USAID: Mixed Progress in Increasing Diversity, and Actions Needed to Consistently Meet EEO Requirements

USAID has a stated commitment to fostering an inclusive workforce that reflects the diversity of the United States and has undertaken efforts to increase diversity in its Civil and Foreign Services. However, concerns about the demographic composition of USAID's workforce are longstanding.

GAO was asked to review issues related to the diversity of USAID's workforce. This report examines, among other things, the demographic composition of USAID's workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018, differences between promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities, and the extent to which USAID has identified workforce diversity issues and worked to address those issues. GAO analyzed USAID's personnel data for its full-time, permanent, career workforce for fiscal years 2002 through 2018—the most recent available data. GAO's analyses do not completely explain the reasons for differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from various unobservable factors. Thus, GAO's analyses do not establish a causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion outcomes. GAO also reviewed USAID documents and interviewed USAID officials and members of 13 employee groups.

The overall proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) full-time, permanent, career workforce increased from 33 to 37 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018. The direction of change for specific groups varied. For instance, the proportion of Hispanics rose from 3 to 6 percent, while the proportion of African Americans fell from 26 to 21 percent. The proportions of racial or ethnic minorities were generally smaller in higher ranks. During this period, the overall proportion of women increased from 51 to 54 percent, reflecting their growing proportion in USAID's Foreign Service.

Promotion outcomes at USAID were generally lower for racial and ethnic minorities than for whites in early to mid career. When controlling for factors such as occupation, GAO found statistically significant odds of promotion in the Civil Service were 31 to 41 percent lower for racial or ethnic minorities than for whites in early and mid career. In the Foreign Service, average promotion rates were lower for racial or ethnic minorities in early to mid career, but differences were generally not statistically significant when GAO controlled for various factors.

USAID has previously identified underrepresentation of specific groups in its workforce, but staffing gaps, partly due to a lack of senior leadership attention, prevent the agency from consistently performing required Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activities. The Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD), responsible for USAID's EEO program, has been significantly understaffed. Vacancy rates in most OCRD divisions were 50 percent or higher in November 2019 and, despite attempts to hire more staff, remained at 30 to 50 percent as of April 2020. These staffing gaps have limited OCRD's capacity to process EEO complaints and investigations within mandated timeframes and analyze USAID's demographic data. Staffing gaps also prevented OCRD from submitting required reporting on the status of its EEO program in fiscal year 2018. A lack of consistent leadership in OCRD as well as a lack of senior USAID leadership attention to diversity has contributed to OCRD's staffing gaps. As a result, USAID lacks the capacity to respond to allegations of discrimination, identify potential barriers to equal employment opportunity, and submit required annual reports on the progress of its diversity and inclusion efforts in a timely manner—all of which are required EEO functions.

GAO is making four recommendations to USAID, including three to perform required EEO activities and one to demonstrate senior leadership attention to diversity efforts. USAID concurred with the recommendations.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has a stated  commitment to fostering an inclusive workforce that reflects the diversity  of the United States, and it has undertaken efforts intended to increase  representation of diverse groups in its Civil and Foreign Services.  However, concerns about the demographic composition of USAID’s  workforce are longstanding. For example, in 1992, we reported that  women and minorities in the professional and administrative job  categories and in USAID’s senior ranks were underrepresented in the  agency’s workforce. More recently, in its Human Resource  Transformation Strategy and Action Plan, 2016-2021, USAID stated that  diversity was an area that its staff continued to identify as needing  improvement.

You asked us to review issues related to the diversity of USAID’s  workforce. This report examines (1) the demographic composition of  USAID’s workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018, (2) differences in  promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic groups in USAID’s workforce, (3)  differences in promotion outcomes for men and women in USAID’s  workforce, and (4) the extent to which USAID has identified workforce  diversity issues and worked to address them.

To examine the demographic composition of USAID’s workforce over  time, we analyzed National Finance Center data on the agency’s full-time,  permanent, career workforce (i.e., direct-hire U.S. citizen Civil and  Foreign Service employees) for fiscal years 2002 through 2018. For  each year, we calculated the demographic composition of the workforce  by racial or ethnic group and by gender for USAID overall and for USAID’s Civil and Foreign Services. In addition, we compared the  demographics of USAID’s workforce in fiscal year 2018 with the most  recent available data on demographics of (1) the federal workforce, as  reported by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and (2) the  relevant civilian labor force, from the Census Bureau’s Equal Employment  Opportunity (EEO) tabulation. For both the Civil and Foreign Services,  we examined workforce composition by racial or ethnic group and by  gender across ranks for fiscal year 2018. We were unable to analyze the  numbers and percentages of employees on the basis of sexual  orientation, because the National Finance Center data we obtained did  not include that information. Through documentation review, electronic  testing, and interviews with knowledgeable agency officials, we  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To examine promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities and  women in USAID’s workforce, we conducted two types of analyses using  the agency’s National Finance Center data on its full-time, permanent,  career workforce for fiscal years 2002 through 2018. First, we conducted  a descriptive analysis of USAID data that compared promotion rates for  racial or ethnic minorities and whites and for women and men. Second,  we conducted an adjusted analysis using a multivariate statistical method  (i.e., duration analysis), which accounted for certain individual and  occupational factors other than racial or ethnic minority status and gender  that could influence promotion. Specifically, we used a discrete-time  multivariate statistical logit model to analyze the number of yearly cycles it  took to be promoted up to the executive level from Civil Service rank  General Schedule (GS)–11 and from Foreign Service rank Class 4. We  examined the statistical relationship between promotion and racial or  ethnic minority status and gender, incorporating various individual and  position-specific characteristics in the models to control for differences  in promotion outcomes. Our analyses do not completely explain the  reasons for differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from  various unobservable factors. Thus, our analyses do not establish a  causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion  outcomes.

To examine the extent to which USAID has identified workforce diversity  issues and worked to address them, we reviewed annual reports on  diversity efforts and data that USAID had submitted to the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We also met with relevant  USAID officials from the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity and the Office  of Human Capital and Talent Management. In addition, we interviewed  representatives of USAID’s employee groups. For a more detailed  description of our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2018 to June 2020 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Requirements and Guidance Related to Federal Workforce Diversity

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the  Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandate that all federal personnel decisions be  made without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,  national origin, or disability and require that agencies establish a program  of equal employment opportunity for all federal employees and  applicants. EEOC has oversight responsibility for federal agencies’  compliance with EEOC regulations, which direct agencies to maintain a  continuing affirmative program to promote equal opportunity and to  identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and policies.

In order to implement the programs described above, each federal  agency is required to designate an EEO director. The EEO director’s  responsibilities include, among others, providing for counseling of  aggrieved individuals, providing for the receipt and processing of  individual and class complaints of discrimination, and advising agency  leadership regarding equal employment opportunity matters.

EEOC calls for federal agencies to conduct a continuing campaign to  eradicate every form of prejudice or discrimination from the agency’s  personnel policies, practices, and working conditions. EEOC’s  Management Directive 715 (MD-715) calls for agencies to take  appropriate steps to ensure that all employment decisions are free from  discrimination and provides policy guidance and standards for  establishing and maintaining effective affirmative programs of equal  employment opportunity. The directive also sets forth the standards by  which EEOC will review the sufficiency of agencies’ Title VII and  Rehabilitation Act programs, including periodic agency self-assessments  and the removal of barriers to free and open workplace competition. MD- 715 guidance further requires agencies to report annually on the status of  activities undertaken pursuant to their equal employment opportunity  programs and activities.

Federal agencies are required to submit an annual MD-715 report to  EEOC on the status of their EEO programs. In addition to including  employee demographic data, among other things, the MD-715 reports are  to include an agency self-assessment checklist, plans to correct any  program deficiencies, and a description of any barrier analysis conducted  and any plans to eliminate identified barriers. As part of a model EEO  program to prevent unlawful discrimination, federal agencies are to  regularly evaluate their employment practices to identify barriers to EEO  in the workplace, take measures to eliminate identified barriers, and  report annually on these efforts to EEOC, according to MD-715.

EEOC’s MD-715 defines a barrier as an agency policy, procedure,  practice, or condition that limits, or tends to limit, employment  opportunities for members of a particular gender, race, or ethnic  background or for individuals on the basis of disability status. According  to EEOC’s MD-715 instructions, many employment barriers are built into  the organizational and operational structures of an agency and are  embedded in the agency’s day-to-day procedures and practices.

USAID’s Efforts to Increase Workforce Diversity

USAID’s Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD) administers  programs intended to promote equal opportunity, foster diversity at all  levels and occupations, and sustain an inclusive workforce. According to  USAID, OCRD strives to maintain a model EEO program. As table 1  shows, OCRD consists of the Complaints and Resolution Division, the  Reasonable Accommodations Division, the Diversity and Inclusion  Division, and the Program Operations Division.

OCRD collaborates with the Office of Human Capital and Talent  Management (HCTM) to develop and implement recruitment strategies  intended to support a diverse and well-qualified workforce; consults with  agency officials such as the Executive Diversity Council; partners with  USAID employee resource groups to extend outreach opportunities and  develop strategies of inclusion within USAID; and addresses allegations  of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.

According to a June 2019 testimony by USAID’s Chief Human Capital  Officer, OCRD collaborates with HCTM on the following recruitment  programs intended to increase diversity:

Donald Payne International Development Fellowship. Launched in  2012, the Donald Payne International Development Fellowship targets  underrepresented groups in USAID’s Foreign Service. According to  USAID officials, the purpose of the Payne Fellowship is to enhance  diversity in the Foreign Service through outreach and strategic efforts  focused on minority serving institutions. USAID provides support for  selected candidates for 2 years of graduate school as well as an  internship on Capitol Hill and another at a USAID mission overseas.  On completion of the graduate program and internships, the selected  candidate is appointed as a Foreign Service officer with a 5-year  service agreement. According to USAID, each year the Payne  Fellowship supports 10 fellows entering USAID’s Foreign Service.

Development Diplomats in Residence. Established in 2016, the  Development Diplomats in Residence program aims to educate,  recruit, and channel talent to USAID by placing senior USAID officials  at universities. These officials provide guidance and advice on  careers, internships, and fellowships to students, professionals, and  faculty members at minority-serving institutions. Two USAID career  Senior Foreign Service officers serve in this role at California State  University, Long Beach, and at Morehouse College, respectively.

Pathways Internship Program. The Pathways Internship Program  provides targeted diversity recruitment, salaries, and payments for  Pathways Interns, according to the USAID Chief Human Capital  Officer’s June 2019 testimony. The testimony states that the overall  racial or ethnic minority representation rate in fiscal year 2018 for the  Pathways Internship Program was 69 percent and that Hispanics, at  31 percent, represented the largest minority demographic. USAID  officials said that the agency views its internship programs as a  succession-planning tool designed to convert as many internships as  possible into full-time positions. According to USAID, the agency had  no Pathways Interns in 2019, as a result of funding limitations, but as  of April 2020 was planning 21 internships for 2020.

USAID provides training as well as a formal mentoring program intended  to support diversity and inclusion, according to USAID officials. OCRD is  responsible for providing mandatory agency-wide training on diversity  awareness and equal opportunity. USAID officials stated that the agency  has mandatory and nonmandatory training on diversity and inclusion  issues. For example, USAID provides online mandatory training classes  on the No FEAR Act and sexual harassment. According to USAID data,  326 people took versions of these courses in 2019. USAID also offers  nonmandatory in-person classes such as EEO counselor training and  unconscious bias training. In 2019, 17 people took EEO counselor  training, and 36 people took USAID’s in-person unconscious bias training.  Additionally, USAID officials said that external partners of USAID have  developed training related to diversity and inclusion, to which OCRD  refers employees on request.

According to USAID, the agency’s mentoring programs build on informal  mentoring efforts and support strategic human capital initiatives for  recruitment and retention, employee development, succession planning,  and diversity. USAID officials stated that the mentoring program includes  a facilitated process for matching mentors and mentees, formal mentoring  training, an established tracking system, and goals used to measure  success. According to the officials, the mentoring program is open to all  employees.

USAID reported to Congress on its workforce categories in 2018.  USAID defines its core workforce as those who have an employer– employee relationship with the agency. This includes the following  employment categories:

Civil Service employees. USAID’s Civil Service employees are U.S.

U.S. Personal Services Contractors  U.S. personal services contractors represent  a significant and growing proportion of  USAID’s workforce whose demographic  composition is not included in USAID’s  Management Directive 715 reports. As we  reported in 2017, USAID uses personal  services contractors for a broader range of  functions than other agencies, as its  regulations permit (see GAO-17-610). Those  regulations provide that personal services  contractors who are U.S. citizens may be  delegated or assigned any authority, duty, or  responsibility that direct-hire government  employees might have, although they  generally cannot supervise direct-hire  government employees or sign obligating  documents except when specifically  designated as a contracting officer.

Until recently, when looking to fill a vacancy  through outside hiring or by promotions and  reassignments, USAID bureaus and offices  had to submit that action to USAID’s Hiring  and Reassignment Review Board for review.  The board’s guidelines exempted personal  services contracts from review and approval.  In April 2020, USAID officials told us that  hiring decisions no longer required the  board’s approval. From June 2016 to  September 2018, U.S. personal services  contractors were USAID’s fastest growing  workforce category, increasing from 759 to  1,015 according to USAID’s staffing reports to  Congress. During this period, USAID’s Civil  and Foreign Service employees decreased  from 3,548 to 3,002. contractors are non–direct hire U.S. citizens on contract for the  specific services of those individuals. As we reported in 2017, USAID  uses personal services contracts for a broad range of functions, such  as program management, security analysis, and logistics. According  to its staffing report to Congress, USAID had 1,015 U.S. personal  services contractors at the end of fiscal year 2018.

Foreign nationals. USAID’s foreign national employees are non–U.S.  citizens who are locally employed at posts abroad. They may be direct  hires or personal services contractors. USAID uses foreign nationals  to manage mission operations and oversee development activities.  According to its staffing report to Congress, USAID had 4,712 foreign  national employees at the end of fiscal year 2018.

While USAID collects demographic data on  U.S. personal services contractors for its  payroll processor, it does not analyze this  information. USAID does not report these  data, because USAID does not regard  personal services contractors as U.S.  government employees. USAID officials noted  that current reporting requirements call only  for demographics of direct-hire employees,  which excludes a considerable portion of the  agency’s workforce.

Other categories of staff not directly employed by USAID, including  institutional support contractors and staff detailed from other  organizations and U.S. government agencies, also perform a wide range  of services in support of the agency’s programs. According to its staffing  report to Congress, USAID had 1,681 institutional support contractors at  the end of fiscal year 2018. EEOC has determined that contractors are a  vulnerable group because of confusion as to where such personnel  should seek redress for EEO matters. However, according to OCRD  officials, OCRD is responsible for EEO matters for both direct and non– direct hires, including contractors.

Figure 1 shows the total number of staff in each of USAID’s workforce  categories in fiscal year 2018.

National Finance Center Data on USAID Civil and Foreign Service Promotions, Fiscal Years 2002-2018

In fiscal year 2018, USAID had 2,964 full-time, permanent, career  employees (i.e., direct-hire U.S.-citizens) in its Civil and Foreign Services,  according to National Finance Center data. This number reflects an  increase of more than 54 percent from fiscal year 2002. Figure 2 shows  the numbers of full-time, permanent, career employees in USAID’s Civil  and Foreign Services in fiscal years 2002 through 2018.

USAID’s Civil Service made up 44 percent of the agency’s full-time,  permanent, career workforce in fiscal year 2018. Civil Service employees  are ranked in the GS classification system from GS-1 (lowest) to GS-15  (highest), followed by the executive rank.

Civil Service promotions are filled through competitive procedures and  noncompetitive career-ladder positions. To be eligible for a promotion,  Civil Service candidates must meet minimum qualification standards such  as fulfilling time-in-grade requirements and receiving sufficiently positive  ratings on their most recent performance appraisals. For competitive  promotion positions, USAID uses an automated system to evaluate and  rate all eligible candidates and develop referral lists of employees eligible  for the promotions. Officials interview all direct-hire USAID employees  from the promotion referral lists and select employees for promotion on  the basis of the announcement. Career-ladder positions are intended to  prepare employees for successive, noncompetitive promotions up to the  full performance of the positions. For career-ladder positions, USAID  officials select employees for noncompetitive promotions and are  responsible for developing individual learning and training plans, offering  developmental work, and providing feedback regarding employees’  performance.

Each year, USAID promotes varying numbers of Civil Service employees.  Promotion generally becomes more competitive for higher ranks. For  example, in fiscal year 2018, 45.3 percent of employees ranked GS-11 in  fiscal year 2017 were promoted to GS-12, while 1.0 percent of employees  ranked GS-15 in fiscal year 2017 were promoted to the executive rank.  Table 2 shows the number and percentage of employees in each Civil  Service rank as well as the rate of promotion from each GS level for  promotions effective in fiscal year 2018.

Foreign Service employees made up 56 percent of USAID’s full-time,  permanent, career workforce in fiscal year 2018. Foreign Service officers  enter at Class 4, 5, or 6, depending on their education and experience.  Officers can be promoted from each level up to Class 1, after which they  can apply for the executive rank.

Foreign Service promotions are based on employee eligibility, a rank- ordered list prepared by a performance board, and the number of  promotions authorized by USAID management. To be promoted to the  next class, Foreign Service employees must meet eligibility requirements,  such as time in their current class and overseas experience. Each year,  performance boards evaluate the performance of eligible employees in  Class 4 and higher, develop a rank-ordered list of employees  recommended for promotion, and submit the list to HCTM. According to  USAID policy, performance boards primarily consist of Foreign Service  employees and, to the extent possible, include members of groups that  are underrepresented in the service. The Chief Human Capital Officer,  the Director of OCRD, and a representative of the American Foreign  Service Association review the list before finalizing promotion decisions.

USAID promotes varying numbers of its Foreign Service employees each  year. Promotion generally becomes more competitive for higher ranks.  For example, in fiscal year 2018, 33.2 percent of employees ranked Class  4 in fiscal year 2017 were promoted to Class 3, while 3.9 percent of  employees ranked Class 1 in fiscal year 2017 were promoted to the  executive rank. Table 3 shows the number and percentage of employees  in each Foreign Service rank in fiscal year 2018 as well as the rate of  promotion from each rank for promotions effective in that fiscal year.

USAID’s Hiring Reassignment and Review Board

According to USAID’s Chief Human Capital Officer, USAID established  the Hiring and Reassignment Review Board (HRRB) in July 2017 as a  mechanism to allow USAID to prioritize positions during the government- wide hiring freeze and a subsequent period when all USAID external hires  required approval from the Secretary of State.

In fiscal years 2017 through 2019, the HRRB met regularly and was  responsible for prioritizing U.S. direct-hire positions, monitoring attrition  levels, and identifying gaps in national security and other key positions.  According to June 2019 guidelines, the HRRB was required to review  certain hiring and reassignment actions. Such actions included filling  vacancies externally by hiring individuals from outside the agency, using  operating expense funding, and filling vacancies internally by reassigning  operating expense–funded Civil Service staff between the bureaus and  independent offices. Hiring and reassignment actions exempted from  HRRB review included, among others, hiring to compensate for attrition in  certain defined high-risk mission-critical occupations, hiring into program- funded positions, Foreign Service limited appointments, personal services  contracts, and institutional support contracts.

According to USAID’s strategic workforce plan for fiscal years 2019  through 2021, USAID planned to have the HRRB, the Office of the  Administrator, HCTM, and the Bureau for Management set broader  staffing levels for the agency’s bureaus and independent offices  beginning by the first quarter of fiscal year 2020. The workforce plan  also states that a renamed HRRB would shift to serving as a strategic  human capital governance board rather than performing position-by- position reviews. In April 2020, USAID officials told us that hiring  decisions no longer required HRRB approval.

Diversity of USAID Workforce Has Generally Increased

Overall Proportion of Racial or Ethnic Minorities Increased, although Proportion of African Americans Declined

Overall Proportion of Racial or Ethnic Minorities at USAID Increased

From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018, the proportion of racial or ethnic  minorities among USAID’s full-time, permanent, career employees  increased from 33 percent to 37 percent, as figure 3 shows. This  increase in the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities at USAID overall  was driven by an increase in the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in  the Foreign Service. During this period,  the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in the Civil Service  decreased slightly, from 49 to 48 percent and  the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in the Foreign Service  increased from 18 to 27 percent.

Proportion of Racial or Ethnic Minorities Was Nearly the Same as in Federal Workforce and Higher Than in Relevant Civilian Labor Force

We compared the proportions of racial or ethnic minorities in USAID’s  workforce with those in the federal workforce and relevant civilian labor  force. Our comparison of USAID workforce data for fiscal year 2018 with  federal workforce data for fiscal year 2017—the most recent available— found that the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities was 37 percent both  at USAID and in the federal workforce. For more details, see appendix  III. The proportion of racial or ethnic minorities at USAID increased from  33 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 37 percent in fiscal year 2018. In  comparison, the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in the federal  workforce increased from 31 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 37 percent in  fiscal year 2017.

Our comparison of USAID workforce data from fiscal year 2018 with data  for the relevant civilian labor force from 2006 through 2010 (the most  recent available data) found larger proportions of racial or ethnic  minorities at USAID than in the relevant civilian labor force for three  occupational groups: (1) officials and managers, (2) professional workers,  and (3) technical workers and technologists. For more details, see  appendix III.

Proportions of Hispanics, Asians, and Other Racial or Ethnic Minorities Increased, while Proportion of African Americans Decreased

Although the overall proportion of racial or ethnic minorities at USAID  increased from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018, the direction of  change for specific racial or ethnic minority groups varied—the  proportions of Hispanics, Asians, and other racial or ethnic minorities  rose, while the proportion of African Americans fell. As figure 3 shows,  from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018, the proportion of Hispanics at  USAID rose from 3 to 6 percent; Asians, from 4 to 7 percent; and other  racial or ethnic minorities, from 1 to 2 percent of USAID employees. In  contrast, during the same period the proportion of African Americans fell  from 26 to 21 percent of the agency’s employees.

Our analysis found that the overall decline in the proportion of African  Americans at USAID reflected a substantial decline in the proportion of  African Americans in USAID’s Civil Service.

The proportion of African Americans in USAID’s Civil Service  decreased from 42 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 32 percent in fiscal  year 2018.

The proportion of African Americans in USAID’s Foreign Service  increased from 11 percent to 12 percent over the same period.

In contrast to the proportion of African Americans, the proportions of  Hispanics, Asians, and other racial or ethnic minorities at USAID  increased in both the Civil and Foreign Services from fiscal year 2002 to  fiscal year 2018.

Proportions of Racial or Ethnic Minorities in Civil and Foreign Services Were Generally Smaller in Higher Ranks

Our analysis of USAID data for fiscal year 2018 found that the proportions  of racial or ethnic minority employees generally decreased as rank  increased. As figure 4 shows, the proportions of racial or ethnic minorities  in the Civil Service in fiscal year 2018 were progressively smaller in each  rank above GS-12, except at the executive rank, where the proportion of  racial or ethnic minorities was larger than in GS-15. Specifically, the  proportions of racial or ethnic minorities decreased from 77 percent in  GS-12 to 31 percent in GS-15. Our analysis similarly found that, in  general, the proportions of racial or ethnic minorities in the Foreign  Service in fiscal year 2018 were progressively smaller in all ranks above  Class 6. In fiscal year 2002, the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities  was also generally smaller at higher ranks in both the Civil and Foreign  Services.

Proportion of Women Increased Overall, Rising in Foreign Service While Declining in Civil Service

From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2018, the proportion of women at  USAID increased from 51 to 54 percent, as figure 5 shows. Our analysis  found that the overall increase in the proportion of women at USAID  reflected a growth in the proportion of women in the Foreign Service.  Specifically:

The proportion of women in the Civil Service decreased from 66  percent in fiscal year 2002 to 61 percent in fiscal year 2018.

The proportion of women in the Foreign Service increased from 38  percent in fiscal year 2002 to 49 percent in fiscal year 2018.

Proportion of Women Was Higher Than in Federal Workforce but Mixed in Comparison with Relevant Civilian Labor Force

We compared the proportion of women at USAID with the proportions of  women in the federal workforce and relevant civilian labor force. Our  comparison of USAID workforce data for fiscal year 2018 with federal  government workforce data for 2017 found the following:

The proportion of women at USAID in fiscal year 2018 (54 percent)  was higher than the proportion of women in the federal workforce in  fiscal year 2017 (43 percent).

The proportion of women at USAID increased from 51 percent in fiscal  year 2002 to 54 percent in fiscal year 2018. In contrast, the proportion  of women in the federal workforce decreased slightly, from 44 percent  in fiscal year 2002 to 43 percent in fiscal year 2017.

Our comparison of USAID workforce data for fiscal year 2018 with data  from the relevant civilian labor force for 2006 through 2010 (the most  recent available data) found that the proportions of women were higher at  USAID than in the relevant civilian labor force for two occupational  groups—(1) officials and managers and (2) technical workers and  technologists. However, the proportion of women was lower at USAID  than in the relevant civilian labor force for professional workers. For  more details, see appendix III.

Proportions of Women in Civil and Foreign Services Were Generally Smaller in Higher Ranks

As figure 6 shows, our analysis of USAID data for fiscal year 2018 for the  Civil Service found progressively smaller proportions of women in each  rank above GS-11. The proportions of women ranged from 75 percent in  GS-11 or lower ranks to 43 percent in the executive rank. Additionally,  data for fiscal year 2018 for the Foreign Service show overall smaller  proportions of women in the higher ranks. Specifically, women made up  55 percent of employees in Class 4 or lower ranks but 48 percent of  Foreign Service executives. In fiscal year 2002, the proportion of women  was also generally smaller in higher ranks in both the Civil and Foreign  Services.

Promotion Outcomes Were Lower for Racial or Ethnic Minorities Than Whites in Early to Mid Career, but Differences Were Generally Statistically Significant Only in Civil Service

Our analyses of USAID data on promotions in fiscal years 2002 through  2017 found lower promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities  than for whites in early to mid career. We found these differences when  conducting descriptive analyses, which calculated simple average  promotion rates, as well as adjusted analyses, which controlled for  certain individual and occupational factors other than racial or ethnic  minority status that could influence promotion. Promotion rates were  generally lower for racial or ethnic minorities than for whites in both the  Civil and Foreign Services, although the differences shown by our  adjusted analyses were generally statistically significant only in the Civil  Service. However, our analyses do not completely explain the reasons for  differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from various  unobservable factors. Thus, our analyses do not establish a causal  relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion  outcomes.

Civil Service Promotion Outcomes Were Lower for Racial or Ethnic Minorities Than for Whites in Early to Mid Career

Both our descriptive analysis and adjusted analysis of data for USAID’s  Civil Service found that promotion rates were lower for racial or ethnic  minorities than for whites in early to mid career, as table 4 shows. In  addition, our adjusted analysis found that racial or ethnic minorities in  USAID’s Civil Service had lower odds of promotion than their white  counterparts.

As table 4 shows, our descriptive analysis of the data for USAID’s Civil  Service found that the average percentage of racial or ethnic minorities  promoted from ranks GS-11 through GS-14 was lower than the average  percentage of whites promoted from the same ranks. For example, our  descriptive analysis found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2017, an  average of 38.9 percent of racial or ethnic minorities were promoted from  GS-11 to GS-12, compared with an average of 69.9 percent of whites.  This difference of 31.0 percentage points indicates that the average rate  of promotion from GS-11 to GS-12 was 44.4 percent lower for racial or  ethnic minorities than for whites. In addition, our analysis of yearly  promotion rates in the Civil Service for fiscal years 2013 through 2017  showed that the rate of promotion from GS-11 and higher ranks was  greater for whites than for racial or ethnic minorities for every rank and  year, except for promotions from GS-15 to the executive class in fiscal  years 2013, 2014, and 2016. However, our descriptive analysis does  not account for the variety of factors besides racial or ethnic minority  status, such as occupation, that may affect promotion rates.

Our adjusted analysis of the data for USAID’s Civil Service, controlling for  certain factors other than racial or ethnic minority status that could  influence promotion, found that racial or ethnic minorities had lower  adjusted rates and lower odds of promotion from each rank from GS-11  through GS-14 than their white counterparts. Specifically, our adjusted  analysis of USAID data on promotions in fiscal years 2002 through 2017  found the following:

The average adjusted rate of promotion from GS-11 to GS-12 for  racial or ethnic minorities was 46.8 percent, compared with an  average of 55.8 percent for whites. This statistically significant  difference indicates that the odds of promotion from GS-11 to GS-12  in the Civil Service were 41.4 percent lower for racial or ethnic  minorities than for whites.

Our estimates of the adjusted rates and odds of promotion from GS- 12 to GS-13 and from GS-13 to GS-14 were also statistically  significantly lower for racial or ethnic minorities than for whites.

There was no statistically significant difference in the odds of  promotion from GS-14 to GS-15 or from GS-15 to the executive rank  for racial or ethnic minorities relative to whites in the Civil Service.

Compared with our descriptive analysis, our adjusted analysis found  smaller percentage differences in promotion outcomes for racial or  ethnic minorities relative to whites in the Civil Service.

Figure 7 shows key results of our descriptive and adjusted analyses of  USAID data for racial or ethnic minorities and whites in USAID’s Civil  Service.

Foreign Service Promotion Outcomes Were Lower for Racial or Ethnic Minorities in Early to Mid Career, but Differences Were Generally Not Statistically Significant When We Controlled for Various Factors

As table 5 shows, our descriptive analysis of data for USAID’s Foreign  Service found that the rate of promotion was generally lower for racial or  ethnic minorities than for whites. In addition, our adjusted analysis found  differences between the promotion rates for racial or ethnic minorities and  those for whites. These differences were not statistically significant for  promotions from Class 4 to Class 3, from Class 2 to Class 1, or from  Class 1 to the executive rank. However, the differences between  promotion rates for racial or ethnic minorities and whites were statistically  significant for promotions from Class 3 to Class 2.

As table 5 shows, our descriptive analysis of the data for USAID’s Foreign  Service found that for Class 4 and higher ranks, a lower average  percentage of racial or ethnic minorities than of whites was promoted  from each rank except Class 1. For example, our descriptive analysis  found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2017, an average of 31.5 percent  of racial or ethnic minorities were promoted from Class 4 to Class 3,  compared with an average of 33.7 percent of whites. This difference of  2.2 percentage points indicates that the average rate of promotion from  Class 4 to Class 3 was 6.4 percent lower for racial or ethnic minorities  than for whites. However, our descriptive analysis does not account for  the variety of factors besides racial or ethnic minority status, such as  occupation, that may affect promotion rates.

Our adjusted analysis of the data for USAID’s Foreign Service, controlling  for certain factors other than racial or ethnic minority status that could  influence promotion, found that racial or ethnic minorities had lower  adjusted rates and odds of promotion than their white counterparts but  that these differences were generally not statistically significant.  Specifically, our adjusted analysis of USAID data on promotions in fiscal  years 2002 through 2017 found the following:

On average, the adjusted rate of promotion from Class 3 to Class 2  for racial or ethnic minorities was 11.0 percent, compared with 13.1  percent for whites. This statistically significant difference indicates that  the odds of promotion from Class 3 to Class 2 in the Foreign Service  were 21.5 percent lower for racial or ethnic minorities than for whites.

The adjusted rates and odds of promotion for racial or ethnic  minorities relative to whites were also lower for promotion from Class  4 to Class 3 and from Class 2 to Class 1 and were higher for  promotion from Class 1 to the executive rank, but these differences  were not statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.  That is, we could not conclude that there was a statistical relationship  between racial or ethnic minority status and promotion from these  ranks.

Compared with our descriptive analysis, our adjusted analysis found a  larger percentage difference in promotion outcomes at all levels from  Class 4 to the executive rank for racial or ethnic minorities relative to  whites.

Figure 8 shows key results of our descriptive and adjusted analyses of  USAID data for racial or ethnic minorities and whites in the Foreign  Service.

Differences in Promotion Outcomes for Women and Men Were Generally Not Statistically Significant

Our analyses of USAID data on promotions in fiscal years 2002 through  2017 found differences between promotion outcomes for women relative  to men, but these differences were generally not statistically significant.  We found these differences when conducting descriptive analyses, which  calculated simple average promotion rates, as well as adjusted  analyses, which controlled for certain individual and occupational factors  other than gender that could influence promotion. In particular, we found  that average promotion rates for women in the Civil Service varied  relative to men, but the differences were not statistically significant. In the  Foreign Service, average promotion rates varied for women relative to  men, but these differences were statistically significant only for promotion  from Class 4 to Class 3. Our analyses do not completely explain the  reasons for differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from  various unobservable factors. Thus, our analyses do not establish a  causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion  outcomes.

Civil Service Average Promotion Rates Varied for Women Relative to Men, but Differences in Outcomes Were Not Statistically Significant When We Controlled for Various Factors

As table 6 shows, our descriptive analysis of USAID data on promotions  in fiscal years 2002 through 2017 found that the rate of promotion in  USAID’s Civil Service was generally lower for women than for men at GS- 13 and lower ranks. However, our adjusted analysis did not find any  statistically significant differences in the rates or odds of promotion for  women relative to men in the Civil Service.

Our descriptive analysis of the data for USAID’s Civil Service found that  the average percentage of women promoted from GS-11 through GS-13  was lower than the average percentage of men. For example, our  descriptive analysis found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2017, an  average of 47.4 percent of women were promoted from GS-11 to GS-12,  compared with an average of 58.7 percent of men. This difference of 11.3  percentage points indicates that the average rate of promotion from GS- 11 to GS-12 was 19.3 percent lower for women than for men. However,  our descriptive analysis does not account for the variety of factors  besides gender (e.g., occupation) that may affect promotion rates.

Our adjusted analysis of the USAID data, controlling for certain factors  other than gender that could influence promotion, found no statistically  significant differences in the rates or odds of promotion for women  compared with men in the Civil Service. Specifically, the adjusted analysis  for promotions in fiscal years 2002 through 2017 found the following:

The adjusted rates and odds of promotion from GS-12 to GS-13, from  GS-13 to GS-14, and from GS-14 to GS-15 were lower for women  than for men.

Our estimates of the odds of promotion from GS-11 to GS-12 and  from GS-15 to the executive rank were higher for women than for  men.

In all cases, we found no statistically significant differences at the 95  percent confidence level in the odds of promotion from any rank for  women relative to men in the Civil Service. That is, we could not  conclude that there was a statistical relationship between gender and  promotion from these ranks.

Figure 9 shows key results of our descriptive and adjusted analyses of  USAID data for men and women in USAID’s Civil Service.

Foreign Service Average Promotion Rates Were Generally Higher for Women Than Men, but Differences in Outcomes Were Generally Not Statistically Significant When We Controlled for Various Factors

Our descriptive and adjusted analyses of data on promotions in fiscal  years 2002 through 2017 for USAID’s Foreign Service both found that the  rate and odds of promotion were generally higher for women than for  men, as table 7 shows.

Our descriptive analysis of the data for USAID’s Foreign Service found  that higher average percentages of women, relative to men, were  promoted from Class 4 to Class 3, from Class 2 to Class 1, and from  Class 1 to the executive rank. For example, our descriptive analysis found  that in fiscal years 2002 through 2017, an average of 33.9 percent of  women were promoted from Class 4 to Class 3, compared with an  average of 32.2 percent of men. This 1.7 percentage point difference  indicates that the average rate of promotion from Class 4 to Class 3 was  5.2 percent higher for women than for men. However, our descriptive  analysis does not account for the variety of factors besides gender (e.g.,  occupation) that may affect promotion rates.

Our adjusted analysis of the data for USAID’s Foreign Service, controlling  for certain factors other than gender that could influence promotion, found  that the adjusted rates and odds of promotion varied for women relative to  men in the Foreign Service. Specifically, our adjusted analysis of data  on promotions in fiscal years 2002 through 2017 found the following:

On average, the adjusted rate of promotion from Class 4 to Class 3  for women in the Foreign Service was 34.7 percent, compared with  31.5 percent for men. This statistically significant difference indicates  that the odds of promotion from Class 4 to Class 3 were 20.2 percent  higher for women than for men.

While the adjusted rates of promotion from Class 3 to Class 2 and  from Class 1 to the executive rank were lower for women than for  men, there were no statistically significant differences in the odds of  promotion from these ranks for women relative to men in the Foreign  Service. Thus, we could not conclude that there was a statistical  relationship between gender and promotion from these ranks.

Compared with the descriptive analysis, our adjusted analysis found a  smaller percentage difference in promotion outcomes from Class 3 to  Class 2 and from Class 2 to Class 1 for women relative to men. Our  adjusted analysis also found positive, rather than negative,  percentage differences in promotion outcomes from Class 4 to Class  3 and from Class 2 to Class 1 for women relative to men.

Figure 10 displays key results of our descriptive and adjusted analyses of  USAID data for men and women in USAID’s Foreign Service.

USAID Has Identified Underrepresentation of Specific Groups in Its Workforce but Has Not Carried Out Required EEO Activities

USAID has determined that specific groups, such as Hispanics and  African Americans, are underrepresented in its workforce, and the agency  has a strategic plan that identifies goals, activities, and measures to  support diversity and inclusion. However, staffing gaps stemming in part  from a lack of leadership attention have prevented OCRD from  conducting required equal employment opportunity functions. Specifically,  staffing gaps have prevented OCRD from responding to EEO complaints  within mandated timeframes, analyzing USAID’s workforce for trends and  potential barriers to equal employment, and completing the annual MD- 715 reports on the agency’s diversity efforts.

USAID Has Identified Underrepresentation of Specific Groups and Developed a Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan

USAID Has Identified Underrepresentation of Specific Groups in Its Workforce

USAID has identified specific groups that are underrepresented in its  workforce relative to the national civilian labor force. In each of its MD- 715 reports to EEOC for fiscal years 2013 through 2017, USAID identified  the following groups as being underrepresented in its workforce: (1)  Hispanic males and females in both the Civil Service and the Foreign  Service; (2) individuals with a targeted disability; and (3) Hispanic, African  American, and Asian American males and females in certain major  occupations in areas such as health, contracting, program or project  development, auditing, and management and program analysis.  According to USAID officials, these groups remain underrepresented in  USAID’s workforce.

In fiscal years 2010 through 2016, USAID completed analyses intended  to identify barriers that could contribute to underrepresentation of specific  groups and other diversity issues and described such barriers in its MD- 715 reports. For example, in its report for fiscal year 2010, USAID stated  that its recruitment and outreach efforts had failed to attract a  representative pool of qualified applicants. In its report for fiscal year  2011, USAID stated that it had no executive development program to  prepare employees to enter the senior executive service. In its report for  fiscal year 2016, USAID reported on three barrier analyses examining the  underrepresentation of, respectively, Hispanics; people with targeted  disabilities; and African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics in  major occupations.

Additional diversity issues may exist at USAID. For example, in 2014,  EEOC found that black and Asian females may encounter barriers to  equal employment when attempting to enter USAID’s Senior Foreign  Service. Further, representatives from 10 of 11 employee resource  groups told us that they believed members of their communities have  fewer career prospects at USAID than members of other USAID  communities.

USAID Developed a Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan

USAID outlined planned efforts to support diversity and inclusion in its  June 2016 Human Resource Transformation Strategy and Action Plan,  2016-2021 (HR Transformation Strategy) as well as its 2017 Diversity and  Inclusion Strategic Plan. According to the HR Transformation Strategy,  USAID envisioned an environment in which diversity recruiting is targeted  and strategic, selection bias does not prevent diverse candidates from  being hired, all staff and supervisors are trained regularly in diversity and  inclusion topics, and agency leaders incorporate diversity into staffing  decisions. The HR Transformation Strategy included an objective focused  on diversity and inclusion, with planned activities to work toward this goal.  The 2017 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan was developed  concurrently with, and folded into, the HR Transformation Strategy’s  diversity and inclusion objective. Shortly into the first year of the HR  Transformation Strategy implementation, USAID narrowed its scope and  suspended the diversity and inclusion objective.

USAID’s 2017 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan identifies three  goals: (1) diversify the federal workforce though active engagement of  leadership, (2) include and engage everyone in the workplace, and (3)  optimize inclusive diversity efforts using a data-driven approach. The plan  also identifies priorities, activities, and measures intended to meet  USAID’s diversity goals, several of which cite, and overlap with, the  original diversity and inclusion–related elements of the HR  Transformation Strategy.

HCTM and OCRD officials indicated that that the Diversity and Inclusion  Strategic Plan includes some of the areas that would no longer be  addressed through the HR Transformation Strategy. In addition, the  officials noted that USAID has implemented some aspects of the plan.  For example, according to the officials, its employee resource groups  have participated in various outreach and recruitment events, as called  for by the plan.

HCTM and OCRD officials told us that USAID was drafting an update to  the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, which it aimed to finish in June  2020. The officials stated that, although OCRD and HCTM will remain the  plan’s primary implementers, the new plan will give USAID bureaus and  offices more responsibility for diversity and inclusion activities.  Additionally, the officials stated that working groups from USAID’s  employee resource groups had begun reviewing the draft. The officials  stated that OCRD expected to submit the draft to the Executive Diversity  Council for comment after these reviews.

Staffing Gaps Have Prevented USAID from Responding to EEO Complaints in a Timely Manner, Analyzing Its Workforce, and Reporting on Diversity Efforts

OCRD has faced persistent staffing gaps stemming in part from a lack of  management attention to the agency’s EEO programs. Moreover, the  office has experienced turnover among its directors. OCRD officials  stated that the staffing gaps and turnover challenges have prevented the  office from completing required EEO functions. As figure 11 shows, the  number of OCRD’s filled positions has consistently been less than its  allocation. According to OCRD and EEOC officials, the office needs to fill  its allocated positions to effectively perform its duties and responsibilities.  These staffing gaps generally correspond to times when USAID reported  that OCRD could not perform EEO investigations within mandated  timeframes, conduct barrier analyses of the agency’s workforce, or  complete an MD-715 report.

OCRD cannot effectively perform its duties and responsibilities without  sufficient staff, according to OCRD officials. Federal equal employment  regulations require federal agencies to provide sufficient resources to  their EEO programs to ensure efficient and successful operation.  However, as table 8 shows, OCRD has faced staffing gaps since fiscal  year 2010.

According to USAID officials, vacancies have a greater effect on smaller  offices such as OCRD, where fewer staff are available to take on the  resulting extra work. The officials said that this can in turn affect morale,  which can increase staff turnover. Such turnover is observable in USAID’s  employee data showing the number of employees and new hires in  OCRD. Specifically, while OCRD added new hires to the office each fiscal  year, the number of filled positions generally stayed the same or  decreased. For example, the number of filled positions in OCRD  decreased from 10 to nine in fiscal year 2016, despite the addition of a  new hire. Similarly, in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, OCRD’s filled positions  remained constant at 10 despite four new hires during that period. As a  result, OCRD’s vacancy rate remained near or above 30 percent from  October 2015 through April 2020.

EEOC similarly noted OCRD’s insufficient staffing in compliance letters to  USAID in 2017 and 2019. In both letters, EEOC outlined its expectation  that USAID establish a plan to allocate sufficient resources to its EEO  program and demonstrate meaningful progress toward correcting this  deficiency.

USAID officials stated that these staffing gaps have limited OCRD’s  capacity to carry out required EEO functions. For example, in November  2019, most of OCRD’s divisions had vacancy rates of 50 percent or more.  At that time, all three allocated positions in the Reasonable  Accommodation Division and five of six positions in the Diversity and  Inclusion Division were vacant. In February 2020, OCRD officials reported  that the division’s Affirmative Employment Program had no staff to  implement the MD-715 report for fiscal year 2019. Additionally, OCRD  reported that the Complaints and Resolution Division’s Anti-Harassment  Program continued to receive cases while working through backlogs.  Without sufficient staff, OCRD is unable to effectively perform its duties  and responsibilities, according to OCRD officials.

As part of its response to EEOC’s October 2019 compliance letter, USAID  increased the number of positions approved for OCRD to 24. However,  the office has struggled to fill those positions. HCTM and OCRD officials  stated that, although they are working to resolve the staffing gaps in  OCRD, high demand for staff with the specialized skills OCRD requires,  as well as unexpected recent turnover in OCRD due to illness and  retirement, have hindered this effort. According to USAID officials, long  security clearance processes also caused several candidates to withdraw  from the hiring process when they found other employment. As table 9  shows, OCRD continued to have staffing gaps of 30 to 50 percent in April  2020.

Representatives from nine of the 13 USAID employee groups we spoke  with echoed the concern that OCRD lacked sufficient staffing resources to  do its job effectively. For example, one group attributed OCRD’s lack of  responsiveness to information requests to a lack of sufficient staffing  resources. Another group said that there was an implicit understanding in  USAID that OCRD had to prioritize reacting to negative events rather than  undertaking proactive efforts to increase diversity.

Without sufficient staffing resources, USAID will lack the capacity to  perform required functions such as responding to EEO complaints,  analyzing demographic data, or completing annual MD-715 reports.

USAID Has Not Responded to EEO Complaints in a Timely Manner

According to EEOC MD-715 instructions to federal agencies, model EEO  programs must have sufficient budget and staffing to support the success  of the EEO program, including sufficient staffing to ensure thorough and  fair processing of EEO complaints in a timely manner. According to  USAID, a lack of staffing resources has prevented the agency from  meeting required time frames for EEO investigations. In four of its six MD- 715 submissions for fiscal years 2010 through 2018, USAID reported that  it did not have sufficient staffing to implement a successful complaint  process.

In recent years, USAID has consistently reported being unable to  complete EEO counseling, EEO investigations, or final agency decisions  on EEO complaints in a timely manner, as required by federal equal  employment regulations. For example, in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal  years 2015 through 2019, USAID reported being unable to complete EEO  investigations within prescribed time frames. Further, in an October 2019  compliance letter, EEOC stated that in fiscal year 2018, USAID  completed 67 percent of EEO counseling, 14 percent of EEO  investigations, and none of the final agency decisions in a timely manner.  As table 10 shows, USAID reported that it did not complete any stages of  the EEO complaints response process in a timely manner for fiscal years  2016 through 2019, with the exception of EEO counseling in fiscal year  2016. In fiscal year 2019, the agency continued to lack sufficient funding  and qualified staffing to process EEO complaints in a timely, thorough,  and fair manner, according to USAID documentation.

Representatives of three USAID employee groups also stated that OCRD  lacked the capacity to address EEO issues in a timely manner and  attributed this to understaffing. Representatives of the first group said  that, at a certain point, USAID had a single EEO investigator for the entire  agency and that investigations took more than a year. Representatives of  the second group stated that because OCRD was short-staffed, it had a  backlog of complaints of harassment and bullying. Representatives of the  third group said that they had observed the reasonable-accommodation  process taking longer than a year. They speculated that this had resulted  from USAID’s assigning the handling of reasonable-accommodation  requests across the worldwide portfolio to a single person.

According to USAID, OCRD has made progress in reducing complaint  backlogs. In February 2020, OCRD officials said that the timeliness  requirement had been met for the EEO complaint process and that the  office no longer had a backlog of complaints. However, OCRD officials  said that backlogs remained in processing anti-harassment cases.  Further, the officials said that the Reasonable Accommodation Program  continued to be affected by a lack of staff. In an April 2020 compliance  letter to EEOC, USAID reported that OCRD had developed metrics and  new internal procedures for complaint processing. The letter further  stated that thus far in fiscal year 2020, OCRD had been 100 percent  timely with EEO counseling, EEO investigations, and final agency  decisions.

While USAID has noted recent improvement in its ability to conduct timely  EEO counseling and investigations, without the capacity to consistently  perform these functions, USAID cannot meet mandated timeframes for  responding to EEO complaints and risks being unable to achieve its goal  of a diverse and inclusive workforce environment.

USAID Is Unable to Perform Analyses of Its Demographic Data

According to EEOC MD-715 instructions to federal agencies, model EEO  programs must have sufficient budget and staffing to, among other things,  conduct self-assessments of possible program deficiencies and conduct  thorough barrier analyses of their agency’s workforce. Although USAID  has previously completed barrier analyses of its workforce, the agency  reported insufficient personnel resources to conduct annual agency self- assessments and self-analyses for its MD-715 submissions for fiscal  years 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2017. For example, the fiscal year 2017  MD-715 report stated that USAID did not conduct trend analyses of the  effects of management or personnel policies, procedures, and practices  and that the agency lacked sufficient resources to enable it to conduct a  thorough barrier analysis of its workforce. According to USAID officials,  OCRD lost its staff member assigned to manage barrier analyses and  was unable to fill that position during the hiring freeze. Further, OCRD  continues to lack sufficient personnel to conduct barrier analyses. In  November 2019, OCRD’s Diversity and Inclusion Division consisted of  one supervisor and five vacant positions. Despite subsequent efforts to  hire more staff, OCRD reported in February 2020 that it still lacked staff to  perform its data analysis responsibilities.

EEOC officials expressed concern regarding OCRD’s lack of capacity to  analyze and address diversity issues. For example, EEOC officials said  that USAID had not adequately used applicant flow data to identify  potential barriers in fiscal year 2017. Despite having collected applicant  data, USAID did not submit applicant flow data as part of its MD-715  submission for fiscal year 2017, the most recent year for which it  submitted this report. According to the EEOC officials, OCRD told them  that it lacked staff with sufficient technical expertise to conduct a barrier  analysis of these data.

Without the capacity to perform self-analysis, USAID is unable to  proactively identify and address barriers to diversity in its workforce.

USAID Is Unable to Consistently Submit the Annual MD-715 Report

EEOC MD-715 requires federal agencies to submit their MD-715 reports  to the EEOC annually. The report is due by February 28 following the end  of the fiscal year that is being reported, although EEOC has the discretion  to grant extensions. However, OCRD did not complete the MD-715 report  in fiscal years 2011 or 2012 and has not submitted an MD-715 report for  fiscal year 2018. Despite being granted submission extensions, USAID  had not submitted its MD-715 report for fiscal year 2018 by the  certification deadline of September 30, 2019, according to EEOC’s  October 2019 compliance letter. The letter stated that EEOC expected  USAID to submit the MD-715 report for fiscal year 2018 and to ensure  that the MD-715 report for fiscal year 2019 would be submitted by the  deadline of February 28, 2020. In November 2019, USAID officials told us  that OCRD lacked the staff needed to complete the fiscal year 2018 MD- 715 report by this deadline and therefore intended to concentrate on  submitting a report for fiscal year 2019. However, in February 2020,  USAID officials told us that OCRD’s Affirmative Employment Program  continued to lack any staff to monitor and implement the MD-715 effort. In  April 2020, USAID officials reported that they were using a contractor to  complete the fiscal year 2019 MD-715 report.

Without OCRD capacity to submit required reports on the agency’s  diversity and inclusion efforts, USAID leadership will lack sufficient insight  into the EEO program to ensure that its activities meet agency goals.  Furthermore, inconsistent reporting could hamper EEOC’s oversight of  USAID’s EEO programs.

Lack of USAID Leadership Attention Has Contributed to OCRD’s Staffing Gaps

OCRD’s staffing gaps stem in part from a lack of leadership attention to  USAID’s equal employment opportunity programs at both the office and  agency levels. We have previously identified top leadership commitment  as a leading practice for 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.

Both USAID and EEOC officials attributed OCRD’s staffing problems to  frequent management turnover within OCRD. According to information  provided by USAID officials, OCRD has had five directors (permanent  and acting) since 2013. USAID officials stated that this turnover made it  difficult for any director to provide sufficient office-level leadership  attention to sustain efforts to improve OCRD’s capacity. EEOC officials  also expressed concern regarding this level of director turnover and  asserted that without consistent office leadership that could effectively  advocate for scarce personnel resources within USAID, OCRD would  continue to face staffing shortages.

EEOC officials said that OCRD could not draw sufficient attention from  senior USAID leadership without a permanent director. According to  EEOC MD-715 instructions to federal agencies, model EEO programs  have a reporting structure for the EEO program that provides the principal  EEO official with appropriate authority and resources to effectively carry  out a successful EEO program. This includes, but is not limited to, an  annual State of the Agency briefing given by the EEO Director (in  USAID’s case, the Director of OCRD) to the agency head and other  senior management officials after the submission of a MD-715 report.  According to MD-715 instructions to federal agencies, the briefing must  thoroughly cover all components of the agency’s MD-715 report, including  an assessment of the agency’s performance in each of the six elements  of a model EEO program, as well as a report on the agency’s progress in  completing its barrier analysis. However, OCRD has not presented a  State of the Agency briefing to the head of USAID and other senior  leadership for 3 consecutive fiscal years. In April 2020, OCRD officials  told us that the office planned to provide the briefing to USAID’s  Executive Diversity Council once the MD-715 for fiscal year 2019 was  completed, which they anticipated would occur in May 2020. HCTM and  OCRD officials also told us that since receiving the EEOC’s October 2019  compliance letter, senior USAID leadership had been more engaged than  previously.

Without senior USAID leadership attention to diversity, OCRD will  continue to lack the staffing resources necessary to build its capacity to  support USAID’s diversity and inclusion efforts as well as operate an  effective and efficient EEO program.

Although USAID has made some progress in increasing representation of  diverse groups in its Civil and Foreign Service workforces, continued  underrepresentation and generally lower promotion outcomes for racial or  ethnic minorities suggest that additional efforts are needed. Addressing  these issues requires an effective and efficient EEO program. However,  OCRD, which operates the agency’s EEO program, is currently unable to  perform its key functions because of significant staffing gaps and  turnover. USAID’s recent efforts to fill staff vacancies within various  OCRD divisions could help increase OCRD’s capacity to perform its  required EEO functions. However, such capacity will not be fully  demonstrated until OCRD can consistently ensure timely processing of  EEO complaints and investigations, regular analysis of workforce  demographics for trends, and regular submission of required MD-715  reports. Further, sustained attention to diversity efforts from USAID’s  senior leadership would help ensure that OCRD has the capacity to  perform its required EEO functions. Without capacity to perform these  functions, USAID cannot consistently respond to allegations of  discrimination in a timely manner, identify potential barriers to equal  employment opportunity, or maintain accountability for the progress of its  diversity and inclusion efforts.

We are making the following four recommendations to USAID:  1.  The USAID Administrator should ensure that OCRD consistently  responds to EEO complaints in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)  2.  The USAID Administrator should ensure that OCRD consistently  analyzes USAID workforce demographic data for trends and potential  barriers to equal employment opportunity. (Recommendation 2)  3.  The USAID Administrator should ensure that OCRD submits required  MD-715 reports to EEOC in a timely manner. (Recommendation 3)  4.  The USAID Administrator should demonstrate senior leadership  attention to diversity by ensuring that OCRD has the capacity to  perform required EEO functions. (Recommendation 4)

We provided a draft of this report to USAID, EEOC, and OPM for  comment. USAID provided comments, which we have reproduced in  appendix XV. EEOC and OPM stated they did not have comments.

In its comments, USAID concurred with our four recommendations and  described actions planned or underway to address them. For example, in  response to recommendations 2 and 3, USAID stated that it is in the  process of establishing an Affirmative Employment Program in OCRD to,  among other things, analyze and report on workforce data and prepare  and submit the agency’s annual MD-715 Report.

USAID indicated that it expects to finish implementing actions addressing  our EEO-related recommendations in 2020. We believe that, to  demonstrate consistent capacity to perform its EEO functions, USAID will  need to successfully complete these functions for at least two consecutive  cycles.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Administrator of USAID, the Chair of EEOC, and the  Director of OPM. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6881 or at bairj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office  of Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs can be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix XVI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) the demographic composition of USAID’s  workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018, (2) differences in promotion  outcomes for racial or ethnic groups in USAID’s workforce, (3) differences  in promotion outcomes for men and women in USAID’s workforce, and (4)  the extent to which USAID has identified workforce diversity issues and  worked to address them.

For this report, we analyzed National Finance Center data on USAID’s  full-time, permanent, career workforce (direct-hire U.S. citizen Civil and  Foreign Service employees) for fiscal years 2002 through 2018. For  each fiscal year, we analyzed record-level status data for USAID’s  employees as of September 30 (the end of the fiscal year). This included  demographic and administrative data for each employee, such as race,  ethnicity, gender, grade or class, age, date of entry to USAID, years of  service, veteran’s status, occupation, location or duty station, and the  employee’s unique identifier. We also analyzed record-level dynamic  data that included personnel actions, such as promotions or separations.  In addition, we obtained “Post (Hardship) Differential Percentage of Basic  Compensation” data from the Department of State’s website for fiscal  years 2002 through 2018. Following guidance from the U.S. Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission, we used data for nine federal job  categories and their correspondence to specific occupation codes to  match federal job categories to the occupations of USAID’s employees.  We assessed the reliability of these data sets and of other data critical to  our analyses through documentation review, electronic testing, and  interviews with knowledgeable agency officials. We determined that these  data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To examine the demographic composition of USAID’s workforce over  time, we analyzed National Finance Center data for USAID’s full-time,  permanent, career workforce for fiscal years 2002 through 2018. For each  year, we calculated the demographic composition of the workforce by  racial or ethnic group and by gender for USAID overall and for USAID’s  Civil and Foreign Services. We also analyzed these numbers and  percentages by occupation and rank, including General Service (GS)  grade for the Civil Service, salary class for the Foreign Service, and  executive rank (i.e., Senior Executive Service or Senior Foreign Service).  We excluded political appointees and Office of Inspector General  employees from our overall analysis because, according to agency  officials, USAID’s Office of Human Capital and Talent Management does  not have authority over these hires.

We also compared the demographics of USAID’s workforce in fiscal year  2018 with the most recent available data on demographics of (1) the  federal workforce, as reported by the Office of Personnel Management  (OPM), and (2) the relevant civilian labor force, from the Census  Bureau’s equal employment opportunity (EEO) tabulation.

Because of USAID’s involvement in disability-related litigation during the  course of this engagement, we did not analyze the numbers and  percentages of employees with disabilities. Additionally, because the  National Finance Center data we used did not include information about  employees’ sexual orientation, we were unable to analyze the data on  that basis.

For the purposes of our report, racial or ethnic minorities exclude non- Hispanic whites; Hispanics include Hispanics of all races; and the  remaining non-Hispanic racial or ethnic groups include white, African  American, Asian, and other. Our analysis for the category we report as  “other” includes non-Hispanics identified as American Indian or Alaskan  Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and individuals  identifying as two or more races. For instances where an employee’s  reported racial, ethnic, or gender category changed, we assigned the  most recently recorded category to all available years.

To examine promotion outcomes for racial or ethnic minorities and  women in USAID’s workforce, we conducted two types of analyses— descriptive and adjusted—using USAID’s National Finance Center data  for its full-time, permanent, career workforce in fiscal years 2002 through  2018. For both analyses, we considered promotion to be an increase in  rank between 2 consecutive fiscal years. We included in these analyses  all individuals in the original rank and did not distinguish between  individuals who did or did not apply for promotion or who were eligible or  ineligible.

We conducted a descriptive analysis of USAID data, comparing annual  promotion rates for racial or ethnic minorities and whites and for women  and men. For each rank and fiscal year, we calculated these rates as the  number of newly elevated employees in the next-higher rank in the  following fiscal year divided by the number of employees in the given rank  in the current year.

We conducted adjusted analysis using a multivariate statistical method  (i.e., duration analysis), which accounted for certain individual and  occupational factors other than racial or ethnic minority status and gender  that could influence promotion. Specifically, we used a discrete-time  multivariate statistical logit model to analyze the number of yearly cycles it  took to be promoted up to the executive level from GS-11 in the Civil  Service and from Class 4 in the Foreign Service. We examined the  statistical relationship between promotion and racial or ethnic minority  status and gender, including adjusted promotion rates, odds ratios, and  percentage differences in relative odds of promotion.

Because a variety of factors besides racial or ethnic minority status and  gender may influence promotion outcomes, we incorporated various  individual and position-specific characteristics in our regression models to  control for other potential factors. These included an employee’s (1)  time in each rank before promotion; (2) years of prior federal government  experience; (3) age when entering USAID; (4) receipt of veterans’  preference points; (5) having transferred between the Civil and Foreign  Services; (6) having worked overseas in the previous year (for the  Foreign Service); (7) having worked in at a location where the hardship  differential was 20 percent or more in the previous year (Foreign Service  only); (8) proficiency in two or more languages other than English  (Foreign Service only); and (9) occupation as well as (10) fiscal years.  We identified these attributes as being relevant to promotion by reviewing  relevant literature and interviewing agency officials. Our primary model  was a pooled model that included all employees whose records we used  to determine summary statistics for USAID’s full-time, permanent, career  workforce in fiscal years 2002 through 2018. Additionally, we conducted a  number of sensitivity analyses, such as examining the robustness of our models to the inclusion of various sets of control variables (see app. XIII)  and applying the multivariate statistical method for various permutations  of racial or ethnic minority status (see app. XIV).

USAID’s Identification of Diversity Issues

To examine the extent to which USAID has identified workforce diversity  issues and worked to address them, we reviewed all annual Management  Directive 715 reports that it submitted to EEOC from fiscal year 2011  through fiscal year 2019. We also reviewed policies, guidance, and other  USAID documentation related to diversity. Additionally, we met with  relevant USAID officials from the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity and  the Office of Human Capital and Talent Management as well as officials  from EEOC. We also conducted interviews with representatives of 13  employee groups representing current employees in USAID’s Civil and  Foreign Services to obtain their perspectives on diversity efforts at  USAID. These groups included two unions: the Association of Federal  Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association.  The 13 groups also included 11 employee resource groups: Arab- Americans in Foreign Affairs Agencies, the Asian Pacific American  Employees Committee, Blacks in Government, Employees with  Disabilities, Gender and Sexual Minorities, the Hispanic Employees  Council of Foreign Affairs Agencies, the Jewish Affinity Group, the Native  Americans in Foreign Affairs Council, the Personal Services Contractor  Association, the USAID Muslims Employee Resource Group, and  Women@AID.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2018 to June 2020 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: USAID Workforce Data, Fiscal Years 2002-2018

The following figures and tables present numbers and proportions of  employees in racial, ethnic, and gender groups in the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) overall and in USAID’s Civil and  Foreign Services in fiscal years 2002 through 2018.

Appendix III: Comparison of USAID Workforce with Federal Government and Relevant Civilian Labor Force

We compared summary statistics for the U.S. Agency for International  Development’s (USAID) workforce overall with summary statistics for the  federal government and relevant civilian labor force.

Comparison of USAID and Federal Workforce

We compared summary statistics calculated from USAID personnel data  for fiscal year 2018 with summary statistics for the federal government for  fiscal year 2017, published in the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment  Program (FEORP) report.

Our comparison of USAID personnel data with data from the Office of  Personnel Management’s FEORP report for the federal government  found differences between the proportions of racial or ethnic minorities at  USAID and those in the federal workforce. In particular, the proportions of  African Americans and Asians were higher at USAID in fiscal year 2018  than in the federal workforce in fiscal year 2017, but the proportion of  Hispanics was lower at USAID than in the federal workforce for those  years. The proportion of women at USAID was higher than in the federal  workforce (see table 17).

Comparison of USAID’s Workforce with Relevant Civilian Labor Force across Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Groupings

We compared summary statistics for USAID’s workforce with summary  statistics for the relevant civilian labor force from the Census Bureau’s  equal employment opportunity tabulation for three of the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) occupational classification  system’s nine categories. Using an EEOC table that cross-classifies  Office of Personnel Management occupation codes and federal sector  occupational categories, we classified each USAID employee into one of  the nine categories. We compared USAID and relevant civilian labor force  statistics for the following three categories, corresponding to 99 percent of  USAID’s full-time, permanent employees in fiscal year 2018: officials and  managers, professional workers, and technical workers and  technologists.

Our comparison of USAID workforce data with relevant civilian labor force  data found generally larger proportions of racial or ethnic minorities at  USAID than in the relevant civilian labor force for officials and managers,  professional workers, and technical workers and technologists (see tables  18 through 20). The proportions of women were lower at USAID than in  the relevant civilian labor force for professional workers but were higher  for officials and managers and for technical workers and technologists.

Appendix IV: Demographic Data on Executives at USAID, Fiscal Years 2002- 2018

To compare U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and  federal government workforce data, we contrasted summary statistics on  executive employees calculated from USAID personnel data for fiscal  year 2018 with summary statistics on executives from federal government  workforce data for fiscal year 2017 that were published in the Federal  Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) report. As table 21  shows, our comparison of USAID workforce data with the FEORP data  found a slightly higher proportion of white executives and a slightly lower  proportion of racial or ethnic minority executives at USAID than in the  federal workforce overall.

Appendix V: Workforce Data on Veterans at USAID

We analyzed U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) data on  employees hired with veterans’ preference in fiscal years 2002 through  2018. The following tables present the numbers and percentages of  employees hired with or without veterans’ preference in USAID’s  workforce overall and in USAID’s Civil and Foreign Services during that  period.

Appendix VI: Workforce Data on Individuals with Disabilities at USAID

Table 25 shows the proportions of permanent employees with a disability  in the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Civil and  Foreign Services in fiscal years 2009 through 2017. The data shown are  summary statistics from USAID’s Management Directive 715 (MD-715)  reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As the table  shows, the proportion of permanent employees with disabilities increased  in the Civil Service and remained constant in the Foreign Service in the  years for which USAID reported these data.

Appendix VII: USAID Data on Political Appointees and Office of Inspector General Employees, Fiscal Years 2002-2018

In addition to analyzing the demographic composition of the U.S. Agency  for International Development’s (USAID) workforce, we analyzed USAID  personnel data to determine summary statistics on political appointees in  fiscal years 2002 through 2018. We considered employees to be political  appointees if they were on the executive pay plan or the administratively  determined pay plan. This includes Senate-confirmed political appointees  as well as political appointees that did not require Senate confirmation.

The following figures and tables present the numbers and proportions of  political appointees in racial or ethnic and gender groups in USAID overall  and USAID’s Civil Service and Foreign Service in fiscal years 2002  through 2018.

We also analyzed USAID personnel data to determine summary statistics  on employees of the agency’s Office of Inspector General in fiscal years  2002 through 2018. The following tables present the numbers and  percentages of the office’s employees in racial or ethnic and gender  groups in fiscal years 2002 through 2018.

Appendix VIII: Data on Applicants to USAID, Fiscal Years 2012-2018

We analyzed data for applicants to the U.S. Agency for International  Development’s (USAID) Civil Service in fiscal years 2012 and 2018 and  applicants to USAID’s Foreign Service in fiscal years 2012 and 2016.

According to USAID’s guidance on personnel recruitment, an applicant is  considered eligible when USAID’s online application evaluation system,  using the applicant’s online responses to standardized questions,  determines that the applicant meets eligibility requirements and the  minimum qualifications defined in the vacancy announcement. USAID’s  Civil Service staffing guidance provides that officials may interview and  make selections on the basis of referral lists of eligible applicants.  USAID’s personnel recruitment guidance for the Foreign Service also  notes that an applicant is considered selected when the applicant’s score  is above the cut-off total score and the applicant has passed the onsite  assessment to advance to the reference-check stage of the hiring  process. We considered an applicant to have been rated eligible if the  applicant data showed that the applicant had not been rated ineligible.  We considered an applicant to have been selected if the applicant data  showed that the applicant was either hired or selected.

Tables 30 through 32 show the percentages of eligible applicants and  selected eligible applicants to, respectively, USAID overall in fiscal years  2012 and 2018, USAID’s Civil Service in fiscal years 2012 and 2018, and  USAID’s Foreign Service in fiscal years 2012 and 2016.

Appendix IX: USAID Data on Newly Hired Employees, Fiscal Years 2003-2018

In addition to analyzing the demographic composition of the U.S. Agency  for International Development (USAID) workforce, we analyzed USAID  personnel data to determine summary statistics on employees hired in  fiscal years 2003 through 2018. We considered an employee to have  been hired in a given fiscal year if the employee first appeared in USAID’s  personnel data for that year. Because the USAID data we reviewed  began in fiscal year 2002, we were unable to identify employees who  were hired in that fiscal year; thus, fiscal year 2003 is the first for which  we were able to identify newly hired employees. Figure 21 shows the  number of newly hired employees at USAID from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal  year 2018.

The following figures and tables present the numbers and proportions of  newly hired employees in racial, ethnic, and gender groups in USAID  overall and USAID’s Civil Service and Foreign Service in fiscal years  2003 through 2018.

Appendix X: U.S. Agency for International Development Workforce Data on Attrition, Fiscal Years 2003-2018

In addition to analyzing the demographic composition of the U.S. Agency  for International Development’s (USAID) workforce, we analyzed USAID  personnel data to determine summary statistics for employees who left  USAID in fiscal years 2003 through 2018 for reasons other than  retirement or death. Figures 24 and 25 show the percentages of such  employees in various racial, ethnic, and gender groups at USAID overall  and in USAID’s Civil Service and Foreign Service in fiscal years 2003 and  2018.

Table 35 presents attrition rates for white and racial or ethnic minority  employees who left USAID in fiscal years 2003 through 2018 for reasons  other than retirement or death.

Table 36 presents attrition rates for men and women who left USAID in  fiscal years 2003 through 2018 for reasons other than retirement or  death.

Appendix XI: USAID Workforce Data on Promotion Rates, Fiscal Years 2013-2017

As table 37 shows, our analysis of yearly promotion rates for fiscal years  2013 through 2017 at the U.S. Agency for International Development  (USAID) found that promotion rates for white employees exceeded those  for racial or ethnic minority employees for

Civil Service promotions from GS-11 and every higher rank in every  year, except from GS-15 to executive in 3 years, and

Foreign Service promotions from Class 4 and higher ranks for 11 of  the 20 possible year-rank combinations.

Table 38 shows the promotion rates for white employees and racial or  ethnic minority employees in USAID’s Civil and Foreign Services in fiscal  years 2013 through 2017.

from Class 4 and higher ranks for 12 of the 20 possible year-rank  combinations in the Foreign Service.

Table 40 shows the promotion rates for men and women in USAID’s Civil  and Foreign Services in fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

Appendix XII: USAID Workforce Data on Years Employees Spent in Each Rank, Fiscal Years 2002-2018

Our analysis of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)  workforce data found that racial or ethnic minorities generally spent more  years in each rank than whites did in USAID’s Civil Service in fiscal years  2002 through 2018. Table 41 shows the average years in rank for whites  and racial or ethnic minorities in USAID’s Civil and Foreign Services.

Our analysis also found that in the Civil Service, women generally spent  more years than men in early- to mid-career ranks (GS-13 and below)  before being promoted. However, women spent fewer years than men in  later career ranks (GS-14 and above) before being promoted. In the  Foreign Service, women generally spent fewer years than men in early- to  mid-career ranks (Class 2 and below) before being promoted. Table 42  shows the average years in rank for men and women in USAID’s Civil  and Foreign Services in fiscal years 2002 through 2018.

Appendix XIII: Full Promotion Regression Results

Tables 43, 44, 50, and 51 provide summaries of the multivariate statistical  regression results (specifically, duration regression results) for our  estimates of the percentage differences in odds of promotion for racial or  ethnic minorities compared with whites and for women compared with  men in the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Civil  and Foreign Services. Our analyses do not completely explain the  reasons for differences in promotion outcomes, which may result from  various unobservable factors. Thus, our analyses do not establish a  causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion  outcomes. promotion slots (and therefore promotion outcomes) may be affected  by budget constraints that vary across fiscal years.

Model 6 used data for fiscal years 2011 through 2018 only. In addition  to controlling for the same variables as model 5, model 6 controlled  for use of long-term leave in the prior year.

Tables 43 through 55 provide the regression results of these six models  for all promotion stages that we analyzed in the Civil and Foreign  Services. Tables 43, 44, 50, and 51 present the consolidated regression  results for all six models and all promotion stages, presented as  estimates of percentage differences. Tables 45 through 49 and tables 52  through 55 provide the full regression results of the first five models,  presented as odds ratios. Odds ratios that are statistically significant and  lower than 1.00 indicate that individuals with the given characteristic were  less likely to be promoted. Odds ratios that are statistically significant and  greater than 1.00 indicate that individuals with the given characteristic  were more likely to be promoted. To convert the values in tables 45  through 49 and tables 52 through 55 to the values in tables 43, 44, 50,  and 51, we linearly transformed the estimates. That is, the values for the  estimates in tables 43, 44, 50, and 51 are equal to the values in tables 45  through 49 and in tables 52 through 55 multiplied by 100, minus 100. The  values for the standard errors in tables 43, 44, 50, and 51 are equal to the  values in tables 45 through 49 and in tables 52 through 55 multiplied by  100. For example, in table 45, the estimate for model 1a is 0.463; we  arrived at the percentage difference of negative 54 percent in table 43 by  0.463*100-100. Additionally, in table 45, the estimate for the standard  error for model 1a is (0.0624); we arrived at the converted standard error  of (6) in table 45 by (0.0624)*100.

Table 43 summarizes the regression results for our estimates of the  percentage differences in odds of promotion for racial or ethnic minorities  compared with whites in the Civil Service. We observed that racial or  ethnic minorities’ lower odds of promotion from GS-11 through GS-14  were consistently statistically significant across all of our models  examining combinations of factors that could influence promotion (i.e.,  models 1a through 5). In addition, our results were generally statistically  significant when we examined the more recent time period fiscal years  2011 through 2018 (see model 6).

Odds ratio (standard error) (0.718) (0.747)

Legend: GS = General Schedule, — = not applicable, √ = controls applied, *** = statistically significant at p-value < 0.01, ** = statistically significant at p- value < 0.05, * = statistically significant at p-value < 0.1.

Odds ratio (standard error)  Model 3  Model 2  0.876  0.825*  —  (0.103)

Control variable Years of government service

Years of government service,  squared  1.000  (0.000678)

Appendix XIII: Full Promotion Regression  Results For example, the estimated odds ratio for racial or ethnic minority employees for promotion from GS- 12 to GS-13 is 0.640 (model 5), which means that the odds of promotion for racial or ethnic minority  employees are about 64 percent of the odds for white employees. We conducted discrete-time  duration analysis using logit models to analyze the time duration (number of years) before promotion  from each GS grade shown. In all models, we controlled for the time that employees spent in each  grade before promotion. The overall baseline population for the duration analysis represents  individuals who possessed none of the characteristics indicated by the list of control variables. These  analyses do not completely explain why differences in odds of promotion exist. While various  independent variables capture and control for many characteristics across demographic groups,  unobservable factors may account for differences in odds of promotion; thus, our regression results  do not establish a causal relationship between demographic characteristics and promotion outcomes.

Years of government, service  squared  1.000  (0.000575)

Odds ratio (standard error) (0.163) (0.180)

Odds ratio (standard error) (0.227) (0.230)

Legend: GS = General Schedule, — = not applicable, √ = controls applied, *** = statistically significant at p-value < 0.01, ** = statistically significant at p- value < 0.05, * = statistically significant at p-value < 0.1. (0.418) (0.413) (0.332) (0.360) (0.455)

Control variable  Age at entry, squared (0.00180) (0.00173) (0.00174)

Odds ratio (standard error  0.00117***  (0.00181)

Table 50 summarizes the regression results for our estimates of the  percentage differences in odds of promotion for racial or ethnic minorities  compared with whites in the Foreign Service. We found that racial or  ethnic minorities had lower estimated odds of promotion than whites in  early to mid career (Class 4 through Class 1), but these differences were  generally not statistically significant. However, we observed statistically  significantly lower odds of promotion for racial or ethnic minorities from  Class 3 through Class 2. These results were consistently statistically  significant across all of our models examining combinations of factors that  could influence promotion (i.e., models 1a through 5). including in the more recent period fiscal years 2011 through 2018 (see  models 5 and 6).

Tables 52 through 55 present full regression results for models 1a  through 5 for each rank in the Foreign Service. The results are presented  as odds ratios.

Years of government service,  squared  (0.126) (0.129) (0.128)

Odds ratio (standard error) (0.124) (0.147)

Duration controls  Fiscal year controls  (0.169) (0.212)

Legend: — = not applicable, √ = controls applied, *** = statistically significant at p-value < 0.01, ** = statistically significant at p-value < 0.05, * =  statistically significant at p-value < 0.1. (0.0722) (0.0745) (0.0817) (0.0831) (0.0911)

Control variable  Age at entry Age at entry, squared (0.0679) (0.0688) (0.0650)

Years of government service,  squared  (0.00140) (0.00141) (0.00148)

Legend: — = not applicable, √ = controls applied, *** = statistically significant at p-value < 0.01, ** = statistically significant at p-value < 0.05, * =  statistically significant at p-value < 0.1.

Years of government service,  squared  (0.000815) (0.000821) (0.000859)

Odds ratio (standard error)  Model 2 Model 3  — 1.417***  (0.135) (0.137) (0.130)

Appendix XIII: Full Promotion Regression  Results (0.117) (0.117) (0.124) (0.127) (0.127)

Age at entry, squared 1.002**  (0.00104)

Years of government service,  squared  (0.000948) (0.00101) (0.00114)

Odds ratio (standard error) (0.326) (0.321)

Tables 56 and 57 summarize the multivariate statistical regression results  (specifically, duration regression results) for our estimates of the  percentage differences in odds of promotion for two groupings of racial or  ethnic minorities in the U.S. Agency for International Development’s  (USAID) Civil and Foreign Services.

We examined odds of promotion for African Americans and non– African American racial or ethnic minorities compared with whites.

We examined odds of promotion for the individual racial or ethnic  groups—African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and other racial or  ethnic minorities—compared with whites.

Our analyses do not completely explain the reasons for differences in  promotion outcomes, which may result from various unobservable factors.  Thus, our analyses do not establish a causal relationship between  demographic characteristics and promotion outcomes.

Transferring between the Foreign and Civil Services

Having a hardship assignment in the prior year (Foreign Service  only)

Having an overseas post in the prior year (Foreign Service only)

Proficiency in two or more languages other than English (Foreign  Service only)

Fiscal year fixed effects (indicator variables representing the fiscal  year)

The third model, which was limited to fiscal years 2011 through 2018,  controlled for the same variables as the second model and also  controlled for use of long-term leave in the previous year.

Table 56 summarizes the regression results for our estimates of the  percentage differences in odds of promotion for the two groupings of  racial or ethnic minorities compared with whites in the Civil Service.

For the first grouping, we found statistically significantly lower odds of  promotion from GS-11 through GS-15 for African Americans than for  whites in fiscal years 2002 through 2018 (model 2). The odds of  promotion from GS-12 to GS-13 were also statistically significantly  lower for non–African American racial or ethnic minorities during the  same period.

For the second grouping, we found statistically significantly lower  odds of promotion from GS-12 to GS-13 for Asians than for whites in  fiscal years 2002 through 2018.

Other racial or ethnic minority  (198) (27) (26) (68)

Legend: GS = General Schedule, *** statistically significant at p-value < 0.01, ** statistically significant at p-value < 0.05, * statistically significant at p- value < 0.1, — = not applicable.

Table 57 presents the summary of the regression results for our  estimates of the percentage differences in odds of promotion for the two  groupings of racial or ethnic minorities compared with whites in the  Foreign Service.

For the first grouping, we found statistically significantly lower odds of  promotion from Class 4 to Class 3 for African Americans than for  whites in fiscal years 2002 through 2018 (model 2).

For the second grouping, we found statistically significantly lower  odds of promotion from Class 3 to Class 2 for members of the “Other” racial or ethnic minority group than for whites in fiscal years 2011  through 2018 (model 3).

Appendix XV: Comments from the U.S. Agency of International Development

Appendix XVI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Mona Sehgal (Assistant  Director), David Hancock (Analyst-in-Charge), Cody Knudsen, Moon  Parks, Nisha Rai, Deirdre Sutula, and Melinda Cordero made key  contributions to this report. Reid Lowe, Justin Fisher, Nicole Willems, and  Chris Keblitis provided technical assistance.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has tried to increase staff diversity. We reviewed how its workforce changed over 2002–2018.

Overall, the proportion of racial or ethnic minorities in USAID’s full-time, permanent, career workforce rose from 33 to 37%, but proportions of some groups fell. Also, racial or ethnic minorities in the Civil Service were 31 to 41% less likely to be promoted than whites with similar jobs or years of service.

The office overseeing diversity had many staff vacancies that kept it from reporting on USAID’s diversity efforts—and from other duties. We made 4 recommendations to ensure this office can do its work.