identifying citizenship and educational 
attainment as the primary factors accounting for Hispanics' lower 
levels of representation in the federal workforce compared to the 
nonfederal workforce was limited to the aggregate federal workforce. 
Our analyses did not account for differences across and within 
individual agencies, by grade and pay level, occupational category, 
occupation, geographic location, or any other subset of the federal 
workforce. 

[7] Because of limitations in the data and the methods we used, we did 
not include in our analyses some variables that were identified during 
the course of our research that could potentially affect Hispanic 
representation in the federal workforce. These limitations are 
discussed in app. II. 

[8] The Longitudinal study tracked a sample of students from 1988, when 
they were in the eighth grade, to 2000. 

[9] Watson Scott Swail, Alberto F. Cabrera, Chul Lee, Latino Youth and 
the Pathway to College, Educational Policy Institute (Washington, D.C.: 
June 23, 2004), www.pewhispanic.org, 38-39. The study was conducted 
through a grant from the Pew Hispanic Center. 

[10] In order to protect the confidentiality of Census 2000 
respondents, data are not provided for places of less than 50,000 
population (or 100,000 in some instances). For counties of less than 
50,000, data are not provided for more detailed occupational groupings. 
The Census Bureau's Disclosure Review Board (DRB) reviews the 
specifications of all Census data products to determine that no product 
format is approved that contains any degree of risk to disclose the 
identity of Census 2000 respondents. 

[11] Until June 2005, OPM had issued annually the Statistical 
Information on Hispanic Employment in Federal Agencies, which contained 
more detailed data on Hispanic representation than the Annual Report to 
the President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, OPM said it plans to consolidate 
the Statistical Information on Hispanic Employment in Federal Agencies 
report into the Annual Report to the President beginning with the 
report to be issued at the end of calendar year 2006. 

[12] The 47 occupations were those with 10,000 or more federal 
employees as of September 30, 2004. Hispanic representation in similar 
occupations in the CLF is based on data from the Census 2000 Special 
EEO File. 

[13] 71 Fed. Reg. 29,593 (May 23, 2006). 

[14] Other special hiring authorities available to agencies include the 
Bilingual-Bicultural Program and the Outstanding Scholar Program, which 
allow agencies to noncompetitively hire individuals for certain 
positions. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has been critical 
of these programs, and GAO has recommended that OPM review their 
effectiveness. MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring: Why Two Special 
Hiring Programs Should be Ended, (Washington, D.C.: January 2000), and 
GAO, Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies' Hiring 
Processes, GAO-03-450 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003). We further note 
that OPM is currently involved in litigation concerning the Outstanding 
Scholar Program as it relates to veterans' preference rights before the 
MSPB. Dean v. Dept. of Agriculture, 99 M.S.P.R. 533 (2005) and Olson v. 
Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 100 M.S.P.R. 322 (2005), request for 
reconsideration, No. AT-0330-03-0076-N-1 and CH-3443-01-0706-N-1. 

[15] 71 Fed. Reg. 181,161 (Apr. 11, 2006). 5 C.F.R. sec. 213.3202(b). 

[16] In September 2005, MSPB issued Building a High-Quality Workforce: 
The Federal Career Intern Program, which reviewed the agency 
implementation and OPM oversight of the FCIP. Among other things, MSPB 
recommended that agencies vary their recruitment methods to ensure that 
interested applicants from all segments of society are given the 
opportunity to apply and make improvements to the training provided to 
participants in the program, and that OPM provide clearer guidance to 
agencies on how to implement and evaluate FCIP. 

[17] 70 Fed. Reg. 44,219 (Aug. 2, 2005), 5 C.F.R. sec. 213.3202(o). 

[18] 68 Fed. Reg. 66,317 (Nov. 25, 2003). 

[19] 70 Fed. Reg. 28,775 (May 19, 2005), 5 C.F.R. part 362. 

[20] Partnership for Public Service, Tapping America's Potential: 
Expanding Student Employment and Internship Opportunities in the 
Federal Government (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2002). 

[21] 69 Fed. Reg. 33,271 (June 15, 2004). 

[22] Section 1331(a) of Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002), amending 5 
U.S.C. sec. 4107. 

[23] Hispanic representation at NASA, the USAF, SSA, and the SBA is 
based on the percentage of Hispanics in the permanent workforce, as 
reported by OPM in its FEORP reports. 

[24] Hispanic representation is based on the percentage of Hispanics in 
the permanent workforce, as reported by FNS. 

[25] 20 U.S.C. sec. 1101a(a)(5). 

[26] It is at the discretion of colleges and universities to accept 
credit recommendations as they consider appropriate. 

[27] GAO, Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and 
Agency Examples, GAO-05-90 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005). 

[28] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). 

[29] These included, among others, the League of United Latin American 
Citizens, National Council of La Raza, National Council of Hispanic 
Employment Program Managers, National Association of Hispanic Federal 
Executives, Coalition for Fairness for Hispanics in Government, 
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and the Partnership 
for Public Service. 

[30] OPM's six occupational categories are Professional, 
Administrative, Technical, Clerical, Other White-Collar, and Blue 
Collar, collectively known as "PATCOB." 

[31] The CLF is defined as those 16 and older (including federal 
workers) who are employed or looking for work and not in the military 
or are institutionalized. 

[32] We define "governmentwide" as the executive branch excluding the 
intelligence agencies, the U.S. Postal Service, and all active duty 
military personnel. 

[33] The CPS first included citizenship as a variable in 1994. The CPS, 
Annual Demographic File was renamed the ASEC in 2003. The ASEC provides 
annual tabulations of social, demographic, and economic characteristics 
of persons in U.S. households. 

[34] The Census 2000 Special EEO File is a tabulation based on 
decennial Census data, which permits analysis of representation in the 
CLF by occupation, race, ethnicity, and gender. The Census Bureau 
prepares these files based on specifications set by EEOC, OPM, DOJ, and 
the Department of Labor. 

[35] GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently 
Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 30, 1998). 

[36] We are grateful to the six experts who assisted us with our study 
by reviewing and providing comments on our methodology and preliminary 
results. Commenting on both the methodology and preliminary results 
were Katharine Abraham, Professor of Survey Methodology and Adjunct 
Professor of Economics, University of Maryland; Robert Bell, Statistics 
Research Department, AT&T Labs--Research; Cordelia W. Reimers, 
Professor Emerita of Economics, Hunter College and the Graduate Center 
of the City University of New York; Teresa A. Sullivan, Executive Vice 
Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the University of Texas System; 
Stephen Trejo, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Texas at 
Austin. Commenting on the methodology was Jeffrey Passel, Senior 
Research Associate at the Pew Hispanic Center. However, we take full 
responsibility for the accuracy of our analysis. 

[37] We also considered the American Community Survey and the Annual 
Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey. 

[38] PUMS files have Census 2000 data containing records of 
characteristics for a 5-percent sample of housing units. The ACS is 
designed to provide estimates for population areas larger than 20,000 
people whereas PUMS provides estimates for all areas because of its 
large sample size. Because both the ACS and the PUMS files are drawn 
from probability samples, GAO used the appropriate item weights 
prepared by the Census Bureau for each dataset. 

[39] We included Puerto Rico in our definition of the CLF. When we 
compared the results of our logistic regression analyses including and 
excluding Puerto Rico, the results were virtually the same. 

[40] We included employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) 
as part of the nonfederal workforce because the USPS is an independent 
establishment and not an executive agency of the federal government and 
it is not subject to the government's employee classification 
requirements and pay rates and pay systems. In addition, the 
government's Central Personnel Data File does not include USPS data. 

[41] We used odds ratios rather than percentages because they are more 
appropriate for statistical modeling and multivariate analysis. 

[42] U.S. Census Bureau, Matched Race and Hispanic Origin Responses 
from Census 2000 and Current Populations Survey, February to May 2000, 
Working Paper no. 79 (Washington, D.C.: December 2005), http// 
www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0079/twps0079.html. 

[43] See GAO, Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting 
Hispanic Subgroup Data Need Refinement, GAO-03-228 (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2003); U.S. Census Bureau, Identification of Hispanic Ethnicity 
in Census 2000: Analysis of Data Quality for the Question on Hispanic 
Origin, Working Paper no. 75 (Washington, D.C.: July 2004), http// 
www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0075/twps0075.html; 
Roberto Suro, Counting the "Other Hispanics." How Many Colombians, 
Dominicans, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans and Salvadorans are there in the 
United States?, Pew Hispanic Center (Washington D.C.: 2002), 
www.pewhispanic.org; John Logan, Hispanic Populations and Their 
Residential Patterns in the Metropolis, Lewis Mumford Center for 
Comparative Urban and Regional Research (Albany, N.Y.: University at 
Albany, 2002), http://mumford.albany.edu/census/report.html. 

[44] Ruben G. Rumbaut, "The Making of a People," in Hispanics and the 
Future of America, ed. Marta Tienda and Faith Mitchell, Committee on 
Transforming Our Common Destiny, National Research Council (Washington, 
D.C.: National Academy Press, 2006), 39-43; see also U.S. Census 
Bureau, Matched Race and Hispanic Origin Responses from Census 2000 and 
Current Population Survey February to May 2000. 

[45] U.S. Census Bureau, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin, Census 
2000 Issue Brief, (Washington, D.C.: March 2001), www.census.gov/prod/ 
2001pubs/cenbr01-1.pdf. 

[46] Rumbaut, "The Making of a People," 39-43. 

[47] 41 Fed. Reg. 37,301 (1976). See 5 C.F.R. sec. 7.3. This executive 
order was issued after the Supreme Court invalidated a prior civil 
service restriction on appointment of noncitizens. The validity of the 
restriction on appointing noncitizens in Executive Order No. 11935 has 
been upheld by the courts. See, Mow Sun Wong v. Campbell, 626 F.2d 739 
(9th Cir. 1980), cert. den. 450 U.S. 959 (1981). 

[48] Federal civil service employees, other than those in the Senior 
Executive Service, are employed either in the competitive service or 
the excepted service. Employees in the competitive service are hired 
through the competitive examination process set forth in title 5 of the 
U.S. Code. Agencies are not required to follow the competitive 
examination process when hiring for excepted service positions. 

[49] Although not unique to federal hiring, U.S. immigration law 
requires that employers must ensure that the individuals they hire are 
eligible to work in the United States. 

[50] The fiscal year 2006 ban can be found at section 805 of Title VIII 
of Division A of Pub. L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396, 2496 (Nov. 30, 
2005). 

[51] 10 U.S.C. sec. 1584. Department of Defense's regulations for its 
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) provide that noncitizens may 
be appointed into excepted service positions in the absence of a 
qualified U.S. citizen and where immigration and security requirements 
are met. 5 C.F.R. sec. 9901.514. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: