the Seattle and Denver regions, to increase Federal employment of Indians.68 Since BIA is authorized to give preference to Indians in employment, that agency is being encouraged to serve as an entry vehicle for Indians who can subsequently move more readily into jobs with other Federal agencies.69 BIA in cooperation with CSC has also begun giving examinations directly on reservations to reach more potential employees.

A

(C) Disadvantaged Alaskan Natives. program, designed for "disadvantaged" Alaskans, provides preemployment training for about 200 native Alaskans each year. In 1967, when the program was launched, only 1,400 natives [Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos] were among the 13,700 Federal employees in the State. Currently, 1,505 natives of approximately 12,751 full-time Federal civilian employees hold positions. In 1969, BIA conducted recruitment for the program and provided transportation, housing for entire families, and a small stipend for 206 trainees. Currently,. 76 of these are employed. BIA hopes to attain 200 placements this year.70

(D) Project Value. In 1968, another coordinated Federal effort, involving the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Defense, and Department of Labor, produced Project Value. Under the program, DOD agreed to employ up to 5,625 disadvantaged youths following a 9-month training program under Neighborhood Youth Corps auspices.

The project has operated in 44 CEP areas and enrolled nearly 4,800 trainees. More than 2,800 are currently employed or are still in training. Racial data have not been kept but,

70

In addition, as part of a joint Federal effort, the Defense Department, the largest Federal employer in Alaska, has undertaken Project Hire, a program to hire 200 natives each year for Manpower Development and Training Act on-the-job training. CSC has been instrumental in developing the program-qualifying candidates through the Worker-Trainee Examination (nonwritten) and providing a basis for exempting the trainee from the usual personnel ceilings. Although employees enter at the lowest levels, the training provided is designed to lead to higher paying jobs.

according to CSC, the program has been "substantially" nonwhite."1

(E) Outreach Programs. CSC provides leadership in a variety of summer, part-time, and temporary employment programs. Under these programs, racial data are not maintained, but CSC officials contend that the majority of persons involved, especially in the summer and youth opportunity programs, are from minority groups."2 The 1968 Revenue and Expenditure Control Act exempted up to 70,000 jobs from being counted under the program. Beyond that number, summer employees would have been counted in the same manner as other employees against agency personnel ceilings. Following repeal of the act, administrative controls remained. However, at the Commission's urging, these were subsequently relaxed to allow exemption of disadvantaged program employees.

c. Advancement and Upgrading

As noted earlier, one of the greatest problems in the Government's equal employment opportunity program lies in the disproportionate concentration of blacks and Spanish Americans at the lowest echelons of Federal employment. The true measure of the equal employment opportunity program's effectiveness is its ability to produce a representative number of minority group members at all grade levels in all agencies and in all regions of the country. By these criteria, the Federal equal employment opportunity effort cannot yet be considered a success.73

" Poole interview, supra note 47.

72 At least one CSC official, who did not wish to be quoted, stated, and others have intimated, that maintenance of racial data would give critics of some of these outreach programs a basis for complaining about "reverse discrimination."

"In response to this problem, the Civil Service Commission has issued comprehensive guidelines for a broad-band program of upward mobility for lower level employees. The new upward mobility instructions call for:

Career systems to increase opportunities for advancement, utilization, training, and education. Career development plans for lower grade employees.

Career counseling and guidance.

Education and training opportunities.

Personnel procedures to assist upward mobility. Occupational analysis, job redesign, and job restructuring.

(1) Merit Promotion Program

Although the Civil Service Act of 1883 gave the Civil Service Commission responsibility for establishing basic requirements for promotions to all positions in the competitive service, it was not until 1959 that a Government-wide Merit Promotion Policy was instituted." The 1959 Government-wide merit policy: (1) provided that agencies adopt systematic procedures to insure that merit principles were observed in making promotions in competitive service; (2) required agency heads to develop and publish promotion guidelines and merit promotion plans; and (3) established general principles and procedures under which agency promotion programs were to operate.

There were several weaknesses in the original policy 75 and in September 1966, a CSC task force was formed to consider revisions in the merit promotion policy. In April 1967, agencies and employee organizations were asked to comment on a draft of proposed changes. At the same time the Second Annual Interagency Advsiory Group (IAG.) 76 Conference was held and, "Merit Promotion and Performance Appraisal" was the subject of one workshop at the conference.""

Based on a variety of suggestions and criticisms, a revised policy was formulated and again submitted for review to agencies, in

Qualifications standards facilitating upward mobility.

Communication of program information to employees.

"CSC Bureau of Recruiting and Examining, "Some Features of the Revised Federal Merit Promotion Policy," Nov. 1, 1968.

75 Weaknesses of the 1959 policy included: incomplete understanding and appreciation of agency promotion programs by employees and supervisors; inappropriate evaluation methods; and failure to use competitive promotion procedures for certain placement actions where they were needed to assure quality staffing.

"The Interagency Advisory Group (IAG) is a device for maintaining interagency communication under the auspices of the Civil Service Commission. Composed of approximately 60 top personnel officials from all departments and most agencies, the IAG is convened about once a month. See pp. 41-42 infra for further discussion.

terested groups, and Federal executive boards in CSC's regional office cities. On August 27, 1968, the Federal Merit Promotion Policy currently in use was promulgated.78 On November 22, 1968, the IAG Committee on Merit Promotion Policy was established to obtain agency involvement in developing plans to implement the revised policy. The committee held nine meetings during fiscal year 1969 and continues to meet regularly.79

Since that date, CSC has issued further statements, bulletins, and Federal Personnel Manual System (FPM) letters dealing with promotion policy.80 These criteria, set forth in considerable detail, cover such matters as evaluation process and methods, determination of important elements of job performance, selection of instruments for evaluating employees, arrangement of employees in order of merit, and production of guidelines for use in written tests.81

Regardless of CSC suggestions, guidelines, or directives, in the final analysis, promotion and upgrading rest with the various agencies.82 Moreover, supervisory personnel in each agency ultimately make the crucial individual

18 Bulletin No. 335-8, Changes in Merit Promotion Policies, Aug. 27, 1968. See also FPM Chapter 335, Promotion and Internal Placement, Sept. 20, 1968.

T IAG Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1969, at 15. So The most significant of these issuances is FPM Letter No. 335-4, May 2, 1969, "Evaluation of Employees for Promotion and Internal Placement," which runs to more than 50 pages, including attachments and appendix.

81 The salient features of the Revised Federal Merit Promotion Policy as set forth by CSC include:

Assuring that employees are considered for higherlevel jobs for which they are eligible and in which they are interested.

Using the most effective evaluation methods to identify highly-qualified candidates for promotion, with written tests being allowed only when approved by the Commission.

Requiring selection from among the best-qualified candidates.

Eliminating all forms of discrimination or personal favoritism.

Keeping employees fully informed about their agency's promotion program and about their own promotion opportunities.

82 For example, the individual agencies are responsible for reviewing the status of each employee in a “deadend" job with a view toward finding an avenue for further advancement or else advising the employee of the unlikelihood of future promotion.

determinations which affect promotion. No matter how precise, detailed, and equitable the criteria may be, a broad degree of agency discretion inevitably must remain. Evaluations and promotions ultimately come down to matters of subjective judgement. Personal preferences, preconceptions, and biases come into play. Recognizing the imperfect nature of merit ratings and the importance of allowing some flexibility, the revised Federal Merit Promotion Policy suggests that candidates be considered from as broad an area as "practicable" (with agencywide consideration normally for promotions to GS-14 and above), with final selection made from an "adequate number" (e.g., three to five) of the best qualified candidates. The principle of freedom to select from among the best qualified is expressly recognized.83

Aware of the implications for equal employment opportunity in promotion policies, CSC has taken steps to reduce the possibility of deliberate or inadvertent discrimination. The Merit Promotion Policy requires, for example, that all first-level supervisors be provided with "suitable initial training" (including emphasis on equal opportunity) either before assuming their new duties or as soon after as possible. Efforts are underway aimed at encouraging supervisory support of equal employment opportunity through incentive programs and through inclusion in supervisory ratings of an evaluation of performance in the area of equal employment opportunity. There is

83

84

CSC Bureau of Recruiting, and Examining, "Some Features of the Revised Federal Merit Promotion Policy," at VII, Nov. 1968.

'Mr. Hampton has stressed the vitally important role which individual supervisors play:

"The key to effective equal employment opportunity and to affirmative action to achieve this goal is the individual supervisor. He must have understanding of and sensitivity to the objective of the program and the needs and aspirations of individual employees. Training can be an effective tool in bringing this kind of understanding to him."

To achieve this end, we plan to take the following steps:

“Require each employee who becomes a supervisor in the Federal Government to participate in appropriate training courses to bring him understanding of and sensitivity to the goals of equal employment opportunity; .. Toward Equal Opportunity in Federal Employment, A Report to the President from the United States Civil Service Commission, August 1969."

...

also a civil rights component in virtually all general management and supervisory courses offered by CSC.85 Use of written examinations for promotion purposes has been sharply curtailed. Agencies are prohibited from using a written test as the sole means of ranking or evaluating employees. Moreover, CSC has numerous requirements which limit the scope and purpose of such tests. Agencies using written tests for inservice placement purposes are required to review and evaluate them periodically. CSC conducts its own review and evaluation of all such devices. Other equal employment opportunity safeguards in the promotion system lie in the right to complain, to be heard, to appeal, and finally in CSC's own inspection system. Each of these avenues is discussed later in the chapter.

(2) Executive Manpower

In no area is the disparity in minority group employment more evident than the executive supergrade level, GS-16 through GS-18. Only 87 minority group members 86 could be identified in the 5,492 supergrade positions canvassed in November 1967. Although all agencies fared poorly in this regard, some were particularly deficient. The Department of Agriculture, for example, had only two blacks and no Spanish Americans or other minority group members among 207 GS-16 through GS-18 executives. The Office of the Secretary of Defense presented an almost identical picture, with two blacks as the sole minority group representatives among 265 supergrade employees.

Government-wide figures based on the November 1969 census of minority group employees reveal only slight progress. Out of 5,319 supergrade positions, less than 100 were held by members of minority groups. An ex

85 The usual formula calls for devoting one session of each general management or supervisor's course to analysis and discussion of a case study involving discrimination. Emphasis is on preventive and remedial action.

amination of the source from which supergrades are drawn helps explain this. Only 11 percent of all supergrades enter from outside the Government. The rest are promoted from within their own agency (generally from within the same bureau) or, in 10 percent of the cases, from another Federal agency.88 In view of the miniscule number of minority group members in GS-14 and GS-15 positions, the chances for them to come up from the ranks to a supergrade opening are slight. Moreover, in selecting Federal executives, program knowledge and experience are key factors; but many among the relatively few minority group members in senior levels (GS-13 through GS-15) occupy staff rather than line positions. That is, they frequently serve in special assistant or public relations categories which carry little if any authority and tend to be outside the policy-determining, administrative positions. Thus, they are generally limited in acquiring substantive program knowledge and administrative experience.

An analysis of occupational categories comprising most GS-15 through GS-18 executive positions also is revealing. For example, medicine and engineering in the broadest senseoccupations long virtually closed to minority group members-make up nearly one-third of all such positions. More than 50 percent of Federal executive level employees hold master's degrees or doctorates. Again, the premium placed on higher educational attainment works to the disadvantage of minority group members who have been systematically deprived of equal educational opportunities for generations. Other characteristics of GS-15 through GS-18 executives are long years of Federal service (two-thirds of the group have more than 20 years of Federal experience) and age level (more than 80 percent are 45 or older). These facts shed additional light on the grossly inadequate minority group representation within the upper grades.89

The crucial identification and development of potential executive talent and selection of candidates via appointment, promotion, or reassignment reside within the agencies.

CSC's role with respect to supergrade pro

CSC, Characteristics of the Federal Executive 12 (Nov. 1969).

80 * Id., at 2-3.

91

The Government Employees Training Act 90 made CSC responsible, subject to supervision and control by the President, for promotion and coordination of Government training operations.92 The act confers broad authority on CSC and the agencies to provide inservice training "for the development of skills, knowledge, and abilities which will best qualify them [Federal employees] for performance of official duties." 93 Provision is also made to a limited extent for utilization of non-Government training facilities. The number of manyears of training permitted through these facilities may not exceed 1 percent of the total number of man-years of civilian employment for such department in the same fiscal year."

90

5 U.S.C. §4101 et. seq. Supp. III, 1968. "An act to increase efficiency and economy in the Government by providing for training programs for civilian officers and employees of the Government with respect to the performance of official duties."

91 President Johnson reaffirmed and clarified CSC role and agency responsibilities for training by Executive Order 11348 (1967).

2 However, CSC is not authorized to prescribe types and methods or regulate details of intradepartmental training programs. 5 U.S.C. §4101 et. seq. Supp. III, 1968.

Nor may training be provided: (1) Solely for the purpose of obtaining an academic degree, or (2) solely for the purpose of obtaining an academic degree in order to qualify for appointment to a particular position for which such degree is a basic requirement."

With respect to funding, the act directs the Bureau of the Budget to provide for "absorption by the respective departments, from the respective applicable appropriations or funds available . . . to such extent as the Director (BOB) deems practicable, of the costs of the training programs and plans provided for by this act." 96 Under these and related restrictions the possibilities for large-scale inservice training for Federal employees are virtually precluded.

(1) Training to Upgrade Federal Employees

Between the 1958 enactment of the Government Employees Training Act and April 1967, when the Bureau of Training was established in the Civil Service Commission, little analysis or evaluation of the training activity of Federal departments and agencies had been undertaken. The training act established few reporting requirements and, although the Commission had authority to establish additional ones, it did not do so because it lacked the resources to collect and analyze the large amount of data needed to document training activity in the Federal service. Thus, neither the size of the total investment nor its impact could be approximated with any degree of certainty.

The new Bureau of Training was established to provide better coordination and promote interagency training activities. It helps agencies assess their training needs and evaluate their own program and coordinates and promotes interagency training activities. It also provides training to agencies through a nationwide network of training centers which conduct courses in executive development, general and personnel management, communications, office skills, automatic data processing,

ticipation in non-Government facilities never exceeded two-tenths of 1 percent of the total number of manyears available.

55 U.S.C. §4101 et. seq. Supp. III, 1968.

5 U.S.C. §4101 et. seq. Supp. III, 1968.

financial management, and planning, programing, and budgeting.97

During fiscal year 1968 more than 1 million Federal employees participated in at least some formal classroom training; Federal agencies listed a total of 5,605 full-time training personnel; and agencies spent nearly $31 million for interagency and non-Government training. 98

Types of training range widely in content, but most courses deal with immediate job needs and enhancement of skills required to perform the task at hand.99 Except as noted later, the equal opportunity significance of Federal training programs lies primarily in the nature and extent to which such programs aid minority group employees. Although data on training by race are not maintained, some inferences can be drawn by comparing grade levels of persons trained with grade levels of employees by race. For example, among General Schedule participants in training programs, more than half were at or above the GS-9 level; fewer than 20 percent were in grades 1-4.100 As of November 1967, only 3.1 percent of full-time employees in grades GS-9 and above were black as compared with more than 16 percent black employment in grades below GS-9.101 In addition, although GS employees comprised fewer than half the total Federal civilian work force [as of November 1967] they received nearly two-thirds of all training given during 1968.102 Negroes com"U.S. Government Organization Manual 1969–70, at 513.

98

CSC Bureau of Training, Statistical Annex to Employee Training in the Federal Service, Fiscal Year 1968 (1969) at 5 and 101.

"E.g., SEC sent teams of regulatory staff members to New York City for 3-day periods to acquire firsthand exposure to the problem of the New York Stock Exchange and its member firms; the Department of the Air Force trained its own personnel in generator maintenance which previously had been performed by nonGovernment workers; GSA provided "cross-training" for various employees in its motor equipment and communications divisions—e.g., training teletypists switchboard operators and automotive inspectors as motor pool chiefs.

as

100 A Statistical Annex to Employee Training, supra note 98, at 5.

101 U.S. CSC, Study of Minority Group Employment in the Federal Government, 1967, at 3.

102 A Statistical Annex to Employee Training, supra note 98, at 5.