Disability Employment: Hiring Has Increased but Actions Needed to Assess Retention, Training, and Reasonable Accommodation Efforts

Federal agencies are required to provide equal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of federal employment.

GAO was asked to examine agencies' efforts to increase the employment of individuals with disabilities. Among other objectives, this report examines: (1) the extent to which agencies met the 2010 federal goal to hire an additional 100,000 individuals with disabilities by 2015, and the retention rates of those employees between 2011 and 2017; and (2) practices selected agencies used to increase hiring and retention of individuals with disabilities.

GAO analyzed data and documents from OPM and interviewed agency officials. GAO interviewed officials from DOJ, SBA, and SSA about their efforts to enhance employment opportunities for disabled persons. GAO selected these three agencies because they represent a range of agency size and relatively high or low percentages of total employees with disabilities.

Approximately 143,600 persons with disabilities were hired during 2011 through 2015—plus an additional 79,600 hires in 2016 and 2017—across the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, exceeding the stated goal of 100,000 by 2015.

About 39 percent of individuals with disabilities hired during 2011 through 2017 stayed less than 1 year and approximately 60 percent stayed less than 2 years. Of the total individuals without disabilities hired during that same time period, approximately 43 percent stayed less than 1 year and approximately 60 percent stayed less than 2 years.

Although targeted data tracking and analyses could help pinpoint root causes contributing to departure rates, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) does not track or report retention data on disabled employees. Doing so, and making such data available to agencies would facilitate more comprehensive analyses of the retention of employees with disabilities and identify needed improvements.

Officials at three agencies GAO examined—Department of Justice (DOJ), Small Business Administration (SBA), and Social Security Administration (SSA)—used various practices to increase hiring, such as training staff on Schedule A—a commonly used hiring authority to employ individuals with disabilities. However, the agencies neither assess the impact of training nor how it relates to contributing to performance goals of increasing the number of disabled hires.

Agencies are expected to track performance related to providing reasonable accommodations. The selected agencies reported having processes in place for receiving reasonable accommodations requests, but only SSA has procedures for obtaining feedback from employees after an accommodation is provided. Without such feedback, DOJ and SBA are limited in their ability to assess the continued effectiveness of reasonable accommodations provided to employees.

GAO is making 6 recommendations: OPM should track and report retention data; DOJ, SBA, and SSA should assess training impacts; and DOJ and SBA should obtain employee feedback on reasonable accommodations. OPM and SSA concurred with GAO's recommendations; SBA concurred with one and partially concurred with one recommendation; DOJ did not agree or disagree with the recommendations. GAO continues to believe all recommendations are warranted.

Federal law, regulations, executive orders, and management directives  include provisions aimed at improving federal employment opportunities  for persons with disabilities. According to law, federal agencies are  required to take steps to provide equal opportunity to qualified individuals  with disabilities in all aspects of federal employment. Specifically,  agencies are required to develop affirmative action program plans for  hiring, placement, and advancement of people with disabilities, and  ensure employment nondiscrimination and the provision of reasonable  accommodations. In addition, Executive Order 13548 entitled,  “Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities,” issued in  July 2010 emphasized that as the nation’s largest employer, the federal  government must become a model for the employment of individuals with  disabilities. The Executive Order called for an additional 100,000  individuals with disabilities to be employed in the federal government by  2015.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) 2017  regulations also require agencies to take specific steps to increase the  employment of individuals with disabilities. For example, agencies are expected to commit to the goal of having no less than 12 percent of their  workforce comprised of employees with disabilities. This is also to include  at least 2 percent of an agency’s workforce to be comprised of employees  with targeted disabilities, which include traumatic brain injuries, deafness,  blindness, and partial or complete paralysis, among others. These goals  apply at both higher and lower salary levels.

You asked us to review actions the federal government took to implement  Executive Order 13548 and to improve the employment of individuals with  disabilities. Our objectives were to (1) examine the extent to which  agencies met the goal outlined in Executive Order 13548 directing the  federal government to hire an additional 100,000 individuals with  disabilities by 2015, and examine retention rates for employees with  disabilities between 2011 and 2017; (2) examine practices selected  agencies have adopted to increase hiring and retention of individuals with  disabilities, including reasonable accommodation provisions; and (3)  describe the efforts the key leadership agencies took to provide guidance  and assistance to agencies to increase the hiring and retention of  individuals with disabilities.

To address the first objective, we analyzed personnel data captured in the  Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources  Integration (EHRI) database. We assessed the reliability of EHRI data  through electronic testing to identify missing data, out of range values,  and logical inconsistencies. We also reviewed our prior work assessing  the reliability of these data. We interviewed OPM officials to understand  how they collect, maintain, track, and use data on individuals with  disabilities. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.  We analyzed data across the 24 agencies cited under the Chief Financial  Officers (CFO) Act to determine (1) the number of individuals with  disabilities and targeted disabilities hired each year during 2011 through  2017, the last year for which data were available, (2) which agencies  hired these individuals, (3) the types of hiring authorities used, and (4)  General Schedule (GS) levels in which individuals with disabilities were  placed and their position classifications. There are slight discrepancies in  the data used to examine retention rates, which were due to  inconsistencies we found with hiring and/or separation dates recorded in  OPM’s EHRI data. We determined these discrepancies did not affect the  reliability of the data for our purposes.

These data also allowed us to identify any patterns or changes in the  hiring, placement, and retention of individuals with disabilities across  years. Using the government-wide data, we identified whether people  were hired as full-time permanent employees versus part-time or  temporary employees. Of the individuals hired during 2011 through 2017,  we identified the number of employees who left the federal government  during that same time period.

To address the second objective, we selected three agencies as case  illustrations: the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Small Business  Administration (SBA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Our  selection was based on analysis of disability employment data for fiscal  years 2011 through 2017 across the 24 CFO Act agencies. We sorted the  agencies by their average percentage of total employees with reported  disabilities and targeted disabilities from highest to lowest. We narrowed  the scope to eight agencies that were categorized as having either the  highest or lowest average percentages for the time period. Within that  scope, we selected three agencies—one small, one medium, and one  large—in terms of their total full-time employees to provide a range of  agency experiences. Although these agencies do not represent the  experiences of all agencies across government, they provide illustrative  examples of experiences that agencies have with hiring and retaining  individuals with disabilities and providing reasonable accommodation.

We reviewed selected agencies’ policies, plans, and practices related to  hiring and retaining individuals with disabilities and reasonable  accommodation. This included a review of relevant sections of the  selected agencies’ annual reports to EEOC. We evaluated agencies’  policies, plans, and practices against criteria that included federal  guidance, management directives, and regulations related to disability  employment, as well as federal standards for internal control. We  interviewed officials from the selected agencies about their efforts to hire  and retain employees with disabilities and their experiences with  providing reasonable accommodations.

For each of the three agencies, we also analyzed EHRI data elements  similar to those outlined in our analysis for the first objective to describe  hiring and retention of individuals with disabilities. The detailed results of  our analysis are presented in appendix I.

To address the third objective, we reviewed guidance documents from the  four key leadership agencies named in EO 13548: OPM, EEOC, the  Department of Labor (Labor), and the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB). We interviewed agency officials about their respective roles and  responsibilities and the guidance and assistance they provided to  agencies to support hiring and retention of employees with disabilities.  We also obtained perspectives from the three selected agencies—DOJ,  SBA, and SSA—about the guidance and technical assistance they  received from the key leadership agencies both during and following the  implementation period of EO 13548. For additional context on hiring and  retaining individuals with disabilities, we interviewed multiple stakeholder  groups to obtain perspectives from subject matter experts in the disability  community and in the private sector.

We conducted this performance audit from March 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.

Executive Order 13548 committed the federal government to similar goals  stated in an executive order issued a decade earlier and required federal  agencies to take additional actions. Specifically, the prior Executive  Order 13163 called for an increase in the hiring of individuals with  disabilities across the federal government and for agencies to develop  plans for increasing employment opportunities for individuals with  disabilities. The additional actions stated in Executive Order 13548  specified that federal agencies were to implement strategies for retaining  federal workers with disabilities in federal employment, to make increased  use of Schedule A excepted hiring authority for persons with disabilities,  and to designate a senior-level official to be accountable for meeting the  goals of the order and developing and implementing the agency’s plan.

In January 2017, EEOC issued a final rule amending the regulations  requiring federal agencies to engage in affirmative action for individuals  with disabilities. The rule codified many of the requirements placed on  agencies by management directives and past executive orders, among  other things. Agencies were to begin following the rule in January 2018.  The revised regulation requires that agencies take specific steps until  they meet specific employment goals set by EEOC for individuals with  disabilities and targeted disabilities, provide personal assistance services  to certain employees who need them because of a targeted disability, and  meet a number of other requirements designed to improve employment  opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce.

OPM, EEOC, and Labor each have roles in advancing the hiring and  retention of persons with disabilities in the federal government.

OPM is responsible for executing, administering, and enforcing the civil  service laws, rules, and regulations. This includes ensuring compliance  with merit system principles that prohibit discrimination—including on the  basis of disability—in all aspects of personnel management, among other  things. Additionally, OPM is responsible for monitoring federal agencies’  implementation of affirmative action programs for disabled veterans,  including providing technical assistance and reporting on progress made  by agencies.

EEOC, in the federal sector, is responsible for enforcing the employment  discrimination prohibitions of anti-discrimination laws, including the  Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of  disability. EEOC is responsible for the annual review and approval of  agencies’ affirmative action program plans for the hiring, placement, and  advancement of individuals with disabilities. It is also responsible for  establishing procedures for handling federal employees’ allegations of  discrimination and for providing for the adjudication of complaints and  hearing of appeals.

Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) is to provide  national leadership in developing policy to eliminate barriers to the  employment of individuals with disabilities in the public and private  sectors. ODEP works in collaboration with federal, state, and local  agencies, private sector employers, and employer associations to  develop and disseminate evidence-based policy strategies and effective  practices. The office also assists agencies and employers with adopting  such policies and practices. Additionally, Labor administers the Federal  Employees’ Compensation Act, which provides workers’ compensation  coverage to federal employees for employment-related injuries and  occupational diseases.

Under Executive Order 13548, each of these agencies were assigned  roles and responsibilities often in consultation with each other. For  example, OPM, in consultation with Labor and EEOC, was tasked to  identify and assist agencies in implementing strategies for retaining  federal employees with disabilities. Additionally, OPM was also to consult  with Labor, EEOC, and OMB in designing model recruitment and hiring  strategies for agencies and developing mandatory training on  employment of the disabled. Labor was to consult with OPM in pursuing  innovative re-employment strategies and develop policies that foster  improved return-to-work of employees who were injured on the job.

OMB’s initial role was to convene federal agencies and assist their start- up efforts to implement the Executive Order, according to staff in OMB’s  Office of Performance and Personnel Management. OMB staff told us the  agency helped to establish a framework for coordination and collaboration  among the key leadership agencies focused on making the federal  government a model employer for persons with disabilities and to provide  support for regulatory and policy initiatives related to disability  employment. In 2015, in furtherance of an executive order focused on  improving diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce, OMB joined  OPM and EEOC and issued a memorandum to all heads of executive  departments and agencies announcing the establishment of the Diversity  and Inclusion in Government Council. The council initially operated  under the direction of OPM, OMB, and EEOC and was formed to provide  a forum for improving senior leadership engagement and collaboration on  strategic and operational diversity and inclusion priorities. OMB’s role has  since diminished as it delegated much of the leadership responsibilities to  the other key leadership agencies.

For reporting purposes, the federal government distinguishes between  two major categories of disabilities: targeted and other disabilities.  Targeted disabilities, generally considered to be more severe, include  traumatic brain injuries, deafness, blindness, partial or complete  paralysis, significant mobility impairments, and psychiatric disabilities,  among others. Other disabilities include such conditions as  gastrointestinal disorders, cardiovascular or heart disease, autoimmune  disorders, pulmonary or respiratory conditions, and learning disabilities.

Federal statutes and regulations provide special hiring authorities for  people with disabilities. These include Schedule A excepted service hiring  authority—which permits the noncompetitive appointment of qualified  individuals with intellectual, severe physical, or psychiatric disabilities  and appointments and noncompetitive conversion for veterans who are  30 percent or more disabled. To qualify for a Schedule A appointment,  an applicant must generally provide proof of disability. Proof of disability  can come from a number of sources, including a licensed medical  professional, or a state agency that issues or provides disability benefits.

The federal government gathers data on the number of individuals with  disabilities in the workforce through OPM’s Standard Form 256, Self- Identification of Disability (SF-256). Federal employees voluntarily  complete this form to disclose their disability status, as defined by the  Rehabilitation Act. Our past work highlighted concerns about the  accuracy of data captured in the SF-256. For example, we reported that  agency officials and advocates for people with disabilities believe there is  an undercount of employees with disabilities because some individuals  may not disclose their disability status out of concern they will be  discriminated against or precluded from advancement. In addition,  employees may develop a disability during federal employment and may  not know how to or why they should update their status. Disability status  information is confidential and cannot be used to affect an employee in  any way.

Given our previously reported concerns, we recommended that OPM  assess the extent to which the SF-256 accurately measures progress  toward the goal of Executive Order 13548 and to explore options for  improving the accuracy of SF-256 reporting. To address our  recommendation, OPM updated its 2012 Employee Feedback Survey to  allow federal employees to confidentially self-disclose a disability and  serve as a source of comparison through which OPM could assess the  accuracy of the SF-256.

Federal Agencies Exceeded the Hiring Goal Set Forth in the Executive Order, but OPM Does Not Track or Report Retention Data

An Additional 143,000 Persons with Disabilities Were Hired Government- wide between 2011 and 2015

Federal agencies exceeded the government-wide goal to hire an  additional 100,000 persons with disabilities in the federal government by  2015, according to our analysis of OPM’s EHRI data across the 24 CFO  Act agencies. During fiscal years 2011 through 2015, a total of  approximately 143,600 persons with disabilities were hired across all  positions, which includes full-time permanent positions and part-time or  temporary positions. Of those hires, approximately 87,000—61 percent— were hired into full-time permanent positions. Similar hiring continued to  increase in 2016 and 2017 as the federal government hired approximately  an additional 79,600 persons with disabilities during those 2 years across  all positions, of which approximately 49,200—62 percent—were full-time  permanent positions. Figures 1 and 2 show the total government-wide  number of persons with disabilities and targeted disabilities hired in fiscal  years 2011 through 2017.

Our determinations of the number of new hires each year were  consistently lower than the numbers OPM included in its executive branch  reporting. The discrepancy between our numbers and OPM’s reported  counts is largely attributed to our exclusion of agency-to-agency transfers  in our analysis. For the purpose of our analysis of government-wide  hiring, we excluded transfers because we did not consider those to be  new hires since those individuals remained employed in the federal  government.

Figure 3 shows the total government-wide number of persons without  disabilities hired during the same time period. According to our analysis, a  total of approximately 903,000 persons without disabilities were hired  across all positions between 2011 through 2015. Of those hires,  approximately 403,900—45 percent—were hired into full-time permanent  positions. Hiring continued to increase with an additional 377,150 in 2016  and 2017 combined across all positions, of which approximately  189,200—50 percent—were full-time permanent positions.

The data shown in figures 1 and 3, and summarized in Table 1, show that  from 2011 through 2017, the percent of hires with disabilities steadily  increased from 11 percent to almost 20 percent.

Our analysis at the agency level shown in table 2 shows that all agencies  increased the percentage of persons with disabilities hired from 2011  through 2017 and almost all agencies increased the percentage of  persons with targeted disabilities hired over the same period. Table 2  shows this information by agency for fiscal years 2011, 2015, and 2017.  We chose to present these years of data to mark the first and last years  of the 5-year period specified in Executive Order 13548 and to also show  the most recent data available at the time of our review.

Analyses of Retention Data Show Varied Results

As part of our analyses of individuals hired during the 2011 through 2017  time period, we analyzed employee retention in terms of the number of  years an individual hired during that time period remained employed.  Across the federal government, of the more than 223,000 persons with  disabilities hired during the 2011 through 2017 time period, approximately  39 percent of them stayed in the federal government for less than 1 year  and approximately 60 percent stayed for less than 2 years, as shown in  figure 4.

These percentages are slightly better than the percentages of employees  without disabilities who left within the same amount of time as shown in  figure 5. Across the federal government, of the more than 1.28 million  persons without disabilities hired during the 2011 through 2017 time  period, approximately 43 percent of them stayed in the federal  government for less than 1 year and approximately 60 percent of them  stayed for less than 2 years.

The data shown in figures 4 and 5 taken in context together provide an  aggregate overview of government-wide hiring and retention trends of  individuals with disabilities in comparison to hiring and retention trends of  individuals without disabilities. We found the trends to be generally  consistent between the employee groups during this time period, with the  largest percentage of hires staying less than 1 year. These departures  may be explained, in part, by the proportion of employees hired into  temporary positions who therefore were not necessarily expected to stay  on the job for a longer duration, or by employees who did not meet  performance standards.

To pinpoint the root causes behind these departure rates and to  determine where appropriate improvements and potential solutions may  be warranted, targeted data collection, tracking, and analysis is needed.  Moreover, the loss of such a substantial percentage of new hires within  their first 2 years of employment provides an opportunity for the federal  government to examine why this occurs, identify any lessons learned, and  better target its retention efforts as appropriate to potentially reduce such  early departures. Further, these retention trends have implications related  to agencies’ ability to meet and sustain progress toward the federal goals  of ensuring that at least 12 percent of their workforce is comprised of  employees with disabilities including 2 percent comprised of employees  with targeted disabilities.

In addition, we analyzed the number of persons with disabilities hired into  each occupational category as identified in OPM’s EHRI database for  fiscal years 2011 through 2015. The categories are administrative, blue  collar, clerical, professional, technical, and other. Within each category,  we identified the number of employees who remained in those positions  for at least 2 years.

Our analysis summarized in table 3 shows the highest retention rates for  employees with disabilities and employees with targeted disabilities  occurred in three categories: administrative, blue collar, and professional.  For example, in the professional occupational category, the retention  rates were approximately 48 and 43 percent for employees with  disabilities and targeted disabilities, respectively—which were the highest  levels of retention for persons with disabilities and targeted disabilities in  any occupational category. However, the number of persons with  disabilities hired into this category is considerably lower than that of non- disabled hires into the same category. Specifically, approximately 13  percent of persons with disabilities and approximately 11 percent of  persons with targeted disabilities were hired into the professional  occupational category. In contrast, as shown in table 3, 23 percent of  persons with no disability were hired into this same occupational category  and retained at a similar rate.

Our analysis by GS level in table 4 shows that retention rates increase  with GS level, regardless of disability, with retention rates being slighlty  higher for persons without disabilities for the top three GS levels.  Moreover, persons with disabilities and targeted disabilities were more  likely to be hired at the lowest three GS levels, with one exception.  Persons with disabilities fared equally or relatively well in GS-11 and  above categories compared to persons without disabilities or with  targeted disabilities.

OPM Does Not Track Retention Data on Employees with Disabilities

OPM does not routinely track or report retention data on employees with  disabilities, which could help inform both agency-specific and  government-wide assessments of how the federal government is  performing with retaining the employees it hires. OPM officials said OPM  has the ability to track the retention of all employees in the federal  government and can do so for any specific category of employees on an  as needed basis or upon request. For example, in 2015, OPM started  reporting new hire retention data on employees who are veterans by  including this information in its annual report on the employment of  veterans in the federal government. This report also includes hiring data  on disabled veterans. However, there is no similar OPM tracking or  reporting of retention data for all individuals with disabilities including  targeted disabilities.

The federal regulations, executive order and management directive  discussed earlier in this report all include statements about the  importance of retaining individuals with disabilities in the federal  government. For example, Executive Order 13548 stated that agencies  must improve their efforts to employ workers with disabilities through  increased recruitment, hiring, and retention of these individuals. Further, it  stated that OPM, in consultation with Labor and EEOC, shall identify and  assist agencies in implementing strategies for retaining federal workers  with disabilities in federal employment. Federal regulations state that  agencies shall give full consideration to the retention of qualified  individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce. EEOC’s MD 715  requires agencies to conduct an internal review and analysis of the  effects of their current and proposed policies, practices, procedures and  conditions that relate to the employment—including retention—of  individuals with disabilities.

Making use of the agency-specific data OPM already gathers in its EHRI  database complemented with the retention information agencies report in  their annual MD 715 submissions would help to facilitate more  comprehensive analyses of the retention of employees with disabilities  across the federal government. Such analyses could provide a fuller  picture of how the federal government is performing with retaining the  employees it hires, help identify common agency experiences—both  successes and challenges—and assist in pinpointing the root causes that  contribute to retention rates of employees with disabilities in the federal  workforce. Making retention data available to federal agencies for such  use is also consistent with a federal internal control standard that states  that management is to obtain relevant data from reliable internal and  external sources in a timely manner so that they can be used for effective  monitoring.

Without routinely tracking and analyzing data on how long employees  with disabilities remain employed in their agencies, federal managers are  limited in their ability to assess the performance and effectiveness of the  hiring and retention efforts put in place at their agencies. In addition,  agencies are missing opportunities to leverage such information to help  inform their own internal reviews and analysis of progress in meeting the  goals included in federal regulations that at least 12 percent of their  workforce be comprised of employees with disabilities including 2 percent  comprised of employees with targeted disabilities.

Selected Agencies Used Various Practices to Increase Hiring but Opportunities Exist to Examine the Impact of Schedule A Hiring Authority and Enhance Reasonable Accommodation Programs

The three agencies we selected as case illustrations generally  experienced increases in the percentage of employees hired with  disabilities and targeted disabilities. Table 5 shows the percentage of  employees hired by each agency in fiscal years 2011, 2015, and 2017.  We chose to present these years of data to mark the first and last years  of the 5-year period specified in Executive Order 13548 and to also show  the most recent data available at the time of our review. For our analysis  of individual agency-level hiring data, we included transfers in cases  where employees transferred into an agency because we considered that  to be a new hire at the individual agency level.

Similar to the government-wide retention analysis described earlier, we  also examined retention data at DOJ, SBA, and SSA. Of the employees  with disabilities hired at DOJ and SSA from 2011 through 2017,  approximately 31 percent and 33 percent, respectively, stayed in the  federal government for less than 1 year. Approximately 53 percent and 51  percent, respectively, stayed for less than 2 years. These retention rates  were slightly better than government-wide rates. In contrast,  approximately 65 percent of employees with disabilities hired at SBA  during that time period stayed for less than 1 year and approximately an  additional 9 percent stayed for less than 2 years of employment.

These departures may be explained, in part, by the proportion of  employees hired into temporary positions who therefore were not  necessarily expected to stay on the job for a longer duration. For  example, SBA staff said that, on average, 45 percent of SBA’s workforce  is comprised of temporary employees hired by the agency’s Office of  Disaster Assistance during a disaster. As such, SBA expects turnover  among those hires, including employees with disabilities.

Similar to our analysis of government-wide retention rates by GS level  and by occupational category, we identified the number of individuals  hired at each of the three selected agencies during fiscal years 2011  through 2015 who stayed for at least 2 years. We found that generally  across the three agencies, employees with disabilities were retained  longer at the higher GS levels. As the GS levels increased, individuals  without disabilities retained their jobs at a slightly higher rate than  individuals with disabilities. Our analysis of occupational categories found  that, in general, the three agencies each retained people with disabilities  at lower rates than people without disabilities. More detailed hiring and  retention data for each of the three agencies are included in appendix I.

Selected Agencies Collaborated and Shared Information to Aid Recruitment and Hiring of Individuals with Disabilities

To aid recruitment and employment opportunities for individuals with  disabilities, the three agencies we interviewed reported using (1)  collaboration with other federal agencies for knowledge and information  sharing and (2) coordination with employee resource and advisory  groups. The following examples are illustrations of practices that selected  agencies implemented. We did not assess the effectiveness or attempt to  quantify the costs or benefits of the practices.

Two agencies provided examples of their collaboration with other federal  agencies for knowledge and information sharing. For example, DOJ  officials told us that staff from their agency’s Criminal Division participated  in an OPM effort using a “Resume Mining” feature in the USAJOBS  Agency Talent Portal, in which the division’s human resources specialists  searched through active resumes and filtered the searches based upon  candidates who were eligible to be hired non-competitively under the  Schedule A hiring authority.

According to SBA officials, they used the Workforce Recruitment  Program—a resource managed through Labor to help federal hiring  managers connect with qualified candidates with disabilities for all jobs.  SBA also retains a repository of resumes for individuals with disabilities to  share with hiring managers. In 2015, to assist hearing impaired  candidates and in a joint effort with the Federal Communications  Commission, SBA hired staff fluent in American Sign Language (ASL) to  provide video relay services directly to the deaf and hard-of-hearing  communities. As a result, SBA officials told us SBA’s ASL customer  support staff is able to communicate with and assist hearing-impaired job  candidates. SBA also developed a National Strategic Recruitment Plan,  which highlights Labor’s Workforce Recruitment Program for College  Students with Disabilities. SBA officials said this plan has served as a  successful tool for recruitment and hiring managers within their agency.

Two of the three selected agencies we reviewed, DOJ and SSA, have  disability employee resource or advisory groups made up of employees  and management. These groups are generally made up of a variety of  representatives from across the agency, including human resources  professionals, hiring managers, recruitment coordinators, and employees  with disabilities. The purpose of these groups includes helping to identify  policies and procedures that support a positive work environment for  people with disabilities. For example, DOJ’s Attorney General’s Advisory  Committee for People with Disabilities (AGCPD) meets quarterly and  works with DOJ management on disability employment issues.

AGCPD advisory members told us one of their most significant  contributions has been assisting with developing an agency-wide policy to  help increase the use of the Schedule A hiring authority between 2010  and 2012. As a result, the number of individuals with disabilities hired at  DOJ increased, according to AGCPD members. However, they said the  agency has been unable to sustain those numbers in recent years. DOJ  staff said this may also be attributed, in part, to a hiring freeze across  DOJ at the time that affected all hires. AGCPD members also told us they  routinely review DOJ’s disability hiring and retention percentages to  monitor agency progress on this issue.

According to SSA officials, SSA’s employee advisory group, the National  Advisory Council of Employees with Disabilities (NACED), advises the  agency regarding reasonable accommodations, recruiting, and creating  pathways for promotions and retention of employees with disabilities.  SSA’s management was involved in establishing guidelines for the  advisory group to operate within the agency. NACED has a senior  executive service member who serves as the council’s liaison with SSA  senior management. NACED assisted in the creation of mandatory  agency training for managers and employees at SSA on disability  awareness and sensitivity. The group also assisted the agency in  producing a video that features SSA employees with disabilities and is  available on SSA’s intranet website. In addition, the advisory group  assisted the agency to ensure SSA’s systems are compliant with assistive  technology.

In addition, according to SSA officials, the agency has placed designated  Selective Placement Program Coordinator (SPPC) points of contact in  each of its regional offices to support disability recruitment and hiring  efforts. SSA officials told us the role of their SPPC has been  instrumental in building coalitions and networks with their internal and  external stakeholders, including connecting SSA’s human resources,  equal employment opportunity (EEO), and employee affinity groups. SSA  officials said these essential connections enable their agency to acquire  the information needed to make informed disability employment and  general EEO program and policy decisions.

Selected Agencies Provided Schedule A Training but Do Not Measure Its Impact

As noted earlier, federal statutes and regulations provide special hiring  authorities for people with disabilities, which includes Schedule A hiring  authority. Agencies are not required to use Schedule A authority and can  choose to use the traditional competitive process to fill job vacancies.  However, Executive Order 13548 called for increased utilization of the  federal government’s Schedule A excepted service hiring authority for  persons with disabilities, as appropriate.

Consistent with federal emphasis on the use of Schedule A, all three  selected agencies reported to us that they provide training on Schedule A  hiring authority to their hiring managers and human resources  professionals. For example:

According to SBA officials, the agency provides supervisory training to  all hiring managers and supervisors to emphasize Schedule A hiring  authority, among other hiring flexibilities.

SSA officials told us their agency holds annual mandatory training for  managers and human resource specialists on special hiring  authorities that apply to individuals with disabilities, including  Schedule A, and reasonable accommodations. SSA also provides a  manual to its managers focused specifically on recruitment,  interviewing, and hiring related to Schedule A authority.

DOJ officials told us their agency participated in ongoing training and  other initiatives designed to increase the use and understanding of  Schedule A.

Nevertheless, the agencies we spoke with reported that some hiring  managers and human resources staff are unfamiliar with or unsure of how  to use the Schedule A hiring authority. Consequently, the agencies have  found that there is a continual need to increase hiring managers’  awareness of Schedule A and to educate both managers and human  resource personnel on the use of the hiring authority. For example:

SBA officials said their managers often have questions about what  Schedule A is and how to use it in the hiring process.

SSA officials said they continue to receive questions about the hiring  authority from their newer managers, which they address on a case- by-case basis.

Similarly, the key leadership agencies underscored this as an issue  they have seen government-wide in their experience. For example,  EEOC staff said because hiring managers change frequently,  information and the use of the Schedule A hiring authority may be a  topic that was not part of their previous work experiences or portfolios.  EEOC officials said that all managers could benefit from more training  to understand how and when it is permissible to use the special  authority to hire individuals with disabilities.

To help address issues around the use of Schedule A, officials from the  key leadership agencies emphasized the importance of federal agencies  having designated staff familiar with disability issues, such as an SPPC,  in which a part of his or her job responsibilities is to help educate and  train the workplace on disability issues such as the use and benefits of  the Schedule A hiring authority. Consistent with this guidance, two of the  three agencies use SPPCs to provide guidance and, in one case, provide  training. For example:

SBA’s SPPCs frequently provide guidance on the option to utilize the  Schedule A hiring authority prior to opening a competitive job  announcement on USAJOBS.

SSA has designated SPPCs in each of its regional offices. The  SPPCs provided guidance and training to managers on the  appointment of individuals with disabilities using the Schedule A  appointment authority. As a result, in fiscal year 2019, SSA officials  said these efforts contributed to their agency filling more than 250  positions using the Schedule A hiring authority.

Additional opportunities exist to further address issues around the use of  Schedule A. We have previously reported that training at all staff levels, in  particular training on hiring, reasonable accommodations, and diversity  awareness can help disseminate leading practices throughout an agency  and communicate expectations for implementation of policies and  procedures related to improving employment of people with disabilities.

In addition, our past work has underscored the importance of assessing  and measuring the real impact of training to determine how it contributes  to the accomplishment of agency goals and objectives. Moreover, a  leading training investment practice is to evaluate the benefits achieved  through training, such as having a formal process for evaluating  improvement in performance and tracking the impact of training on the  agency’s performance goals.

While assessing training is important, the three selected agencies said  they do not assess the impact of their training related to Schedule A. For  example, according to SBA officials, their training covers a range of hiring  flexibilities beyond Schedule A. As such, SBA officials said they are  unable to evaluate the effect of the training to specifically measure an  increased level of hiring managers’ and human resources professionals’ understanding of how and when to use Schedule A authority. SSA  officials told us that while their agency does not evaluate their training, the  agency is currently developing an evaluation module to allow employees  and managers to provide feedback on the effectiveness of their Schedule  A training. However, SSA did not provide a committed timeframe for  completion of such a module. DOJ staff said training is provided by its  various component agencies and is updated when appropriate. However,  DOJ did not provide any further details to explain the frequency, content,  or results of such evaluations.

Without evaluating the impacts of training to ensure that hiring managers  understand how and when to use the Schedule A hiring authority,  agencies may be missing opportunities to enhance awareness of and  sensitivity to disability issues and opportunities to increase the number of  employees with disabilities across the federal workforce.

Reasonable Accommodations Were Often Low Cost; Feedback on Accommodations is Not Always Collected

Federal agencies are required to provide reasonable accommodation to  qualified employees or applicants with disabilities, unless to do so would  cause undue hardship. In general, a reasonable accommodation is a  change in the work environment or in the way things are customarily done  that would enable an individual with a disability to apply for a job, perform  the duties of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment.

Officials from the three selected agencies indicated that many reasonable  accommodation provisions are low- to no cost to their agencies, often  involving minor changes to an employee’s workspace or work schedule,  or modifications to work-related technologies. For example, the most  common reasonable accommodation requests cited by each of the  agencies included: providing ergonomic adjustments or modifications to the layout of  workspaces; adjusting work schedules to allow employees with chronic medical  conditions to attend medical appointments and complete their work at  alternate times or locations; providing sign language interpreters or closed captioning at meetings making materials available in braille or large print.

In addition, according to information posted on the Office of Disability  Employment Policy website within Labor, examples of other job  accommodations that are low cost and often involve minor changes to a  person’s work environment include: physical changes, such as installing a ramp or restroom modifications; accessible and assistive technologies such as providing screen  reader software or using videophones to communicate with  employees who have impaired hearing; and policy enhancements, such as allowing service animals in the  workplace.

Federal agencies are required to post on their websites, and make  available to all applicants and employees in written and accessible  formats, procedures for reasonable accommodation. Agencies are also  required to collect specific information about each reasonable  accommodation, including whether the accommodation was granted and  the basis for any denial. All three of the selected agencies indicated in  their 2018 MD 715 reports to EEOC that their agencies have these  established procedures in place and are in compliance with EEOC  regulations and guidance.

While the three selected agencies reported they have processes in place  for receiving reasonable accommodations requests, only SSA has  procedures for obtaining employee feedback from employees after an  accommodation is provided. According to agency officials, the agency  offers employees who have requested job accommodations various  opportunities to provide feedback to agency management about their  reasonable accommodation experience. For example, SSA officials said  their agency uses a dedicated email inbox and telephone number to  receive inquiries and feedback from reasonable accommodations  customers and stakeholders. Both of these are monitored daily by the  agency’s Center for Accommodations and Disability Services (CADS) to  ensure emails and calls are logged and tracked. Additionally, according to  agency officials, if an employee prefers to contact the reasonable  accommodations office anonymously, employees can complete the  anonymous Process Improvement Comments Survey to submit concerns,  comments, or recommendations for reasonable accommodations process  improvement.

To address issues and concerns received through any of these means,  CADS staff reach out to the relevant managers, as appropriate, and only  share information on a need-to-know basis, or as otherwise required by  applicable law. According to SSA officials, SSA’s policy also requires that  managers or CADS staff confirm with the employee that a job  accommodation was received and is effective prior to closing the request  in the agency database. Finally, SSA’s policy requires supervisors to  continually engage in this interactive process to ensure the continued  effectiveness of job accommodations.

In contrast, DOJ and SBA officials reported that their agencies do not  have any specific procedures in place to solicit ongoing employee  feedback from employees who request reasonable accommodations.  Staff from both agencies said that communication between the supervisor  and individual needing a reasonable accommodation is encouraged. In  general, if an afforded accommodation is ineffective or needs  modification, the employee and supervisor are responsible for contacting  the appropriate disability employment program manager to address the  issue.

Federal agencies are not explicitly required to obtain feedback from  employees about the effectiveness of their job accommodations  experience. However, EEOC policy guidance states that agencies should  keep cumulative records for at least 3 years to track their performance  with regard to providing reasonable accommodations to employees.  Tracking performance over a 3-year period is critical to an agency’s ability  to assess whether it has adequately processed and provided reasonable  accommodations, according to EEOC guidance. Agencies are  encouraged to use this tracking information to evaluate whether and  where they need to improve their handling of reasonable accommodation  requests. In addition, this type of monitoring is consistent with federal  internal control standards. Specifically, the standard calls for ongoing  monitoring to be built into the entity’s operations, performed continually,  and responsive to change.

Without periodically soliciting, obtaining, and documenting employee  feedback on agencies’ reasonable accommodations efforts, management  is missing opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs,  identify potential risks, and identify any improvements that may be  warranted. For example, such information could provide valuable insights  about the timeliness of processing and fulfilling employees’ requests and  the ongoing effectiveness of an accommodation. In some cases, an  accommodation may no longer be effective for an employee for various  reasons such as if the employee’s limitations change, workplace  equipment changes, job responsibilities change, or the accommodation  involves equipment or software that requires maintenance or updates.

EEOC, OPM, and Labor Have Coordinated Roles to Assist Agencies

EEOC, OPM, and Labor took various actions during the course of the 5- year period specified under the executive order for meeting the  government-wide hiring goal and have continued their efforts. For  example, the agencies began to meet quarterly immediately after the  executive order was signed to establish collaborative actions they could  take to increase disability hiring and retention measures and to discuss  best practices focused on hiring and retaining individuals with disabilities.

Officials from OPM, EEOC, and Labor continue to meet quarterly as  participants in an interagency working group called the Federal Exchange  on Employment and Disability (FEED). FEED meetings cover a broad  range of federal disability topics, including sharing best practices and  establishing collaborative partnerships designed to make the federal  government a model employer of people with disabilities. For example, at  one FEED meeting, OPM announced a new resource to help address  some common questions OPM receives about Schedule A. At another  FEED meeting, OPM and EEOC officials discussed possible strategies  agencies can consider when they are planning to re-survey their agencies  through the Standard Form 256, Self-Identification of Disability (SF-256),  such as initiating the re-survey campaign during Disability Awareness  Month when there is increased attention on disability issues.

OPM assisted agencies with disability hiring plans and authorities  and compiled government-wide data. Under EO 13548, OPM was  required to implement a system for reporting regularly to the President,  heads of agencies, and the public on agencies’ progress in implementing  their disability hiring plans and meeting the objectives of the executive  order. In May 2012, we reported on OPM’s progress in reviewing  agencies’ hiring plans and found that many plans had deficiencies that  needed to be addressed. For example, not all plans identified a senior- level official responsible for development and implementation of the plan.  We recommended that OPM incorporate information about such  deficiencies in its external reporting. OPM did so, and also worked with  agencies to correct any plan deficiencies by November 2012.

In 2016, OPM issued its capping report announcing the success of the  government’s effort, which included a summary of the initiatives taken to  improve agency coordination, education, and training accompanied by a  series of tables showing the composition of disability hires across the  federal workforce. OPM also continues to collect government-wide  disability data, which is available to agencies through the MAX.gov web  portal, and provides assistance to agencies upon request.

In October 2018, the Director of OPM issued a joint memorandum with  the Chair of EEOC to the Chief Human Capital Officers Council regarding  updates to the SF-256 to reflect changes to terms used to describe  targeted disabilities, serious health conditions, and other disabilities. As  discussed in an earlier section of this report, individuals use this form to  voluntarily self- identify a disability, and OPM uses the information  provided through this form for data collection purposes only. The revised  form includes simplified condition descriptions and provides respondents  with the option of identifying if they have a targeted disability, disability, or  serious condition without specifying a diagnosis.

SF-256 continues to be the primary tool for measuring the workforce  participation of persons with disabilities in the federal government. The  joint memorandum reminded agencies that OPM and EEOC are available  to assist agencies in their efforts to help employees self-identify as people  with disabilities and people with targeted disabilities, as appropriate.

EEOC collects information through MD 715, issued regulations, and  provides technical assistance. EEOC’s ongoing data and information  collection efforts under MD 715 require agencies to report annually on the  status of their equal employment opportunity programs. This includes  agency-specific self-assessments of the extent to which they are meeting  their responsibilities to provide employment opportunities for qualified  applicants and employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities. If  agencies identify any barriers to the equal employment of persons with  disabilities, they must work to eliminate the barrier.

EEOC’s MD 715 annual reporting requirement included under Part J  captures agencies’ descriptions of how their affirmative action efforts  improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of applicants  and employees with disabilities. According to EEOC’s guidance to  agencies, Part J is to assist agencies in meeting the requirements for an  affirmative action plan. Specifically, Part J requires agencies to examine  employment trends and participation rates of persons with reported and  targeted disabilities in agency programs.

In 2017, Part J was revised and now solicits agency information about  voluntary and involuntary separations of employees with disabilities. For  example, agencies are to confirm whether voluntary and involuntary  separations occurred at a rate exceeding that of employees without  disabilities. Agencies are required to complete Part J and, for  transparency purposes, post their affirmative action plans on their  external websites. The importance of this type of information is  underscored by the analysis summarized in an earlier section of this  report showing that approximately 60 percent of persons with disabilities  hired into the federal government during 2011 through 2017 stayed for  less than 2 years of service. Also as noted earlier, opportunities exist to  enhance collection and analysis of retention data and learn about what  factors contribute to retention rates of employees with disabilities in the  federal government.

EEOC provides various types of support to agencies to help them  implement requirements of the revised regulations on affirmative action  for individuals with disabilities. For example, EEOC officials said they  visited all agencies to provide guidance and technical assistance with  their hiring plans. EEOC continues to provide ongoing feedback to  agencies, both formally and informally, and visits agencies on a 3-year  rotation cycle. As part of EEOC’s outreach, agency representatives  provide presentations to, and participate in meetings with, federal  employees and employers.

The agency’s website also includes a list of outreach coordinator contacts  for each of its field offices. EEOC’s Training Institute provides a variety of  training programs specialized for the federal sector, including courses on  disability issues and MD 715 barrier analysis, as well as customized  training throughout the year to meet particular agencies’ needs. EEOC’s  federal training courses can be delivered on site or virtually.

Labor provides tools, resources, education, and training to agency  managers. Labor has implemented and supported a number of initiatives  aimed at enhancing the federal sector’s performance on disability  employment. For example, Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy  supports the Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability  Inclusion (EARN), which is a federal resource that provides education,  training, tools, and resources for managers on the hiring, retention, and  advancement of persons with disabilities.

In 2018, EARN issued a federal framework—in partnership with EEOC  and OPM—which outlined various employment strategies and practices  for agencies to consider and incorporate into their own efforts related to  disability inclusion in the workforce. In addition, Labor leads an  interagency working group known as the Federal Exchange on  Employment and Disability, which is comprised of federal staff across  government with roles in developing, implementing and managing  disability employment programs to foster cross-agency collaboration and  share best practices.

The agency also developed a toolkit for Federal Agencies on Hiring  People with Disabilities outlining a five-step process and related  resources to assist federal agencies in their efforts to increase the  employment of people with disabilities. Another effort supported by Labor  provides more targeted technical assistance and free consulting services  on workplace accommodations through the Job Accommodations  Network. To increase the recruitment of persons with disabilities, Labor  also plays a lead role in the Workforce Recruitment Program for College  Students with Disabilities, which is a recruitment, and referral program  that connects federal and private sector employers nationwide with  college students and recent graduates with disabilities for summer or  permanent employment. Labor has also developed and provided  assistance on various trainings for federal hiring managers and human  resources professionals, including an OPM course titled, “A Roadmap to  Success: Hiring, Retaining and Including People with Disabilities.”

In its effort to become a model employer, the federal government  increased employment opportunities for persons with disabilities; provided  specific direction and guidance to agencies through various executive  orders, management directives, and regulations; and exceeded its goal to  hire an additional 100,000 individuals with disabilities.

However, OPM does not routinely track or report retention data, which  could help pinpoint the root causes behind disabled employee departure  rates. Making use of the agency-specific data OPM already gathers in its  EHRI database complemented with the retention information agencies  report to EEOC would allow for more comprehensive retention analyses  of employees with disabilities across the federal government. Such  analyses would provide a fuller picture of how the federal government is  performing with retaining the employees it hires and help to identify  common agency experiences, both success and challenges. Without  comprehensive analyses of retention data, the federal government is  limited in its ability to assess the performance and results of the hiring  and retention efforts for this segment of the workforce.

Selected agencies implemented a number of practices that helped bolster  their recruitment and hiring of persons with disabilities, including  collaborating with other federal agencies for knowledge and information  sharing, coordinating efforts with employee resource or advisory groups,  and providing additional training for hiring managers and human  resources staff on using Schedule A hiring authority—one of the  commonly used hiring flexibilities available to agencies to onboard  qualified individuals with disabilities.

However, the selected agencies do not assess or measure the impact of  their Schedule A training to determine how it contributes to the  accomplishment of federal goals to increase the number of employees  with disabilities across the federal workforce. In addition, opportunities  exist to enhance the effectiveness of selected agencies’ reasonable  accommodations programs by obtaining employee feedback from  employees about their job accommodations experience.

OPM, EEOC, and Labor have worked collaboratively to assist agencies  with enhancing their recruitment and hiring efforts. They compiled  government-wide data, issued guidance and regulations to clarify  agencies’ responsibilities and obligations to strengthening employment  opportunities for disabled persons, and provided various resources,  education, and training.

We are making the following recommendation to OPM:  The Director of OPM should routinely track and report retention data for  employees with disabilities and make such data available to federal  agencies, including EEOC, through a centralized web portal—such as  MAX.gov. For example, OPM could track and report such data by  General Schedule level pay groupings, which could help pinpoint root  causes that contribute to retention rates, inform assessments of  government-wide progress on employee retention, and identify needed  improvements. (Recommendation 1)

We are making the following recommendations to DOJ:  The Attorney General of the United States should develop and implement  policies and procedures for assessing the impact of training provided to  agency hiring managers and human resources staff on Schedule A hiring  authority. This includes assessing the impact of its training on agency  performance goals related to increased hiring of individuals with  disabilities and targeted disabilities. (Recommendation 2)

The Attorney General of the United States should develop and implement  policies and procedures for obtaining employee feedback about the  agency’s reasonable accommodations efforts and use such information to  evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of the program. This may include  identifying any effects on employee retention, identifying potential risks,  and determining any improvements that may be warranted.  (Recommendation 3)

We are making the following recommendations to SBA:  The Administrator of SBA should develop and implement policies and  procedures for assessing and tracking the impact of training provided to  agency hiring managers and human resources staff on Schedule A hiring  authority. This includes assessing the impact of its training on agency  performance goals related to increased hiring of individuals with  disabilities and targeted disabilities. (Recommendation 4)

The Administrator of SBA should develop and implement policies and  procedures for obtaining employee feedback about the agency’s  reasonable accommodations efforts and use such information to evaluate  the ongoing effectiveness of the program. This may include identifying  any effects on employee retention, identifying potential risks, and  determining any improvements that may be warranted. (Recommendation  5)

We are making the following recommendation to SSA:  The Commissioner of SSA should develop and implement policies and  procedures for assessing and tracking the impact of training provided to  agency hiring managers and human resources staff on Schedule A hiring  authority. This includes assessing the impact of its training on agency  performance goals related to increased hiring of individuals with  disabilities and targeted disabilities. (Recommendation 6)

We provided a draft of the report to OPM, EEOC, Labor, OMB, DOJ,  SBA, and SSA for review and comment. We received written comments  from 3 agencies—OPM, SBA, and SSA—that are reprinted in appendices  II through IV and summarized below. EEOC informed us that they had no  comments. Labor and DOJ provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not provide comments on the draft.

OPM concurred with our recommendation to routinely track and report  retention data for employees with disabilities and make such data  available to federal agencies. OPM stated that it already routinely tracks  retention data for persons with disabilities by agency. In addition, OPM  responded that retention data for employees with disabilities by agency  and GS level pay groupings for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 can be  obtained by federal agencies through the MAX.gov website. However,  OPM did not provide any supporting documentary evidence or further  details to explain its tracking efforts or which data are available to federal  agencies.

SBA disagreed with the retention data we present in figure 8, showing  that approximately 65 percent of employees with disabilities hired at SBA  between 2011 through 2017 stayed less than one year. In its written  comments, SBA stated that under hiring authorities it uses in responding  to disasters, appointments are generally not to exceed one year. As  indicated in our report, we acknowledge that each of our retention  analyses include full-time permanent hires and part-time or temporary  hires. We also include a specific statement regarding temporary hires at  SBA’s Office of Disaster Assistance.

SBA concurred with our recommendation to assess and track the impact  of training provided to agency hiring managers and human resources staff  on Schedule A hiring authority. SBA responded that it will formally  evaluate the impact of training to ensure hiring managers understand the  use of Schedule A hiring authority and assess hiring trends and retention.

SBA partially concurred with our recommendation to obtain employee  feedback about its reasonable accommodation efforts. SBA stated that its  procedures require supervisors to contact the Disability Employment  Program Manager with concerns about the effectiveness of a provided  accommodation and work together to make any necessary adjustment.  SBA further stated that the procedures have been revised and will include  a requirement for completing a feedback survey aimed to determine the  effectiveness of the reasonable accommodation program and make any  adjustments required. SBA stated that it also established an internal  mailbox for reasonable accommodation communications that is monitored  daily. Effective implementation of SBA’s plans, including administering a  survey, would meet the intent of the recommendation.

SSA concurred with our recommendation to assess and track the impact  of training provided to agency hiring managers and human resources staff  on Schedule A hiring authority. SSA stated that it is revising its framework  to include outcome-based evaluations for training related to the  employment and support of individuals with disabilities, including  Schedule A hiring.

DOJ did not agree or disagree with the recommendations.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Director of OPM, the Chair of EEOC, the Secretary of  Labor, the Director of OMB, the Attorney General of DOJ, the  Administrator of SBA, and the Commissioner of SSA. In addition, the  report is 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) 512-6806 or JonesY@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Hiring and Retention Data of Selected Agencies

As part of our review, we selected three agencies as case illustrations to  examine practices they have adopted to increase hiring and retention of  individuals with disabilities. The three selected agencies are the  Department of Justice (DOJ), the Social Security Administration (SSA),  and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Our selection was based  on various factors including the agency’s size in terms of total full-time  employees and average percentage of total employees with reported  disabilities or targeted disabilities during 2011 through 2017. For each of  the three agencies, we analyzed personnel data captured in the Office of  Personnel Management’s (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources  Integration (EHRI) database including the General Schedule (GS) levels  in which individuals with disabilities were placed and their position  classifications. The following figures and tables summarize our analyses  of hiring and retention rates of individuals with and without disabilities in  the three selected agencies during fiscal years 2011 through 2017.

These analyses provide an aggregate overview of hiring and retention  trends of individuals with disabilities at the three selected agencies as  compared to hiring and retention trends of individuals without disabilities  at these agencies. We found the trends to be generally consistent  between the employee groups.

During the 2011 through 2017 time period we examined, 31 percent of  the total number of persons with disabilities hired at DOJ during that time  stayed in the federal government for less than 1 year and nearly 54  percent of them stayed for less than 2 years, as shown in figure 6.

During that same time period, approximately 24 percent of the total  number of persons without disabilities who were hired stayed for less than  1 year of service while approximately 46 percent of hires stayed for less  than 2 years of service, as shown in figure 7.

The data shown in figures 6 and 7 taken in context together indicate that  retention at DOJ during this time period was generally consistent for  persons both with and without disabilities. These departures may be  explained, in part, by the proportion of employees hired into temporary  positions who therefore were not necessarily expected to stay on the job  for a longer duration, or by employees who did not meet performance  standards.

Tables 6 and 7 show the results of our analysis of employee retention at  DOJ by occupational category and GS level for individuals hired in fiscal  years 2011 through 2015 and stayed for at least 2 years.

During the 2011 through 2017 time period we examined, approximately  65 percent of the total number of persons with disabilities hired at SBA  during that time stayed in the federal government for less than 1 year, as  shown in figure 8.

During that same time period, approximately 55 percent of the total  number of persons without disabilities that were hired at SBA stayed for  less than 1 year of service, as shown in figure 9.

The data shown in Figures 8 and 9 taken in context together indicate that  retention at SBA during this time period was generally consistent for  persons both with and without disabilities. These departures may be  explained, in part, by the proportion of employees hired into temporary  positions who therefore were not necessarily expected to stay on the job  for a longer duration, or by employees who did not meet performance  standards. For example, SBA staff said that on average, 45 percent of  SBA’s workforce is comprised of temporary employees hired by the  agency’s Office of Disaster Assistance during a disaster. As such, SBA  expects turnover among those hires, including employees with  disabilities.

Tables 8 and 9 show the results of our analysis of employee retention at  SBA by occupational category and GS level for individuals hired in fiscal  years 2011 through 2015 and stayed for at least 2 years.

During the 2011 through 2017 time period we examined, approximately  33 percent of the total number of persons with disabilities hired at SSA  during that time stayed in the federal government for less than 1 year, as  shown in figure 10.

During that same time period, approximately 25 percent of the total  number of persons without disabilities that were hired at SSA stayed for  less than 1 year of service, as shown in figure 11.

The data shown in figures 10 and 11 taken in context together indicate  that retention at SSA during this time period was generally consistent for  persons both with and without disabilities. These departures may be  explained, in part, by the proportion of employees hired into temporary  positions who therefore were not necessarily expected to stay on the job  for a longer duration, or by employees who did not meet performance  standards.

Tables 10 and 11 show the results of our analysis of employee retention  at SSA by occupational category and GS level for individuals hired in  fiscal years 2011 through 2015 and stayed for at least 2 years.

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Appendix III: Comments from the Small Business Administration

Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration

Appendix V: GAO Staff Contact and Staff Acknowledgements

Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-6806 or JonesY@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Leah Querimit Nash (Assistant  Director), Arpita Chattopadhyay, Anthony Patterson, and Erik Shive made  key contributions to this report. In addition, Michael Bechetti, Elizabeth  Curda, Karin Fangman, Rob Gebhart, Michele Grgich, Amalia Konstas,  Serena Lo, Art Merriam, and Sharon Miller made contributions to this  report.

We looked at federal agencies’ efforts to hire and retain individuals with disabilities.

Agencies hired about 143,600 persons with disabilities from 2011-2015—exceeding the federal target of 100,000. Agencies made an additional 79,600 hires in 2016 and 2017.

About 39% of those with disabilities hired in 2011-2017 stayed less than a year, compared to about 43% of those without disabilities. About 60% of hires—both those with and without disabilities—stayed less than 2 years.

We made 6 recommendations, including that the Office of Personnel Management track and report retention data of employees with disabilities to help determine why they leave.