Appendix A - Part 1

Technical notes

a. Use of average salary instead of average grade

Comparing the average salary between groups of employees appears to be the best method of measuring the extent of the inequitable distribution of a particular group. Average grade, which is often used for this purpose, can only show that one group is higher than another, but it does not provide an adequate measure of the difference. The fact that one group has an average grade of 12.8 while another group's average is 13.2 may or may not indicate a significant disparity. What is .4 of a GS grade? Or, in comparing this difference to that for another bureau or office where these groups of employees had average grade levels of 10.9 and 11.6, for example, it would be difficult to evaluate which office shows the largest disparity. A given difference in GS grades would have different meaning at different grade levels. In addition, because GS levels are not really additive -- a GS 6 is not two times as high as a GS 3 -- the level of the average yielded by aggregating these GS grades becomes rather meaningless. salary instead, avoids these problems.

b. Aggregating the education data

Using average

Because of the manner in which the sample for the education survey was selected, the distributions and averages shown in Chart 16, p. and Table 8, p., had to be derived in addition to those shown in the series of tables containing the data on educational attainment, Tables 2-12, pp. ). In order to include an adequate number of all employees in the sample, it was stratified according to 6 groups three race groups each of which was divided among males and females. (This is discussed more fully in Part 2 of this appendix.) Because of the stratification in the sample, each of the 6 groups is represented differently in the sample than they are represented in the Department's workforce. For example, blacks comprise 37 percent of all professionals in the sample, but they constitute only 14 percent of all professionals in the Department's workforce. As a result, blacks would be reflected disproportionately in an average of the racial groups in the sample.

To compensate for the distortion noted above, the distributions and averages in Chart 16 and Table 8, p., were calculated by assigning a weight to the professional category in each of the six stratified groups. Each of the professional categories in the six groups were assigned a weight corresponding to the segment that they comprise of the professional workforce. For example black male professionals who comprise 29 percent of all professionals in the sample were given a weight of .3 so that they would reflect only the proportion that they represent in the DOL workforce, 9 percent.

The use index reflects the representation and distribution of minorities and females in the National Office and Field units of an

adminstration. For each of these units, the minority or female representation as a percent of their goal is multiplied times the percent which their average salary comprises of that for all professionals. In addition, both the representation as a percent of the goal, and the average salary as a percent of total average salary are constrained to be no greater than 1.0. This was done to prevent a good representation to compensate for an inequitable distribution, or vice versa. For example, consider a Field unit of an administration where the representation of blacks is 9.6 percent and their average salary is 90 percent of that for all professionals. In terms of representation, 9.6 percent constitutes .80 of their 12 percent goal. Multiplying this .80 times the .90 which the average salary of blacks comprises of that for all professionals gives a use index of .72. A similar use index is calculated for the Field unit of the administration. The indices for the National Office and Field units are then combined according to the percent of professionals in that administration located in the National Office or the Field.

r

The use index for the Department is an average of the use indices for each of the administrations. These indices are combined according to the percent of the Department's professional workforce that is found in each administration.

d.

Classification of professionals and nonprofessionals

The time-in-grade data show that there are a significant number of professionals with over 12 months of time-in-grade and in grades GS 6, 8, and 10.. This contradicts the Office of Personnel's definition of professionals as "employees moving at two grade intervals every year up to GS 11." As a result the Task Force examined the professional-nonprofessional classification system used by personnel. This investigation covered the classification system in effect at the time of the report, and the slightly modified system that will be used when the IPPBS becomes operational. The examination which used the Personnel Staffing Report and the Handbook of Occupational groups, and series of classes revealed several professional series, even in the new system, where individuals doing nonprofessional work were listed as professionals. A list of questionable series follows:

In addition, a spotcheck of the individuals listed as professionals, who were not advancing like professionals should, disclosed that some were indeed doing professional work.