Mr. HAMPTON. No, I don't think so. I think that reflects more recent entry into the category. Under the job classification system, if someone is an attorney, GS-12, they all draw the same salary. The differential would be in the amount of time that they have spent in grade in which they are entitled to within-grade increases based upon longevity and I would assume that is what is reflected there. There is, I think, a 30-percent differential.

Mr. HAWKINS. Would that not also indicate that systematically, then, minorities and women entered at a much later time—a whole class of people had the same experience and it is not useful to look only at individuals.

Mr. HAMPTON. I think it would represent more recent efforts to recruit people into those particular occupations and that they were starting at the base rate.

Mr. HAWKINS. Then, don't you think that you have to deal with it on a group basis rather than on an individual by individual basis?

Mr. HAMPTON. I don't see how we could do that, sir. If a person comes in as a Grade 12, the law states that they will stay within that grade for the required time.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am not thinking of that. I am thinking of the upward mobility concept that deals with affected classes rather than individual discrimination. The term affected class indicates that there is some kind of group discrimination does it not?

Mr. HAMPTON. I am not sure that I get the thrust of the question. Mr. HAWKINS. I am not so sure you get it either.

Mr. HAMPTON. The thing is that salary averages would reflect length of time in grade for the same grade-in other words, we have a classified system that sets up 18 different grade levels, and everyone who is in that level gets the same salaries, but if someone stays in the grade for 3 years, he would get more than someone who just entered the grade.

Mr. HAWKINS. We also included the accessions figures which indicate you are just not bringing in minorities and women as fast as white males, for example, so you couldn't possibly reach any goal within any particular grade if you are not bringing them in.

Mr. KATOR. Mr. Hawkins, let me try to respond to that. I think we are. Our accession data shows that minorities are entering the service overall at the rate of 17 or 18 percent. In terms of total numbers we have indicated the federal employment is 21 percent minority so our question is not overall numbers. The question you are raising relates to certain occupations, why there is a difference in average salary? When you have outreach programs that are bringing people in, this is bound to affect the average salary and the new people coming in may well be minorities or women who would tend to have a lower salary than those at the higher grades. I believe it represents the results of affirmative action effort to get minorities and women into these occupations. With respect to lawyers in the Federal Government 8.2 percent of all Federal Government lawyers are female and of all lawyers in the work force, according to the Department of Labor figures, only 4.7 percent female.

Mr. HAWKINS. You are saying then that when women, who in every instance, are receiving lower salaries, that this circumstance is due to their length of service, that they are recent entrants, persons recently

promoted, and in no instance have you, in reviewing the plans that have been submitted, found any differential in pay?

Mr. KATOR. I am not really saying that Mr. Chairman because I would have to look at the specific data to find out what the situation with respect to every woman is. What I am indicating is affirmative efforts will have the effect of lowering an average salary for a group at a given grade. If you are bringing new people in at Grade 9, in a particular occupation, and those new people are minorities or women, they will necessarily show an average salary that is lower for them than for persons who have been in the occupation for some time and have moved up to journeyman and senior positions.

Mr. HAMPTON. If you have a white male and you have a woman and you have a minority and hire at the entry level, you would hire them all at the same rate.

Mr. HAWKINS. I have no question about that. I think that would necessarily follow, but the results don't indicate there has been any strenuous effort to equalize these differentials and that is the thing we are concerned with and disturbed about-results. We know it isn't going to be done over night. It has been a long time and it probably will take much longer than what you are anticipating to get any type of removal of these disparities.

Mr. KATOR. I think the differential in salary between groups and among groups may well continue for some time because of the very affirmative action efforts we are making.

Mr. HAWKINS. In reading the Federal Personnel Letter 1713-22, you use this phrase, and I quote: "When used, goals should be set at the lowest practicable level in the agency." What did you mean by that particular sentence?

Mr. KATOR. That means the lowest organizational entity or unit in which it is practicable to set a goal. We don't think it makes much sense to set overall goals on an agency basis that does not have relevance to the particular situation of the organizational units that make up that agency.

Mr. HAWKINS. Don't you think that is a limiting phrase and it restricts the operation?

Mr. KATOR. No.

Mr. HAMPTON. It broadens it.

Mr. HAWKINS. Let me read the rest of it. "Goals should be set at the lowest practicable level in the agency to assure they are reasonable in terms of their relationship to hiring needs and their skills available in the recruiting areas".

I still don't know what that means. Your answer doesn't relate to that statement.

Mr. KATOR. Well

Mr. HAWKINS. If they are to be used in terms of their relationship to the hiring needs and skills available, why should the goals be set at the lowest practicable level?

Mr. KATOR. What we are suggesting is that those hiring needs should be determined by individual components of the agency that are working in particular recruiting areas, say, at St. Louis or New York, where the situation may be quite different. We are saying you need to relate and set your goals on what you may be hiring. The only way it makes to us reasonable sense, it seems to me, is where you have some kind of

identifiable, you know, where you are going to recruit your people— if you are recruiting locally, that they are on a local basis-you relate these to your needs. We are not trying to say if this is being interpreted-it doesn't mean grade or number, it means organizational position, organizational unit.

Mr. HAMPTON. In other words, if you had a regional office say in a given city and they had a hiring need for, say, 30 people, then their level of hiring for that year would be 30 people in that particular organization, and the skills needed out of those 30 positions would be so many clerk typists, so many budget analysts, whatever occupation it happens to be, so you set your goals on the basis of what your needs are at that particular level. This has the effect of broadening the scope of the affirmative action.

Mr. HAWKINS. I don't know why it should always be at the lowest practicable level, though.

Mr. HAMPTON. That is the section or a division or a branch.

Mr. HAWKINS. Still, I don't care, whatever the unit is, then the unit certainly must hire at some of the higher practicable levels as well as the lowest.

Mr. HAMPTON. We are not talking about that.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am getting a lot of answers, but I am not getting anything that makes any sense to me. The EEOC does exactly the opposite.

Mr. KATOR. I think this is consistent with EEOC and Department of Labor policy, as a matter of fact. I think our difficulty here is making clear what we mean by lowest practicable level. We mean the organizational unit for which you set your goals. One agency may have lots of different goals for example one for a regional office in St. Louis and one for an office in New York. What we are trying to say is, set your goals for that particular regional office and don't rely on some goal set in Washington. You have to set it at the regional level in this case because you know your hiring needs there and you know the skills in the recruiting area, what they are.

Mr. HAMPTON. It has nothing to do with the grade, grade 15's or whatever grade it may be, all grade 14's, all grade 13's, it has no relationship.

Mr. HAWKINS. Let me get back to this professional and administrative career examination. My understanding, in your general information in connection with that, is you require a college degree, or 3 years of professional experience, in connection with those who take that examination and yet you have, for example, over 340,000 women and about half of all of the minorities, in 17 low paying clerical occupations. I assume none of these could ever then apply to take this examination based on their experience unless some of them are Ph.D.'s and have other degrees that might allow them to do so. Just how then would these people have any upward mobility?

Mr. KATOR. Of those persons in the Federal service, they need not take the PAGE examination for upward mobility purposes. In fact, we don't even permit the use of that examination for promotional

purposes.

Mr. HAWKINS. How would those in these lower clerical occupations benefit from an upward mobility program? Would you simply explain the mechanism for getting them into professional positions?

56-250-75- -14

Mr. KATOR. By training programs, restructuring jobs, setting up aide positions, and by developing new career ladders for people in deadend jobs. This is a significant part of our upward mobility program. It works, I believe.

Mr. HAMPTON. That is the whole thrust, to get away from the credentials idea.

Mr. KATOR. And the test.

Mr. HAWKINS. Have you any statistics then on the results of that training and that upward mobility mechanism which justifies the type of thing you are doing and what results you have been able to obtain? I think it would be good if you would provide it for the record. We don't have to go into it.

Mr. HAMPTON. We will give you the figures we have.

Mr. HAWKINS. I think any results would be of interest to the committee if you would file them, we would appreciate it. [Information referred to follows:]

AGENCY UPWARD MOBILITY ACTIVITIES

I. Examples of activities resulting in Upward Mobility for lower level employees (below GS-9 and equivalent).

As part of their EEO Affirmative Action plans, agencies are required to submit a summary narrative of Upward Mobility actions achieved for lower level employees (below GS-9 or equivalent) during the previous year. These reports show progress made toward goals established by each agency and describe, in a general way, the nature and level of efforts to provide meaningful, resultsoriented opportunities for lower level employees to advance in accordance with their potential.

The following are examples of such activity reported by agencies during 1974: Naval Material Command reported over 950 lower level employees in Upward Mobility programs.

Naval Air Systems Command Headquarters moved 68 non-professional employees into trainee positions leading to qualification for higher level target positions.

Army's White Sands Missile Range established specific target positions for nearly 200 employees and Redstone Arsenal enrolled 150 employees in Upward Mobility training toward jobs in 80 occupational series.

Department of Commerce reported 5,677 lower level employees enrolled in Upward Mobility programs.

GAO designated 89 positions for lower level employees to become qualified as management analyst assistants and claims adjudicator assistants.

Agriculture designated over 1,300 positions in 20 occupational series for Upward Mobiilty.

NIH entered 90 employees into technician or paraprofessional jobs leading to psychologist and physical therapist positions.

GSA, through a formal training agreement, selected 80 employees for training into accounting, computer, legal, archival, personnel and statistical career fields.

HEW's Audit Agency, through job restructuring, created new bridge positions in the Management Analyst and Management Assistant series for 24 lower level employees.

Some of these programs did not exist eighteen months ago. A number of other agency programs are operational or are evolving which are committed to real opportunities for lower level employees. Several other agency Upward Mobility programs are in earlier stages of development and are being reviewed by our staff to strengthen and expand such opportunities.

One major step toward improved Upward Mobility programs has been the development of more definitive guidelines which emphasize the critical role of effective planning. A copy of FPM Letter 713-27 is attached here for the Committee's information.

II. Formal training in support of Upward Mobility.

During FY 1974, Federal agencies reported 34,728 instances of developmental skills training conducted for employees who are below grades GS-9 and wage

grade equivalents. This activity reflects only formal training of eight hours or more duration. It represents approximately 30% of all Upward Mobility training offered by agencies. Not reported is a wide range of on-the-job training experiences which provide Upward Mobility trainees with qualifying skills knowledges and abilities within the work setting.

III. Nature of Upward Opportunities.

Of nearly 20,000 Upward Mobility opportunities recently reported by seventeen agencies, over 75% are directly related to actual or anticipated vacancies. In this mode of Upward Mobility, the employee is moved directly into a position by virtue of a training agreement or into a bridge position for which he or she qualifies and then trained to qualify for the target position. Some 4,200 other Upward Mobility opportunities provide training and developmental experiences toward skills for which the agencies have continuing need but for which there may be no specific target job.

FPM Letter No. 713-27

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., June 28, 1974.

Subject: Upward Mobility for Lower Level Employees

PURPOSE

HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENTS: Substantial progress has been made by Federal agencies to provide employees opportunities for Upward Mobility. Guidance to assist agencies in these efforts has been issued in such areas as training, job restructuring, skills utilization, testing and evaluation. This FPM Letter brings together pertinent provisions of these issuances and provides further assistance to agencies in planning and implementing Upward Mobility programs. It supplements EEO Affirmative Action planning and reporting requirements related to Upward Mobility contained in FPM Letter 713-22, dated October 4, 1973.

BACKGROUND

The Federal Government has its greatest investment in people. As an employer each Federal agency seeks to carry out its mission through people and thereby reach its established goals and purposes. People as employees also have goals and aspirations. When these two sets of goals can mesh and complement each other, mutual satisfaction results.

One of the areas in which employer and employee goals meet is Upward Mobility. It is through Upward Mobility that the agency and the worker move toward common goals.

Historically, the Federal career service has provided advancement opportunities for those who enter it. The career service is a comprehensive system including many career ladders, and provides for career counseling, career development and training opportunities, and merit competition for placement of qualified employees to move to higher level positions. Therefore, Federal employees have traditionally had certain Upward Mobility opportunities.

Upward Mobility opportunities must, of course, be available to all employees on a non-discriminatory basis. There are, however, direct implications for an agency's EEO program. By assisting employees, including minorities and women in lower graded positions to gain skills and thus advance within the system, Upward Mobility programs will have a positive impact on an agency's overall EEO posture.

AGENCY REQUIREMENTS

As a part of the affirmative actions to be included in their Equal Employment Opportunity plans, Federal agencies are required to develop and submit specific plans which will assure a continuing results-oriented, Upward Mobility effort. The recognition of Upward Mobility as an agency requirement is supported by two significant pronouncements. The President in Executive Order 11478 states that agencies must . . "utilize to the fullest extent the present skills of each employee... and . provide the maximum feasible opportunity to employees to enhance their skills so they may perform at their highest potential and advance in accordance with their abilities."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-261) requires agencies to include in their annual EEO plan ". . . provision for the establishment of training and education programs designed to provide maximum opportunity for employees to advance so as to perform at their highest potential."