Affirmative Actionfor People with Disabilities:

Quantitative Analysis and Goals

OFFICE OF DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

BPA Number DOLQ089427777May 2011

This research project was funded by the Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, under a contract to Economic Systems Inc. The document was developed by Economic Systems Inc. in partnership with Powers, Pyles, Sutter, and Verville, PC, and Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants, Inc. (the research team). The conclusions reached by the research team reflect the review by and input of labor economists and researchers with specialized expertise in disability data, civil rights analysts with expertise in the implementation of EO 11246, and disability policy analysts with expertise in employment and civil rights. The opinions contained in this executive summary and the underlying papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Labor or any other agency or department of the federal government, or any other organization or individual.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1

Overarching Conclusion...............................................................................................................1American Community Survey Data..............................................................................................1Minimal Changes in AAP Analysis Procedures...............................................................................1Determining Availability..............................................................................................................2Determining Incumbency............................................................................................................3Self-Identifying Disability.............................................................................................................3

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW........................................................................................5

Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 5Background.................................................................................................................................5

Previous Reports.....................................................................................................................6ANPRM Comments................................................................................................................. 6

Study Approach...........................................................................................................................7Overall Assessment and Policy Options........................................................................................7

II. LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES...............................................9

Employment Outcomes...............................................................................................................9Employment Outcomes by Age and Disability Status..............................................................11Employment Outcomes by Education and Disability Status.....................................................13Employment Outcomes by Gender and Disability Status.........................................................14

Discouraged Workers and Persons Who Want a Job...................................................................16

III. REVIEW OF ANPRM COMMENTS......................................................................................20

Overview of Comments.............................................................................................................21Defining Disability for Affirmative Action....................................................................................21Utility of Quantitative Analysis and Placement Goals..................................................................22Viability of ACS Disability Data...................................................................................................23Comparability of Disability to Race and Gender..........................................................................24Identifying Which People with Disabilities Are Available in Labor Market....................................25Matching Occupation and Geography to Labor Markets of Employers........................................26Self-Identification......................................................................................................................28

IV. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND PLACEMENT GOALS...........................................................30

The Census Bureau EEO Special Tabulation................................................................................30Rationale for Quantitative Analysis and Placement Goals...........................................................31

Rationale for Using ACS Disability Data...................................................................................32Determining Availability Using ACS Data....................................................................................34Framework for Determining Incumbency...................................................................................36

Form for Self-Identification of Disability.................................................................................37Comparing Incumbency to Availability.......................................................................................38

ii

V. ILLUSTRATIVE ANALYSIS OF ACS DATA..............................................................................39

Definition and Calculation of Disability Rates..............................................................................39Disability Rates by Occupation...................................................................................................39Disability Rates by Education Level.............................................................................................41Disability Rates by Location.......................................................................................................42

Washington, DC and Chicago Examples..................................................................................42Disability Rates for Selected States by Educational Level.........................................................45

An Option for Determining Availability.......................................................................................46

VI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM STEPS............................................................................49

Summary of the Step-by-Step Process........................................................................................49Organizational Profile................................................................................................................50Work Force Analysis..................................................................................................................50Job Group Analysis....................................................................................................................51Placement of Incumbent Job Groups.........................................................................................52Determining Availability............................................................................................................ 53Comparing Incumbency to Availability.......................................................................................54Placement Goals....................................................................................................................... 55

APPENDIX A. OFCCP EXAMPLE OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES UNDER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM..............................................................................................................................56

Affirmative Action Program Element #1.....................................................................................56Organization Display..............................................................................................................56Work Force Analysis..............................................................................................................57

Affirmative Action Program Element #2.....................................................................................64Job Group Analysis: Listing of Job Titles..................................................................................65

Affirmative Action Program Element #3.....................................................................................66Placement of Incumbents in Job Groups (41 CFR 60-2.13).......................................................66Determining Availability (41 CFR 60-2.14)...............................................................................66Comparing Incumbency to Availability (41 CFR 60-2.15)..........................................................68

Affirmative Action Program Element #4.....................................................................................70

APPENDIX B. DRAFT FORM FOR SELF-IDENTIFICATION..............................................................72

List of Impairments....................................................................................................................73

APPENDIX C. DISABILITY RATES BY OCCUPATION UNDER TWO COMPUTATIONAL OPTIONS........75

iii

TABLES

Table 1. Civilian Non-Institutional Population by Labor Force Status, Age 16 and Older, 2009 CPS Data..................................................................................................................................................... 10Table 2. Civilian Labor Force Participation and Unemployment Rates, by Disability Status, 2009 CPS Data..............................................................................................................................................11Table 3. Persons Not in the Labor Force by Disability Status, 2009 Averages....................................17Table 4. Alternative Labor Force Unemployment Rate Estimates for People with Disabilities versus People without Disabilities............................................................................................................ 18Table 5. National Availability of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Age......................................39Table 6. Disabled Percentage of Civilian Labor Force by Major Occupation Group, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data, United States....................................................................................................................... 40Table 7. Representation of People with Disabilities in Selected Occupations, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data..................................................................................................................................................... 41Table 8. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Education Level, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data..............................................................................................................................................42Table 9. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability, by Major Occupation Category for Selected States, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data.......................................................................................43Table 10. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Major Occupation Category for Selected States and Approximate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), 2009 ACS Data..................43Table 11. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Census Occupation Code for Selected Occupations and States and Approximate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), 2009 ACS Data.....44Table 12. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability, by Education Level for Selected States, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data............................................................................................................... 46Table 13. Comparison of Two Options for Determining Availability in Selected Occupations, ACS 2009..................................................................................................................................................... 48Table 14. Example of a Job Group Analysis for a Single Department or Work Unit...........................51Table 15. Sample Job Group Analysis for a Fictional Organization....................................................52Table 16. Example of Incumbent Job Groups by Minority, Gender and Disability Status...................53Table 17. Example of How to Determine Availability of Protected Groups by Combining Internal and External Sources of Potential Applicants........................................................................................54Table 18. Example of Determining Placement Goals Based on Incumbency and Availability.............55

iv

FIGURES

Figure 1. Labor Force Participation Rate by Age and Disability Status..............................................12Figure 2. Unemployment Rate by Age and Disability Status.............................................................12Figure 3. Labor Force Participation Rate by Educational Attainment and Disability Status, Age 25 and Older............................................................................................................................................ 13Figure 4. Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment and Disability Status, Age 25 and Older. .14Figure 5. Labor Force Participation Rate by Gender and Disability Status, Age 16 and Older.............15Figure 6. Unemployment Rate by Sex and Disability Status, Age 16 and Older.................................15Figure 7. Contrasting Official and Modified Unemployment Rates for People with and without Disabilities.................................................................................................................................... 18

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIESQUANTITATIVE ANALYSES AND GOALS

May 2011

This report analyzes the feasibility of requiring government contractors to perform quantitative analyses and establish placement goals for people with disabilities under the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503). The regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 are used as the model.

Overarching ConclusionThe research team concludes that before 2008, it was not possible using available data sets to perform quantitative analyses and establish placement goals for qualified individuals with disabilities under Section 503. However, since 2008 the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) provides current, valid and reliable statistical data for such purposes. With these ACS data, employers can perform affirmative action program analyses and goal-setting for individuals with disabilities under Section 503 that directly parallel the approach that has been routinely implemented by employers for women and minorities for several decades, under Executive Order 11246.

American Community Survey Data ACS data items concerning disability were developed after extensive research and rigorous testing by a federal interagency work group to ensure inclusivity, reliability and high response rates. One primary task assigned to the interagency work group was to measure disability using a definition in keeping with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 503. The final set of six questions establishes an inclusive measure of disability, including concepts from the three domains of disability — communication, mental and physical — as well as Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) measures.

Minimal Changes in AAP Analysis ProceduresThrough accumulated experience and ongoing improvement over the decades since promulgation of Executive Order 11246, the process of setting quantitative goals for women and minorities has become well-understood and accepted by employers. As the quantitative goal system is extended to individuals with disabilities, administrative burdens will be minimized, and employer acceptance maximized, if the new requirements directly parallel and seamlessly piggyback onto those with which employers are already familiar.

1

Following this principle, the research team recommends that existing procedures for Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) development should be changed as little as possible. Appendix A to the report is an excerpt from the current Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Technical Assistance Manual for Supply and Service Contractors. It illustrates how an employer can determine availability and utilization of individuals with disabilities in the same way that employer already determines availability and utilization of women and minority groups. The appendix demonstrates that individuals with disabilities can be incorporated into this process by simply inserting a short phrase referring to them in 23 instances in the text — wherever women and minorities are already referred to — and adding one or a few rows or columns in six of the seven tables already used in an employer’s analysis. Changes of this limited magnitude can be implemented by employers’ human resource management and data processing staffs with minimal effort or confusion.

Determining AvailabilityTo complete their AAP goal setting analyses, employers need availability figures for individual occupations in individual geographic labor markets. Since the 1970s, these figures have been provided to them for women and minorities by the Census Bureau in the Bureau’s Special Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulation. It would be relatively simple to ask the Census Bureau to add comparable data for individuals with disabilities at the same time. That request would represent a readily-manageable addition to the tables the Bureau is already being asked to produce, following the same format as for race and gender data, and being reported for the same occupations and geographical labor markets.

Likewise, in developing these new tables, the Census Bureau should be asked to derive availability figures for individuals with disabilities from the same data source — ACS — from which it will be deriving the counterpart figures for women and minorities. Over multiple decades of use, this data source (and its predecessor, the “long form” data from the decennial Census) has become universally accepted as an appropriate, carefully-implemented source of detailed occupational demographic data.

If current procedures for computing the availability of women and minorities are followed exactly, the Census Bureau would be requested to present in these tables the percentage of individuals with disabilities among all those who are in the civilian labor force (i.e., those who are currently employed or actively seeking employment). However, OFCCP may wish to consider asking the Census Bureau to implement a slight, but important, modification of these procedures for individuals with disabilities. As is well-established by research, the barriers limiting employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities today lead to an outcome where, to a far greater extent than for women and minorities, individuals with disabilities become “discouraged workers.” Discouraged workers are jobless individuals who are qualified for, capable of, and interested in employment, but who are not counted as part of the civilian labor force, because they are not currently actively seeking employment, as they feel that these efforts would be futile.

The ACS data can be analyzed using a straightforward, defensible procedure to compute an alternative measure of labor force availability for individuals with disabilities. This measure

2

would smoothly combine individuals currently in the civilian labor force with discouraged workers who are nevertheless attached to the labor force. In this approach, the ACS data from which the Census Bureau would be computing labor force availability of people with disabilities would not be restricted to people in the civilian labor force. Instead, labor force availability would be based on all working age (18-64) respondents for which the ACS records an occupation. Under the latter rule, availability would be based on all people who are currently employed, plus all those currently actively seeking work, plus those who have worked at some time during the past five years and describe the occupation they held during that time. This final group reasonably and conservatively represents discouraged workers who are qualified for, capable of, and interested in employment.

For convenience, the two alternative approaches can be labeled Option A — Availability Among Individuals Currently in the Civilian Labor Force, and Option B — Availability Among Individuals Attached to Employment. To illuminate the quantitative effects of these options, Appendix C provides a table of nationwide availabilities, computed from the 2009 ACS Survey under each approach. Under Option A, the nationwide, all-occupations availability of people with disabilities averages 5.5 percent, while under Option B, it averages 7.2 percent — about one third higher.

Determining Incumbency Under regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, each contractor must compare availability figures to incumbency (i.e., how many individuals from a particular demographic group they currently employ). With respect to incumbency, the research team recommends that contractors use the definition of “individual with a disability” in the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. To guide an individual in determining his or her disability status, we recommend that OFCCP develop a self-identification form. A model form is included in Appendix A.

Self-Identifying DisabilityTo enhance the recruitment and hiring of qualified individuals with disabilities and to assist contractors in determining their work force representation statistics, this report also recommends the following changes to the self-identification provisions in the current Section 503 regulations:

Require contractors to offer applicants with disabilities the opportunity to voluntarily self-identify their disability prior to an offer of employment;

Allow self-identification for data collection and/or targeted hiring purposes;

Include safeguards to maintain confidentiality (e.g., separate forms and separate medical files and treating records as confidential medical records);

Require identification of employees with disabilities; and

Minimize the burden on individuals and contractors.

The research team believes there will be several benefits in requiring contractors to give applicants with disabilities the opportunity to voluntarily self-identify both before and after a

3

conditional offer of employment. Such a requirement will enhance employers’ ability to assess and improve their recruitment and hiring initiatives. Such a requirement will also help employers identify departments or supervisors who are discriminating or failing to take affirmative action on the basis of disability. Finally, these changes will make the protections and responsibilities of contractors during the hiring process comparable to those currently applicable to women and minorities. The research team also recommends that OFCCP include in the final regulations an assurance that offering applicants with disabilities the opportunity to self-identify under specified circumstances and in accordance with specified safeguards under Section 503 does not violate any other requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations.

4

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

PurposeThe purpose of this report is to analyze the feasibility of including quantitative analyses and placement goals for people with disabilities, under regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503), using regulations implementing Executive Order (EO) 11246 as the model. This report examines federal policy options for undertaking quantitative analyses and establishing placement goals. It also responds to issues raised regarding the research team’s previous report on this subject, prepared in 2010, including those raised by the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), stakeholders and researchers. This report also provides demonstration “availability” tables created with 2008 and 2009 ACS data.

BackgroundLike most Americans, people with disabilities value work. Yet people with disabilities experience significant employment and earnings gaps compared to their non-disabled peers. To help reduce these gaps, ODEP was established in 2001. Its mission is to provide national leadership on disability employment policy. ODEP does this by developing evidence-based disability employment policies and practices, building collaborative partnerships and disseminating data on the employment of people with disabilities.

OFCCP is currently reviewing the affirmative action provisions of the regulations implementing Section 503. This review includes an analysis of whether government contractors’ affirmative action programs should include quantitative analyses and placement goals parallel to those applicable to minorities and women, under regulations implementing Executive Order 11246.

This OFCCP review is particularly timely in light of recent revisions to Census survey items, designed to assess the incidence of disability in the U.S. Beginning in 2008, two major ongoing national surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau — the ACS and the Current Population Survey (CPS) — added six questions designed to enumerate people with disabilities and provide data for analyzing their participation in the labor force. The six items ask if people covered by the survey have any of the following:

Is this person deaf, or does he/she have serious difficulty hearing?

Is this person blind, or does he/she have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?

Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions?

Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?

Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing?

Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, does this person have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping?

A consortium of federal agencies — including the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), ODEP, Census, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Justice, the

5

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Social Security Administration (SSA) and others — worked together to develop these six survey items. By design, the items encompass the major domains of disability included in the definition of disability used for Section 503. The items were subjected to extensive pre-testing and field testing to maximize the likelihood of identifying individuals with disabilities who are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended. These data items enable employers to perform the type of quantitative analyses prescribed by the regulations that implement EO 11246 by measuring the availability of people with disabilities by labor market status, occupation and geographic location.

Previous ReportsIn fiscal year 2010, ODEP contracted with Economic Systems Inc. and its partners (the research team) to assess existing affirmative action policies applicable to people with disabilities and disabled veterans. Specifically, policies set out in the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503) and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) were evaluated to determine whether and how these regulations should be modernized as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce employment and earnings gaps. Section 503 requires federal government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities. VEVRAA requires government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified covered veterans.1 It is estimated that more than 20 percent of the civilian work force is employed by federal contractors.

The research team produced two reports in 2010:

Volume I: Data Sources and Models

Volume II: Modernizing the Affirmative Action Provisions of the Section 503 and VEVRAA Regulations

ANPRM CommentsOn July 23, 2010, OFCCP published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding: Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors; Evaluation of Affirmative Action Provisions Under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (Section 503). This ANPRM invited public input on how OFCCP could strengthen the affirmative action requirements of the regulations implementing Section 503, thereby increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities in the federal contractor sector.

OFCCP requested comments on 18 inquiries. More than 130 comments were submitted by stakeholders, including individuals with disabilities, organizations representing individuals with disabilities, organizations representing the business community, entities representing federal government contractors and researchers.

1 Disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, other protected veterans, and armed forces service medal veterans are covered veterans under VEVRAA [41 CFR 60-300.1(a)]. Many, but not all, provisions in VEVRAA regulations related to the contractor’s affirmative action program are identical to those in regulations implementing Section 503.

6

Study ApproachThe study documented in this report provides information about the feasibility of using the new ACS disability data to undertake quantitative analyses and establish placement goals for qualified individuals with disabilities under Section 503. Section II describes labor market outcomes for people with disabilities, particularly in contrast to outcomes for people without disabilities. Section III of this report reviews ANPRM comments relating to quantitative analysis, goals and self-identification. Section IV discusses the rationales for quantitative analysis and placement goals, and for using ACS data in this analysis. Section V provides illustrative analyses of disability rates by occupation and geographic location, based on 2008 and 2009 ACS data. Section VI presents an example of an Affirmative Action Plan for people with disabilities, based on the example in the current OFCCP Technical Assistance Manual for Supply and Service Contractors for women and minorities.

Overall Assessment and Policy OptionsDisability measurement using Census surveys before 2008 has long been the subject of discussion and criticism within government agencies, among academics and by other stakeholders. For OFCCP to extend quantitative analyses and placement goals to people with disabilities requires a determination that current, valid and reliable disability data are available. Toward that end, the ACS survey items concerning disability were developed. These survey items were the result of extensive research and rigorous testing by federal agencies to ensure inclusivity, reliability and high response rates. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Interagency Committee for the ACS convened an ACS Subcommittee on Disability Measurement (ACS Subcommittee) and asked the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) to take the lead in assessing disability questions.2

Through accumulated experience and ongoing improvement over the decades since promulgation of Executive Order 11246, the process for setting quantitative goals for women and minorities has become well-understood and accepted by employers. As quantitative analyses and placement goals are extended to qualified individuals with disabilities, administrative burdens can be minimized, and employer acceptance maximized, if the new requirements directly parallel and seamlessly piggyback on those with which employers are already familiar. A key part of this approach is to leverage the Census Bureau’s Special EEO Tabulation (also referred to as the EEO Data Tool) for minorities and women to provide parallel ACS disability data.

Since 2008, ACS provides current, valid and reliable statistical data for undertaking quantitative analyses and establishing placement goals for qualified individuals with disabilities under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. With those ACS data, employers can conduct affirmative action analyses and goal-setting for people with disabilities, just as they routinely do for women and minorities (and have done for decades).

With disability data readily available in the Census Bureau’s Special Equal Opportunity Tabulation, employers would be able to develop Affirmative Action Plans for people with disabilities within the same framework they currently use for minorities and women. With little

2 Review of Changes to the Measurement of Disability in the 2008 American Community Survey, Matthew W. Brault, U.S. Census Bureau (September 22, 2009), page 2. www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/2008ACS_disability.pdf

7

or no additional administrative burden, they could use the same occupations, occupational groupings, recruitment areas and job qualifications they have already established for these other groups.

8

II. LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Section II describes labor market outcomes for people with disabilities, particularly in contrast to outcomes for people without disabilities. It presents comparative analyses for people who are the civilian labor force, as officially defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), plus people who are marginally attached to the work force. The latter includes discouraged workers and people who want a job but are not officially counted as being in the labor force. Section II shows how unfavorable the outcomes are for people with disabilities compared to others.

For Section II, the research team relied on BLS CPS data, which is the official government source of data on labor market outcomes, such as unemployment rates, number of people in the labor force and labor force participation rates. It also contains data on people marginally attached to the labor force, including discouraged workers and workers who want a job but are not currently looking for a job.

Another source of data used in this study is the Census Bureau’s ACS. ACS is a demographic survey that encompasses the total population of all ages. By contrast, the CPS is a labor force survey targeted at the adult population, age 16 years and older. Both the ACS and CPS surveys use the same six disability questions, but each survey differs in purpose, sampling and survey administration. The research team uses CPS data in Section II to show labor market outcomes for several different measures at the national level.

The research team uses ACS data in Section V to illustrate analysis of ACS data for calculating labor availability of protected classes for affirmative action planning purposes. The forthcoming 2012 EEO Special Tabulation will rely on the annual ACS, the only official government survey that is sufficiently large to provide detailed occupational and geographical breakdowns needed for EEO planning.

Employment Outcomes BLS reports on employment outcomes for the general U.S. adult population, using its CPS. While CPS is a monthly survey, data in this section of the report rely upon a BLS tabulation of CPS data for all of 2009. Table 1 shows the labor force status of the non-institutional civilian population in 2009, according to CPS. The BLS definition of civilian non-institutional population is persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged, etc.), and not on active duty in the armed forces. Thus, the BLS definition of the civilian labor force includes individuals who are:

Employed, at work Employed, with a job, but not at work Unemployed (looked for work within the past four weeks)

It excludes:

People in the armed forces People in institutions People under the age of 16 People who are not employed and not looking for work.3

3 Specifically, the definition includes only people who currently are employed and unemployed people 9

Table 1. Civilian Non-Institutional Population by Labor Force Status, Age 16 and Older, 2009 CPS Data4

Labor Force Status 2009 CPSCivilian Labor Force 154,142,000

Employed 139,877,000Unemployed 14,265,000

Not in Civilian Labor Force 81,659,000Non-Institutional Civilian Population 235,801,000

It is also useful to look at the incidence of disability and its impact on labor force participation and unemployment rates. Definitions of relevant BLS terms include:

Labor force. The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed [as defined in this glossary]. Note that the present report focuses on the civilian labor force, which excludes the institutionalized population, as well as those in the military.

Labor force participation rate. The labor force as a percentage of the civilian non-institutional population.

Unemployed persons. Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the referenced week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the four-week period ending with the referenced week. Persons waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

Unemployment rate. The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percentage of the [civilian] labor force.

Not in the labor force. Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian non-institutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions in this glossary.

Table 2 shows labor force participation rates and unemployment rates by disability status for 2009, using CPS data. The labor force participation rate for people without disabilities was 70.9 percent, compared with 22.4 percent for people with disabilities. The unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 14.5 percent and 9.0 percent for people without disabilities.

who actively looked for work within the past four weeks.

4 Source: “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics — 2009,” August 25, 2010, USDOL-10-1172, available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.

10

Table 2. Civilian Labor Force Participation and Unemployment Rates, by Disability Status, 2009 CPS Data5

Disability Status2009 CPS Data

Labor Force Participation Rate6 Unemployment Rate7

No Disability 70.9% 9.0%Any Disability 22.4% 14.5%

In Table 2, “Any Disability” means a “Yes” reply to any of the six questions asked to determine whether respondents have disabilities. These six questions are:

1. Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, does this person have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping?

2. Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing?

3. Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?

4. Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions?

5. Is this person blind, or does he/she have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses?

6. Is this person deaf, or does he/she have serious difficulty hearing?

From Table 2, it is clear that disability results in much lower labor force participation as well as much higher unemployment.

Employment Outcomes by Age and Disability StatusFigure 1 compares the labor force participation rates of people in different age groups, using 2009 CPS data. The first set of bars shows all people of “traditional” working age — ages 16 to 64. Each of the other sets shows age groups published by BLS,8 based on 2009 CPS data. As demonstrated here, age plays a key role, not only in labor force participation, but in the effect of disability on that participation. The older individuals are, the greater the likelihood that disability will reduce their labor force participation.

5 Source: USDOL-10-1172, op cit.

6 Civilian labor force divided by the sum of the civilian labor force and individuals who are not employed and not looking for work (excluding only those in the military and institutions).

7 Number of people who are unemployed and looking for work divided by the total civilian labor force.

8 Source: USDOL-10-1172, op cit.11

Figure 1. Labor Force Participation Rate by Age and Disability Status

Figure 2 shows the relationship between age, disability status and unemployment. For people with and without disabilities, unemployment rates are highest for those who are younger. At each age, the unemployment rate is much higher for people with disabilities; however, disability has the greatest relative impact on the unemployment rate for those who are younger.

Figure 2. Unemployment Rate by Age and Disability Status9

9 Source: USDOL-10-1172, ibid.12

Employment Outcomes by Education and Disability StatusFigure 3 contrasts labor force participation rates for people with and without disabilities by educational attainment, using 2009 CPS data. To reduce the impact of age on educational completion, BLS used only age 25 and older for this comparison — most people will have completed their education by the age of 25. As one might expect, labor force participation rates are higher for higher levels of education. For people with disabilities, however, the impact of education is relatively greater. The labor force participation rate for people with disabilities with a college degree or higher is three times that of people with disabilities who have less than a high school diploma.

Figure 3. Labor Force Participation Rate by Educational Attainment and Disability Status, Age 25 and Older

Figure 4 shows unemployment rates for people with and without disabilities by educational attainment. As expected, higher educational attainment is associated with lower rates of unemployment. Comparing people with and without disabilities, education makes the greatest relative difference at higher levels of education. For people without a high school diploma, people with disabilities have an unemployment rate about 30 percent higher than those without disabilities. For people with a college degree or higher, however, the unemployment rate is almost 100 percent higher for people with disabilities than those without.

13

Figure 4. Unemployment Rate by Educational Attainment and Disability Status, Age 25 and Older

Employment Outcomes by Gender and Disability StatusFigure 5 shows how gender impacts labor force participation rates for people with and without disabilities. As might be expected, due largely to culture and childbearing, labor force participation rates are higher for men than for women. The impact of disability on labor force participation rate is slightly greater for women than for men. Women without disability have a labor force participation rate about 3.4 times that of women with a disability. In contrast, men without disability have a labor force participation rate that is about three times that of men with a disability.

Figure 5. Labor Force Participation Rate by Gender and Disability Status, Age 16 and Older

14

Figure 6 shows the impact of gender on unemployment rates for people with and without disabilities. Regardless of disability status, the unemployment rate for women is lower than that for men. The relative impact of disability status, however, is greater for women. The unemployment rate for women without disability is just under 60 percent of that for women with disability, while the unemployment rate for men without disability is just under 70 percent of the unemployment rate for men with disability.

Figure 6. Unemployment Rate by Sex and Disability Status, Age 16 and Older

Discouraged Workers and Persons Who Want a JobAmong labor market analysts, there is extensive debate on whether and how to include people who are not employed and not looking for work when considering the available pool of minorities, women and other demographic groups. While the majority of people not in the labor force have no desire to work (due to retirement, permanent total disability and other reasons), a portion of people in this group are not looking for work only because they believe that such efforts would be futile.

Some labor market analysts argue that people with disabilities are especially susceptible to becoming discouraged. A 2001 study by the Urban Institute, for example, used the Disability Supplement of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS-D) to identify barriers to employment for people with disabilities that result in discouragement from participating in the labor force.10 More than half of non-working adults with disabilities who were included in the study said that they encountered such barriers. The most frequently-cited were:

No appropriate jobs available (52.5%)

10 “Barriers to and Supports for Work among Adults with Disabilities: Results from the NHIS-D,” Pamela Loprest and Elaine Maag, The Urban Institute, October 2001, found at http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/barriers.htm.

15

Family responsibilities (34.5%)

Lack transportation (29.0%)

Lack appropriate information about jobs (22.8%)

Own training inadequate (21.6%)

The second largest barrier, family responsibilities, of course, can prevent some people with disabilities from being available for employment. The others, however, are perception-related or could potentially be overcome through training programs, employment placement services and employer outreach.

In the past, federal contractors have typically looked only at the civilian labor force when measuring external availability of qualified job applicants and contrasting their own work force with that availability. For that reason — to minimize the differences in what employers will have to do to comply with new regulations once they are published — tables and examples presented in this report use the civilian labor force as the basis for availability. However, using just the civilian labor force as defined by BLS, omits discouraged workers, formally defined as:

Discouraged workers. Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe that no jobs are available, or there are none for which they qualify.

On August 25, 2010, BLS released a special report entitled, “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics — 2009.”11 Among other topics, that report provided information about disability status and a relatively new piece of data collected in the CPS, which asks if the survey subject wants a job. The same survey also asks whether the subject has searched for work within the past 12 months, as well as whether the subject is available for work.12 Table 5 from that report is reproduced here in Table 3. There, the 2009 CPS shows 620,000 people with disabilities who are not in the labor force, but who want a job. Of these, 193,000 are classified as “marginally attached to the labor force.” Of those marginally attached, 60,000 are classified as “discouraged worker.”

Marginally attached workers are defined as:

Marginally attached workers. Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but were not counted as unemployed, because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached.

11 “Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics — 2009,” August 25, 2010, USDOL-10-1172, available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.

12 Unemployed individuals who were available for work and who actively searched for work within four weeks of the survey reference week are counted in the civilian labor force.

16

Table 3. Persons Not in the Labor Force by Disability Status, 2009 Averages13

Category Persons with Disability

Persons with No Disability

Total not in the labor force 20,931,000 60,728,000Persons who currently want a job 620,000 5,273,000

Marginally attached to the labor force14 193,000 2,034,000Discouraged workers15 60,000 718,000Other persons marginally attached to the labor force16 133,000 1,315,000

Those who want a job also include approximately 5,273,000 people without disabilities, 2,034,000 of whom are classified as marginally attached.

In responses to the ANPRM and elsewhere, some labor economists and many in the disability community have suggested that limiting availability analyses to the civilian labor force excludes a number of people who are interested in working. As shown here, some of these are classified as discouraged workers, whom many argue should be counted among the unemployed. Data in the BLS report might even suggest that that the “discouraged worker” group is itself too narrowly defined. That is, some might argue that the pool available for hiring includes people who are marginally attached to the labor force, while others might go further and suggest that the availability pool should include everyone who wants a job.

A question arises as to what would happen to the unemployment rate if people currently not counted in the labor force, but who want a job, were counted as unemployed? Moreover, how would the unemployment rates for people with disabilities contrast to that for people without disabilities?

Table 4 uses data supplied by BLS USDOL-10-1172 to address these questions. In this table, we begin with the official civilian labor force, which contained approximately 6,050,000 people with disabilities in 2009, 876,000 of whom were unemployed. To these people, we add the 620,000 people with disabilities who were not in the labor force, but who wanted a job. This increases the number counted as unemployed by about 71 percent (i.e., from 876,000 to 1,496,000). That is, it yields a modified labor force that has 6,670,000 people with disabilities, of which 1,496,000 are now counted as unemployed.

13 Source: Table 5 from USDOL-10-1172.

14 Data refer to persons who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during the reference week but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

15 Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.

16 Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as school or family responsibilities, ill health, and transportation problems, as well as a number for whom the reason for nonparticipation was not determined.

17

Table 4. Alternative Labor Force Unemployment Rate Estimates for People with Disabilities versus People without Disabilities

People with a Disability People with Disabilities People without Disabilities Technically in 2009 Labor Force (LF) 6,050,000 148,092,000 Persons who currently want a job 620,000 5,273,000 Unemployed (U) 876,000 13,389,000

Official Unemployment Rate 14.5% 9.0% LF + Persons Wanting a Job 6,670,000 153,365,000 U + Persons Wanting a Job 1,496,000 18,662,000 Modified Unemployment Rate 22.4% 12.2%

Dividing 1,496,000 by 6,670,000 gives us a modified unemployment rate of 22.4 percent, shown in Figure 7. Conducting the same calculations for people without disabilities produces a modified unemployment rate of 12.2 percent, also shown in Figure 7. Also shown in that figure is the official unemployment rate in 2009, 9.0 percent for people without disabilities, contrasted with 14.5 percent for people with disabilities.

Figure 7. Contrasting Official and Modified Unemployment Rates for People with and without Disabilities

The official unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 61 percent higher than for people without disabilities. If we count people who want a job along with the officially-counted unemployed, the modified unemployment rate for people with disabilities now jumps to 22.4 percent, and the modified unemployment rate for people without disabilities rises to 12.2 percent. Thus, if we include everyone who wants a job along with the officially-counted unemployed, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 84 percent higher for people with disabilities than for people without disabilities.

18

III. REVIEW OF ANPRM COMMENTS

On July 23, 2010, the Office Of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published in the Federal Register an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding: Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors; Evaluation of Affirmative Action Provisions Under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (Section 503). OFCCP issued this ANPRM to invite public input on how OFCCP can strengthen the affirmative action requirements of the regulations implementing Section 503 and thereby help increase the employment opportunities for people with disabilities in the federal contractor sector.

OFCCP requested comments on 18 inquiries. More than 130 comments were submitted by stakeholders, including comments by individuals with disabilities, organizations representing individuals with disabilities, organizations representing the business community, entities representing federal government contractors and researchers.

This section summarizes responses by organizations and entities representing the disability community and the federal contractor community to OFCCP inquiries related to undertaking quantitative analyses, establishing hiring goals and self-identification of disability. The following questions in the July 25, 2010 ANPRM relate to these subjects:

Question 5. If OFCCP were to require federal contractors to conduct utilization analyses and to establish hiring goals for individuals with disabilities, comparable to the analyses and establishment of goals required under Executive Order 11246, what data should be examined in order to identify the appropriate availability pool of such individuals for employment?

Question 6. Would the establishment of placement goals for individuals with disabilities measurably increase their employment opportunities in the federal contractor sector? Explain why or why not.

Question 11. Federal contractors are required to invite all job applicants to voluntarily and confidentially identify their race and gender pre-offer. The collection of this information allows contractors to monitor the impact of their employment practices by race and gender and to assess progress in meeting their affirmative action goals. Existing Section 503 regulations require contractors to invite an applicant to voluntarily and confidentially self-identify as a person with a disability after making an offer of employment, but before the applicant begins employment. (See 41 CFR 60-741.42(a).) Would amending the Section 503 regulations to require contractors to invite all applicants to voluntarily and confidentially self-identify whether they have a disability prior to an offer of employment enhance a federal contractor’s ability to more effectively monitor their hiring practices with respect to applicants with disabilities? Note that a Section 503 regulation requiring contractors to invite voluntary and confidential self-identification as an applicant with a disability pre-offer for affirmative action purposes would not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. 29 CFR 1630.15(e); Enforcement Guidance: Pre-employment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations (EEOC NOTICE Number 915.002, October 10, 1995).

In reviewing submitted comments, the following thematic areas were identified and are addressed in the discussion below:

19

Overview of comments Defining disability for affirmative action Utility of quantitative analysis and hiring goals Viability of ACS disability data Comparability of disability to race and gender Identifying which people with disabilities are available in labor market Matching occupation and geography to employers’ labor markets Self-identification

Overview of CommentsNumerous ANPRM respondents expressed strong support for the use of the new ACS disability measures. According to these comments, this new resource provides current, valid and reliable statistical data for undertaking quantitative analyses and establishing placement goals for qualified individuals with disabilities. Respondents noted that these data are consistent with the definition of disability used for purposes of Section 503 (and the ADA). The respondents also pointed out that the ACS methods for collecting data on individuals with disabilities parallel those that have been routinely relied upon by employers for several decades in developing affirmative action goals for women and minorities, and upon which employers will continue to rely.

Other ANPRM respondents, particularly those representing the federal contractor community, expressed opposition to use of ACS data. These respondents asserted that the disability data gathered by ACS is laden with problems, and that disability is not comparable to race and gender. For example, respondents expressed concern that ACS data is not consistent with the ADA, as amended, and falls short of identifying the entire population of individuals protected by the law. Respondents also argued that disability is not easily discernable, that disability is not an immutable characteristic comparable to race and gender and that disability are individualized and may vary in type and nature. Respondents also expressed concern that ACS data does not reflect jobs for which individuals with disabilities are qualified, limits the job categories used for conducting job analysis, and does not sufficiently take into consideration variation among geographical locations.

Defining Disability for Affirmative ActionSeveral representatives of the disability community concluded that contractors can determine their work force representation statistics using the disability questions in the annual ACS. However, several representatives of the federal contractor community expressed concerns about what constitutes a disability. According to these representatives, the definition of disability involves complex statutory concepts, which, in practice, frustrate efforts to collect meaningful data about hiring practices. Expansion of the definition under ADAAA further compounds the challenge. The latter concerns may be satisfied by a fuller understanding of how and why the new ACS items on disability were developed, as discussed in Section IV of this report.

Some of the critical comments questioned the accuracy of ACS data in identifying people with disabilities. According to one comment, for example, the ACS disability questions will succeed in identifying some individuals with disabilities as that term is defined in Section 503, but fall far

20

short of reliably identifying the entire population of individuals with disabilities protected by the law.

One respondent to the ANPRM suggested that establishing a list of covered impairments would significantly minimize the burdens upon employers of evaluating each individual’s condition on a case-by-case basis. If Section 503 focused on specific impairments, employers could more easily identify applicants who fall into these categories, target disability groups providing pools of interested and qualified applicants, and evaluate the success of recruitment and retention efforts.

Utility of Quantitative Analysis and Placement GoalsThe disability and civil rights communities expressed unequivocal support for requiring contractors to undertake quantitative analyses and establish placement goals under Section 503. In general, the comments argued that goals will greatly increase employment opportunities. Target goals would encourage contractors to conduct relevant research and training and compel contractors to budget for reasonable accommodations. Placement goals would measurably increase employment opportunities in the federal contractor sector by adding both accountability and transparency to the hiring process. Therefore, goals are a good start in an effort to hire more people with disabilities.

The following comments from the disability and civil rights communities further explained or emphasized the importance of requiring quantitative analyses and placement goals:

Without quantitative analyses and placement goals, the Section 503 regulations are effectively unenforceable, as it is nearly impossible to determine whether the “positive steps” that contractors are required to take to attract qualified individuals with disabilities are effective and whether employers are actually implementing their own affirmative action plans.

We know that what is measured by employers is what counts in terms of recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing persons with disabilities in employment.

What is measured is what is treasured. The establishment of placement goals sends a message to contractors that they are being held accountable for making progress in the hiring and advancement of individuals with disabilities.

People pay attention to what is measured. Strongly believe the axiom “that what an employer measures will be implemented.” What doesn’t get measured will not get done, and it will not get done unless it is

measured. Without a required measured goal, and given the obstacles and barriers to employment,

placement of workers with disabilities will continue to be at its existing low percentages.

Some respondents representing the federal contractor community expressed support for placement goals, while others were opposed. Comments from supporters of placement goals representing federal contractors include:

The utility of goal setting is recognized by contractors as a means of establishing employment standards corporate leaders can support. As the old saying goes, “what gets measured gets managed.”

21

Setting placement goals for persons with disabilities would probably increase the likelihood of employers being proactive in reaching out to viable sources of candidates and in doing so, would increase their employment opportunities.

The establishment of placement goals for individuals with disabilities would create an impetus for employers to focus on recruiting people with disabilities and to expand their contacts and networks in that area.

Other representatives of the federal contractor community expressed support for placement goals if the following conditions are met:

A reliable and stable definition of what constitutes an employment-related disability. Appropriate employment data on persons with disabilities. A reliable methodology for determining how many persons classified as persons with

disabilities are actually in the employer’s work force.

Some comments from representatives of federal contractors opposed placement goals. For example, some representatives commented that placement goals for individuals with disabilities are not necessary, because they do not address the fundamental underlying problem. Instead, what is needed most is proper matching of jobs and effective sourcing of job candidates. Some also suggested that analysis and placement goals would decrease the good-faith obligations already required under existing Section 503 regulations.

As an alternative to quantitative analysis and placement goals, some representatives commented that the focus should be only on good-faith efforts in recruitment and outreach. Good-faith efforts need to be defined with objective criteria that can be consistently applied by the contractor community. OFCCP should require contractors to demonstrate not only that they have been posting job openings with sources for candidates with disabilities, but also to show the results of these efforts. If simply posting job openings with these organizations does not yield effective results (i.e., hires, then the posting effort should not be viewed as successful, and the employer should be required to seek other venues for posting).

There was general agreement among most reviewers that effective and proper matching and sourcing are keys to progress in employing and advancing people with disabilities. However, many believed that we cannot be certain that progress is being made in the absence of measurement and setting goals. Without measurement and numerical goals, any progress noted will remain anecdotal. Without goals, and left to employers’ own good-faith efforts, existing data show that progress is not being made in the labor market as a whole. In addition, there is no evidence that holding employers accountable would decrease existing good-faith efforts and obligations. Because measurement and goals are not currently used, there is no way to know that such efforts are occurring or if they are effective.

Viability of ACS Disability DataThe disability and civil rights communities expressed unequivocal support for the use of ACS data as the best available statistical information. In particular, they recommended that ACS data on disability be used to determine if people with disabilities are not employed at a rate to be expected, given their availability in the relevant labor pools (i.e., to determine if the percentage of people with disabilities is less than would reasonably be expected given their availability percentage in a particular job group). ACS data can also be used by contractors to assess the effectiveness of good-faith efforts to employ people with disabilities by measuring

22

progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity. With the ACS data, it is now possible to amend the Section 503 regulations to provide parity and resemblance to the Executive Order 11246 regulations in terms of undertaking a quantitative analysis and establishing measureable goals.

The following comments supported the use of ACS data:

The ACS data items were developed after extensive research and rigorous testing by the government agencies responsible for their development to ensure inclusivity, reliability and higher response rates.

The ACS data is the most current and discrete statistical information available for conducting quantitative analyses, particularly for determining whether people with disabilities are being underutilized by federal contractors and for establishing placement goals in local geographic areas.

The ACS data make it possible to measure the availability of people with disabilities by labor market status, occupation, education, age and geographic location.

The updated ACS provides current, discrete, valid and reliable statistical data for establishing goals for women and minorities. There should be parity with other protected classes.

Questions regarding validity and reliability for data elements related to disability are not different from the same questions that the change from the Census long form to ACS raises for race and gender data. In fact, the ACS sampling technique will likely capture a larger number of people with disabilities than people of specific race groups in many geographical areas.

In addition, ANPRM respondents recommended that OFCCP seek EEO Special Tabulation from the U.S. Census Bureau that includes disability.

In general, representatives of the federal contractor community opposed the recommendation to use ACS data. Several of their comments include:

The broad, subjective and possibly fluid nature of some of the definitions used by ACS raises a series of questions.

ACS would indeed capture many individuals with disabilities, but there are many others it would not capture.

Disability included in the ACS data is not consistent with either ADA or the ADAAA. Where data are collected on individuals with disabilities, the data do not reflect the jobs

for which individuals with disabilities are qualified, so they may not be particularly helpful to federal contractors trying to establish placement goals.

Reliable availability data in the various recruitment areas used by federal contractors is not available, so any analysis based thereon would be faulty.

Section IV of this report presents the research team’s assessment of the viability of using ACS data for affirmative action purposes, including responses to these concerns.

Comparability of Disability to Race and GenderA number of comments from the federal contractor community raised the issue of comparing disability to race and gender for purposes of affirmative action, suggesting that race and gender bias is inherently different from bias against people with disabilities. These comments assert

23

that disability is not comparable to race/gender for purposes of conducting quantitative analyses and establishing hiring goals for the following reasons:

Unlike race or gender, a person’s disability is very often relevant to a candidate’s qualifications for employment and the need for a reasonable accommodation.

Moreover, unlike race or gender, a person’s disability may be relevant to his or her ability to perform a particular job.

Unlike race, gender or other protected classifications, a person’s status as an individual with a disability cannot be determined without an individualized legal assessment.

Disabilities are individualized, may vary widely in type and nature and may change over time.

Unlike race or gender, whether a person has a disability covered by Section 503 is not easily discernable and, in most instances, not an immutable characteristic.

No data exists on how disability may or may not affect an individual’s ability to perform the essential functions of a particular position (i.e., a qualified person with a disability).

People in the disability community disagree with these views. Bias against women and minorities often is based upon the false belief, based only on their race and gender, that specific workers are less capable and qualified than other workers. At its root, bias against people with disabilities exists for the same reason — some hold the incorrect belief that people with disabilities are inherently less capable and qualified than people without disabilities.

People of every race, gender and disability status all face qualification tests when applying for a job: Does the applicant have the requisite skills, knowledge, education and experience? From the equal employment opportunity and affirmative action points of view, the employer needs to put aside stereotypes and preconceptions with respect to gender, race and disability and assess all applicants individually.

In comparing the different protected statuses, race and gender (except rarely) are not disqualifications. In the same vein, a disability is not necessarily a disqualification for any particular job. Therefore, the argument that disability is different is incorrect. A particular disability might disqualify a candidate for a particular job, just as not having the right college degree might disqualify that candidate for the same job. That fact should not prevent employers from looking at the proportion of the people with disabilities (or women or Hispanics or whites) who are working in a given occupation and comparing that proportion for the same occupation in the work force of a given employer.

Identifying Which People with Disabilities Are Available in Labor MarketSome comments expressed by representatives of the federal contractor community expressed a concern that using ACS data might overstate the labor market availability of people with disabilities. For example, people with disabilities who are receiving SSDI, and therefore presumably incapable of work, might be included among those identified as being in the labor market availability of persons with disabilities. Other comments expressed a broader concern that the data might include people who are not interested in working.

These comments suggest a lack of understanding of the technical term “labor force.” According to BLS definitions, people who are not working due to their inability to work and those who are not interested in working are not counted as part of the labor force. Hence, using the civilian

24

labor force as the availability basis will not overestimate people with disabilities. The civilian labor force includes only people who are working and unemployed people who actively looked for work within the past four weeks.

In contrast, counting only those people who are in the civilian labor force raises a concern that the count would omit “discouraged workers” who have withdrawn from the labor force only because they feel that job searching would be futile. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines this group in this way:17

Discouraged workers are a subset of persons marginally attached to the labor force. The marginally attached are those persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months, but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them, or there were none for which they would qualify.

That the “labor force” excludes discouraged workers is a valid issue. This point has been addressed by researchers who have used the monthly CPS to estimate the extent of the discouraged worker effect. The ranks of this group tend to increase during times of recession, when jobs are harder to find. However, for people with disabilities, the discriminatory barriers to employment they face even in prosperous times have led many to stop searching for work. As a result, the expectation is that many people with disabilities qualify as discouraged workers, whether during recessions or not.

The discouraged worker effect does not apply only to people with disabilities. It also affects women and minorities. It arises, for example, for women in the construction trades, where women are discouraged from attempting to enter construction occupations, and for minorities, whose higher overall unemployment rates than for whites can translate into greater discouragement. That means that women and minorities are likely to be currently undercounted in affirmative action plans (AAP) availability as well.

Matching Occupation and Geography to Labor Markets of EmployersSeveral comments from the federal contractor community indicate that to do quantitative analyses, the availability data on individuals with disabilities needs to be tabulated and made available to federal contractors in the same manner and at the same levels of occupational and geographic detail that are currently available for women and minorities through the U.S. Census Bureau’s EEO Special Tabulation. In particular, representatives of the federal contractor community pointed out that:

Availability estimates for minorities and women are built job-title-by-job-title within specific geographic areas and are not based on general statistics regarding how many minorities or women are employed in the entire work force.

To do the same type of goals and placement rates as required under EO 11246, federal contractors would need Census data broken down by occupation code and geographic region with percentages of disabled individuals.

Another fundamental flaw in using the ACS data, as prescribed in the EconSys report, is that contractors conducting the availability analysis for affirmative action planning

17 This definition is routinely and often stated in BLS news releases and other publications.25

under EO 11246 regulations, use AAP job groups, not EEO-1 categories, as their level of analysis.

Since there are fewer occupational categories in the ACS data, it will be more difficult to assign correct disability data in utilization analysis.

According to one ANPRM respondent, many contractors, particularly those in rural areas far removed from any metropolitan area, do not use Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in their availability analysis. Instead, they develop availability pools based on groups of local counties, made readily available to contractors through the Census Bureau’s EEO Special Tabulation. If OFCCP intends to use ACS to develop availability figures for individuals with disabilities, there will be a significant gap between the data available for rural contractors and the data available for contractors in metropolitan areas, according to the ANPRM respondent.

To assess the legitimacy of these concerns, it is critical to understand the role of ACS data in future EEO Special Tabulations. ACS is designed to replace the “long form” data collected on a sample of the national population in recent decennial Censuses, most recently in 2000. By pooling ACS data collected over at least three years, the survey will have as large a sample as the former Census long form, and therefore can and will be tabulated and reported by the Census Bureau at the same levels of geographic and occupational detail. Thus, if data were reported by the Census Bureau from the 2000 Census for a group of rural counties, data can be reported from ACS for that same group of rural counties.

The Census Bureau is currently in discussion with sponsoring government agencies to create a new EEO Special Tabulation based on five years of pooled ACS data. This new EEO file is expected to be available in late 2012 and will offer all the same geographic data choices provided in the 2000 Census Special EEO file, including nation, state, metropolitan areas, and counties. In addition, the Census Bureau plans to add data for economic areas. The entire nation is divided into 197 economic areas, each centered around a metropolitan or micropolitan area, but including all rural areas surrounding that center.

A few comments focused on the use of PUMAs in the earlier EconSys report, saying they are not acceptable for some employers, whose recruiting areas may be rural areas smaller than PUMAs. In reality, for reasons of confidentiality and statistical reliability, even in the 2000 Census and the EEO Special Tabulation based on that census, the Census Bureau never provided data on the race and gender of persons in specific occupations in a local area smaller than PUMAs.18 Thus, the situation with respect to data on persons with disabilities will be no different from that with respect to data on race and gender.

Moreover, these comments misunderstand why PUMAs were used in the exploratory EconSys report, which was only for illustrative purposes. By using PUMAs, the research team was able approximately to compute data for example metropolitan areas, given that the Census Bureau does not yet provide such computations officially. When the Census Bureau releases its new official EEO Special File, data will be reported for metropolitan areas, and this approximation will no longer be necessary.

If disability data are included in the new EEO special file based on ACS data, contractors will have the identical geographical specificity for disability that they will have for race and gender. 18 For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, non-sampling error, and accuracy of

Census 2000 data, see http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3chap8.pdf .

26

Hence, while including disability status along with race and gender, contractors will be able to specify their own job markets as they have done in the past The general principle is to maintain consistency with how affirmative action efforts are already implemented for race and gender so that numerical goals for people with disabilities will add little additional administrative burden for employers. Following this principle, each employer would simply apply the same “reasonable recruitment areas” to people with disabilities it has already selected for race/gender AAP purposes.

Self-IdentificationThe disabilities and civil rights communities expressed near-universal support for the recommendations regarding self-identification made by the previous EconSys study, which are:

Require contractors to offer applicants with disabilities the opportunity to voluntarily self-identify their disability status prior to an offer of employment.

Allow self-identification for data collection and/or targeted hiring purposes. Include safeguards and maintain confidentially (maintained on separate forms and in

separate medical files and treated as a confidential medical record). Minimize the burden on individuals and contractors.

Several comments suggested that self-identification can be useful and accurate and that the best approach is to encourage all individuals with disabilities to self-identify regardless of whether or not they need an accommodation. This approach would help align such data with survey responses in ACS, since the six disability items in ACS do not ask whether disabilities are related to ability to work.

The following specific comments emphasize the importance of providing applicants the opportunity to voluntarily self-identify pre-offer and the need to encourage such disclosure:

With voluntary self-identification prior to an offer of employment, employers will be in a much better position to assess the success of their affirmative action programs and make needed improvements, or identify departments or supervisors who are discriminating or failing to take affirmative action.

The fact that there may be individuals apprehensive about self-identifying is a very weak reason to forego the process. If you get the word out to employers and applicants about the advantages of hiring individuals with disabilities, then the walls of fear about self-identification would crumble.

Many individuals, particularly those who were injured or disabled while serving their country in the military, want to self-identify at the applicant stage. If there is no place for them to self-identify during the application process, such individuals may feel the process is not legitimate. Not everyone will self-identify, but the individual with a disability needs to feel that there is a real interest in hiring people with disabilities if they qualify for the position and do self-identify.

Voluntary disclosure is perhaps the most critical aspect of enhanced hiring, including determining whether accommodation is needed. If all job seekers voluntarily disclosed the work impact of their disability, regardless of whether they are seeking reasonable accommodation or not, employers would be more likely to respond favorably.

Massachusetts is on the cutting edge around this topic. There, the Model Employer program has resulted in an over 50 percent increase in the number of individuals self-

27

identifying as having a disability. The Commonwealth currently invites self-identification on all applications and postings.

In general, the federal contractor community expressed opposition/reservation to the recommendations for self-identification. Comments included:

Given the myriad of factors that influence whether one may or may not self-identify as disabled to his or her employer at any given time, the collection of “disability data” — no matter how that term is defined — is fraught with unreliability.

Unlike gender and race, the identification of an individual with disabilities is totally dependent upon the willingness of individuals to identify themselves as disabled.

The definition of a disability is complicated and requires an analysis by someone knowledgeable and experienced with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Allowing self-identification would invariably result in improper identification and classification and thus, faulty measurements and analyses.

Under EO 11246 regulations, a federal contractor is permitted to use visual identification or other employment records to identify an individual’s race or gender (citations to OFCCP Guidance). However, it is unlikely that federal contractors will be able to — or even legally should — follow the same process when an individual declines to provide disability status information.

One respondent stated that they have no conceptual objection to collecting such information at the pre-offer stage so long as companies that do so will not be deemed to have thereby violated the ADA. OFCCP needs to coordinate with the EEOC to ensure that employers will not be subject to liability from EEOC by complying with the proposed OFCCP changes.

The research team points out that the issue of self-identification is not limited to people with disabilities. Similar issues occur for identifying minority status and even for identifying gender. The notion that you can always identify someone’s race or gender by looking is not correct. ACS rates used for establishing reference points and benchmarks will very likely contain a number of conflicting “errors” that cancel out, producing estimates that are reasonably close to the true population.

28

IV. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND PLACEMENT GOALS

The previous section identified positions taken by various stakeholders in response to the ANPRM regarding the overarching question of whether or not it is feasible to require government contractors to undertake quantitative analyses and establish placement goals for people with disabilities under Section 503. This section of this report analyzes this overarching question by addressing the particular issues and concerns raised by respondents to the ANPRM. Specifically, this section describes the development of the new ACS survey items applicable to people with disabilities and the rationales for their development and use. It also explains how the new ACS disability measures can be incorporated into the ongoing process of replacing the Census 2000 Special EEO file for race and gender with an updated one based on ACS. In addition, it explains how employers can then undertake quantitative analyses and establish placement goals for the employment of qualified people with disabilities under Section 503 within the same framework they currently use for race and gender under Executive Order 11246.

The Census Bureau EEO Special TabulationThe Census 2000 EEO Special Tabulation currently serves as the primary external benchmark for comparing the racial, ethnic and gender composition of each employer's work force to that available in its labor market. The Census Bureau produced the Census 2000 Special EEO file for federal agencies responsible for monitoring employment practices and enforcing civil rights laws in the work force, and for employers for measuring their compliance with the laws.

The Census 2000 EEO Data Tool is a web-based tool19 that enables users to obtain labor availability estimates for selected occupations by race or ethnicity and gender. Users can select tabulations for various levels of geography based on residence or work place, including state, metropolitan area and larger counties. For these geographical entities, the tool allows users to create tables based on specific occupations, as well as educational achievement categories.

To replace the Census 2000 EEO Special File, the Census Bureau is currently engaged in discussions with four government agencies — the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Department of Justice, Office of Personnel Management and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs — to produce special tabulations based on multi-year ACS data. ACS is a major element in the Census Bureau’s reengineered decennial census program. ACS collects and produces population, housing and employment information every year instead of every ten years.

With financial support from that consortium of federal agencies, the U.S. Census Bureau is currently preparing to develop such a special tabulation, with ACS data, on race and gender of individuals in specific occupations in specific labor markets. The new EEO file is planned to be available in late 2012 and to offer the same geographic and occupational data choices provided in the 2000 Census EEO Special Tabulation, currently in use.

A key recommendation of this study — and of numerous respondents to the ANPRM — is that OFCCP ask the Census Bureau to add disability counts in its future EEO Special Tabulations for race and gender. In that circumstance, employers should have little difficulty interpreting or

19 The Census 2000 EEO Data Tool is available at: http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/index.html . 29

applying these disability data in affirmative action planning because they would be provided in formats familiar to them from decades of using such tabulations in affirmative action planning with respect to race and gender.

The current EEO Special Tabulation provides data for 472 occupations and 6 levels of educational attainment. The research team’s recommendation is that employers tabulate disability data that correspond to the new ACS measure of disability, using the same occupational and education categories they use for their race/ethnicity and gender analyses.

Rationale for Quantitative Analysis and Placement GoalsResearch and responses to the ANPRM identified multiple barriers that currently impede federal contractors from hiring people with disabilities, including:

Failure of federal contractors to take their obligations under Section 503 seriously

Lack of clear, measurable and result-oriented requirements

Lack of clear guidance, monitoring and enforcement by OFCCP

Employer discrimination against people with disabilities

Lack of accommodation that would facilitate employment of people with disabilities

Failure to develop system-wide strategies to provide and pay for reasonable accommodation.

The primary barrier identified by the federal contractor community related to the difficulty of identifying effective employment referral sources for qualified individuals with disabilities.

One indicator of the continued prevalence of employer discrimination against people with disabilities is the constant flow of legal proceedings alleging disability discrimination in employment in which trial outcomes, settlements or findings of reasonable cause suggest that the complaints were warranted. For example, over the 10 most recent fiscal years (2001-2010), the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received formal complaints of employment discrimination under the ADA for which it found “reasonable cause” at the rate of more than five every work day.20

A number of studies have attempted to quantify the extent of employer discrimination against job seekers or employees with disabilities.21 Those studies indicate that such problems are not rare. For example, one study based on the Disability Supplement to the 1994 and 1995 National Health Interview Survey estimated that nearly one-tenth of all adults with disabilities who were in the work force experienced some form of job discrimination over a five year period.22

20 www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/ada-charges.cfm, downloaded March 4, 2011. In the most recent year, FY 2010, the rate almost exactly matched that 10-year average.

21 For a more detailed discussion of the history of challenges and barriers to the employment of people with disabilities, see Section II, Case for Modernizing Affirmative Action Provisions, in the EconSys report, Volume II: Modernizing the Affirmative Action Provisions of the Section 503 and VEVRAA Regulations, submitted to Office of Disability Employment Policy, US Department of Labor, April 30, 2010.

22 Jae Kennedy and Marjorie Olney, “Job Discrimination in the Post-ADA Era,” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 45 (1, 2001), pp. 24-30.

30

Another study documented statistically-significant differences between women with and without disabilities in both employment rates and wage offers.23 And in multiple recent surveys, employers have expressed more negative attitudes toward hiring people with psychiatric disabilities than almost any other demographic group.24

As one means of addressing the significant gaps in employment and work force participation facing individuals with disabilities, Section 503 regulations should be modified to require contractors to undertake quantitative analyses and establish placement goals for qualified individuals with disabilities, comparable to those they apply to women and minorities under regulations implementing Executive Order 11246.

By adding this requirement, the Section 503 regulations will be substantially more effective and enforceable. Both contractors and OFCCP will be better able to determine whether affirmative action programs are actually being implemented, including whether required “proactive” and “positive” steps are actually effective in enhancing the recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement of qualified individuals with disabilities. Without a required, measured goal, the widespread and systemic obstacles and barriers to employment mean that placement of workers with disabilities is likely to remain at its current low percentage. Establishing placement goals would send a message to contractors that they are being held accountable for making progress in these areas. Employers pay attention to what is measured. In this regard, the situation for qualified individuals with disabilities is no different from that for women and minorities.

Rationale for Using ACS Disability Data In designing the new ACS survey items, researchers and others specifically sought to create disability measures that would be appropriate for assessing how much of the population with disabilities participates in employment and education.25 One specific task assigned to the interagency work group was to measure disability “using a definition in keeping with the ADA.”26 For example, the ACS Subcommittee determined that “consistent with the definition of disability established by the Americans with Disabilities Act… in order to measure prevalence, the concept of disability would be defined as a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity.”27 Additionally, the “Subcommittee concluded that a short battery of questions organized by domains of limitation would adequately generate a population estimate that could fulfill analytic requirements, specifically to evaluate equalization 23 Marjorie Baldwin and William Johnson, “Labor Market Discrimination against Women with Disabilities,

“Industrial Relations 34 (4, 1995), pp. 555-577.

24 Judith Cook, “Employment Barriers for Persons with Psychiatric Disabilities: Update of a Report for the President’s Commission,” Psychiatric Services 57 (October 2006), pp, 1391-1405.

25 Review of Changes to the Measurement of Disability in the 2008 American Community Survey, Matthew W. Brault, U.S Census Bureau (September 22, 2009), page 3. www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/2008ACS_disability.pdf

26 2006 American Community Survey Content Test Report — Evaluation Report Covering Disability, Mathew Brault, Sharon Stern U.S. Census Bureau (January 3, 2007), page 4. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/methodology/content_test/P4_Disability.pdf. 27 Report of Cognitive Research on Proposed American Community Survey Disability Questions (Evaluation conducted by NCHS, Census Bureau, Kristen Miller (NCHS) and Theresa J. DeMaio (Census), included as Appendix B in 2006 American Community Survey Content Test Report — -Evaluation Report Covering Disability, Mathew Brault, Sharon Stern, U.S. Census Bureau (January 3, 2007), page B-2. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/methodology/content_test/P4_Disability.pdf.

31

of opportunity for those with disabilities (e.g., housing and employment opportunities).”28 Thus, during development of this approach, it was explicitly recognized that the disability questions “would be used by federal, state and local governments to assess the impact of policies intended to reduce discrimination and improve participation in community services.” 29

The interagency work group tested multiple different versions of disability questions. Between the NCHS and the Census Bureau, five rounds of interviews were conducted, comprising 69 total interviews. Interviews were conducted in rounds so that, if questions were revised, they could be retested.30 The interagency working group recognized that it is not feasible to develop questions that yield a perfect measure of disability and that disability statuses derived from survey questions are necessarily grounded in respondents’ perceptions and interpretations. However, at the end of their work, the work group concluded that the final questions “result in better questions, in terms of reliability and response and their ability to better identify the population of persons with disabilities,”31 when compared with disability measures derived from earlier Census survey questions.

The final set of six questions establishes an inclusive measure of disability, incorporating concepts from the three domains of disability — communication, mental and physical — and including Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) measures.32 For example, when the cognitive laboratory staff at NCHS and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Survey Methods Research in the Statistical Research Division tested the “cognitive” question (#3),33 affirmative responses were found to capture a wide range of conditions, including mental health problems (e.g., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression), learning disabilities and serious age-related cognitive problems.34

28 Ibid. at B-3. See also DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) (2008), which adopted the ACS questions to identify people with disabilities who were the victims of crime.

29 Review of Changes to the Measurement of Disability in the 2008 American Community Survey, Matthew W. Brault, U.S Census Bureau (September 22, 2009), page 6. www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/2008ACS_disability.pdf

30 Kristin Miller, NCHS, and Theresa DeMaio, U.S. Census Bureau, Report of Cognitive Research on Proposed American Community Survey Disability Questions, Evaluation Conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Bureau of the Census, June 2004 – January 2005 included as Appendix B in 2006 American Community Survey Content Test Report — Evaluation Report Covering Disability, Mathew Brault, Sharon Stern U.S. Census Bureau (January 3, 2007), page B-4. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/methodology/content_test/P4_Disability.pdf

31 2006 American Community Survey Content Test Report — Evaluation Report Covering Disability, Mathew Brault, Sharon Stern U.S. Census Bureau (January 3, 2007), page 25. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/methodology/content_test/P4_Disability.pdf 32 Review of Changes to the Measurement of Disability in the 2008 American Community Survey,

Matthew W. Brault, U.S Census Bureau (September 22, 2009), page 7. www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/2008ACS_disability.pdf

33 The third ACS question is: “Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions?”

34 Kristin Miller, NCHS, and Theresa DeMaio, U.S. Census Bureau, Report of Cognitive Research on Proposed American Community Survey Disability Questions, Evaluation Conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Bureau of the Census, June 2004 – January 2005 included as Appendix B in 2006 American Community Survey Content Test Report — Evaluation Report Covering Disability, Mathew Brault, Sharon Stern U.S. Census Bureau (January 3, 2007), pp. B-18-B-22.

32

A number of respondents to the ANPRM expressed concern that many people with disabilities may not be identified through the six CPS disability questions. Specifically, they believe that many people with intellectual disabilities, serious mental health conditions, learning disabilities, chronic health conditions (such as cancer, diabetes, and epilepsy) and other disabilities are not captured. A few researchers have analyzed and assessed the ACS disability data by comparing results from different surveys such as ACS, CPS and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).35 Results vary, depending on the specific questions asked, sampling and methodology in how the survey is administered.

As stated above, perfection is neither expected, nor reasonable, to expect. It is certainly possible that ACS incorrectly counts some people as having disabilities who do not, as well as misses some people who do have disabilities. The reasons for this vary from people not fully understanding the questions to people choosing not to answer truthfully. This is not something unique to disability questions; such issues are inherent in any survey process. 36

The question for this study is not whether the data are perfect, but rather whether the data are sufficiently current, valid and reliable to support quantitative analyses and placement goals. The answer is: Yes. The ACS questionnaire’s methods for collecting data on individuals with disabilities are comparable in data quality to, and methodologically parallel to, those that have been and will continue to be routinely relied upon by employers in developing affirmative action goals for women and minorities.

Requiring perfection in the measurement tool would set an unrealistic standard that, for example, the race questions used in AAPs did not and do not meet. The six ACS disability questions offer a reasonable, practical measure that has been thoroughly reviewed in a broad consultative process. They pass relevant standards of practicality, credibility and face validity.

More research may eventually lead to an improved set of questions. However, that possibility is no reason for not using the current ACS questions now for setting AAP goals. Using the current set of questions will not interfere with further research and improvement; it may even accelerate the process. The disability questions can and should be improved over time, just as the race/ethnicity questions asked in the Census have evolved over time. For example, African Americans over multiple decades have evolved from being counted as “colored” to “Negro” to “black” to “black/African American” and to “African American alone + African American in combination with other races.” Similarly, “Hispanic” was originally not measured at all, then was represented by “Spanish-speaking,” and only later redefined as an ethnicity.

In summary, the ACS disability questions provide the best large-scale collection of data currently available for measuring the incidence of disability in the U.S. population. As is the case

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/methodology/content_test/P4_Disability.pdf

35 An example is a presentation at the 2010 Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Policy Seminar, December 14-15, 2010, entitled, Estimates of Disability by Question Administration Style and Demographic Characteristics: A Cross-Survey Comparison, by Julie Weeks and James Dahlhamer, National Center for Health Statistics.

36 Reflecting the universality of such concerns, standard survey procedures provide a means to estimate sampling error so that confidence intervals can be drawn around results, and this is the routine practice in ACS.

33

with respect to race/ethnicity and gender, the current questions are not perfect. They can, and possibly will, be improved over time, just as the race/ethnicity questions in the Census have evolved over time. However, they reasonably meet the standards for adequacy, accuracy and care applied to parallel data for minority status and gender.

Determining Availability Using ACS DataFollowing the principle of parallelism to minorities and women, employers’ existing procedures for AAP development would be applied to people with disabilities.

To complete their AAP quantitative analyses and goal setting process, employers need availability figures for specific occupations in specific geographic labor markets. In addition to identifying the disability status of individuals, ACS asks individuals responding to the survey to self-identify their occupations, and the survey assumes that individuals who report themselves in an occupation meet the requirements of that occupation — for example, that individuals who report themselves as lawyers are trained and licensed to practice law.

This principle of self-reporting should apply to individuals with disabilities the same way it applies to women and minorities. The result would be that, in determining whether individuals with disabilities are under-utilized, employers’ current employment practices would be benchmarked against availability standards that include only individuals with disabilities who are qualified to perform the occupation being analyzed.

Since the 1970s, availability data on women and minorities have been provided to employers by the Census Bureau in the Bureau’s EEO Special Tabulation. While the Census Bureau is updating this file for release in 2012 using ACS data, the Bureau should be asked to add parallel data for individuals with disabilities at the same time. This request would be a simple addition to the tables that the Bureau is already in the process of producing, following the same format as for race and gender data and being reported for the same occupations and geographical labor markets.

In developing these new tables, the Census Bureau should be asked to derive availability figures for individuals with disabilities from the same data source — ACS — from which it will derive the counterpart figures for women and minorities. Over multiple decades of use, this data source (and its predecessor, the “long form” data from the decennial Census) has become universally accepted as an appropriate, carefully-implemented source of detailed occupational demographic data.37

Geographical Specificity in Identifying Qualified Applicant Pool

Again, the general principle is to maintain consistency with how affirmative action efforts are already implemented for race and gender. Thus, adding numerical goals for people with disabilities will result in little additional administrative burden for employers.

By 2012, when a new EEO special file is developed, employers will have the identical choice of geographical specificity for disability data that they currently have for race and gender, including nation, state, metropolitan areas and large places. Hence, contractors will be able to determine their own geographical job markets, as they have done in the past for race and gender. In fact, they already make this determination in analyzing data for race and gender and would simply apply the same determination to disability; no additional analysis is required.

37 41 CFR 60-2.14(d).34

There may be some occupations and geographic locations where the numbers of people with disabilities are too small to allow Census data to be released. This happens in the case of race and gender categories as well. The Census Bureau does not release numbers in its EEO Special File for which it considers the number of survey respondents too small to protect confidentiality or to provide statistically reliable data. With respect to goals for individuals with disabilities, employers will handle these cases using the same procedures they currently apply when the circumstance arises with respect to race or gender.

Options for Determining Availability

If current procedures for computing the availability of women and minorities are followed exactly for people with disabilities, availability would be based on the percentage of individuals with disabilities among those who are in the civilian labor force (i.e., those who are currently employed or actively seeking employment). However, as indicated by some ANPRM respondents in their comments, focusing only on the civilian labor force excludes people who have dropped out of the labor force due to the “discouraged worker effect.” “Discouraged workers” are interested in employment, but are not currently employed or actively seeking employment, because they believe that these efforts are likely to be futile.

The research team’s assessment is that ACS provides a straightforward, defensible procedure for computing an alternative measure of labor force availability for individuals with disabilities which would encompass both individuals currently in the civilian labor force and those discouraged workers who are nevertheless attached to the labor force. ACS does not ask whether each person reported in the survey has looked for work within the past 12 months, which means that we cannot use the CPS-based method for measuring the discouraged worker effect. Instead, we propose that the Census Bureau use whether or not the person reports a specific occupation — even if he or she is not currently in the civilian labor force — to signal attachment to the labor force.

This method, the data implications and a comparison with the conventional civilian labor force-based numbers are discussed further in Section V of this report, “Additional Option for Determining Availability.” Appendix C contrasts disability rates in the civilian labor force to disability rates for this broader group (which we refer to as the “labor force attached” population) by detailed occupation, based on 2009 ACS data.

Framework for Determining IncumbencyUnder the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, incumbency is measured by the percentage of minorities and women by job category in the employer’s current work force. Thus, to do the same for people with disabilities requires identifying such individuals among the employer’s employees.

To assist contractors in determining their work force representation of people with disabilities, the following changes can be made to the self-identification provisions in the current Section 503 regulations. These changes have been recommended by both experts and disability stakeholders:

Require contractors to offer applicants with disabilities the opportunity to voluntarily self-identify prior to an offer of employment

Allow self-identification for data collection and/or targeted hiring purposes35

Include safeguards to maintain confidentiality (e.g., separate forms and separate medical files and treating records as confidential medical records)

Require identification of employees with disabilities

Minimize the burden on individuals and contractors

Requiring contractors to offer job applicants the opportunity to voluntarily self-identify as having a disability, both before and after a conditional offer of employment, will enhance employers’ ability to assess and improve their recruitment and hiring initiatives. It will also enhance their ability to identify departments or supervisors who are discriminating or failing to take affirmative action. This change would make the protections for job seekers and the responsibilities of contractors during the hiring process comparable to those currently applicable to women and minorities.

Moreover, as federal agencies, employers, employees and community groups get the word out to job seekers about the importance of hiring individuals with disabilities and the safeguards applicable to self-identification, this opportunity should lead to increases in self-identification and support development of more inclusive corporate cultures. Illustrating the effectiveness of this approach, ANPRM respondents on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts indicated that implementation of the Commonwealth’s Model Employer Program resulted in an increase of more than 50 percent in the number of individuals self-identifying as having a disability within the Commonwealth’s work force. The Commonwealth currently invites self-identification on all employment applications and postings for all state government jobs.

ANPRM respondents representing individuals with disabilities, particularly those injured or disabled while serving in the military, indicated that they want the opportunity to self-identify at the applicant stage. If no such opportunity is offered, many of these individuals may resent the lack of opportunity to provide this information. For EEO initiatives to succeed, individuals with disability need to believe that there is a real interest in hiring them if they qualify for the position.

The research team also recommends that OFCCP’s published regulations include assurance that offering applicants with disabilities the opportunity to self-identify — under specified circumstances and in accordance with specified safeguards under Section 503 — does not violate any other requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA or EEOC implementing regulations.

Form for Self-Identification of DisabilityTo guide an individual in determining his or her disability status, we recommend that OFCCP develop a self-identification form for job applicants. (See Appendix B. Draft Form for Self-Identification). The self-identification form asks the applicant (on a voluntary basis) to identify whether or not he or she has a disability, using the definition of disability set out in the Rehabilitation Act. After reviewing the definition, if the applicant is still uncertain regarding his or her disability status, the form provides additional guidance on how to declare a disability through the six disability-related questions from ACS, as well as additional questions about specific physical and mental impairments. In the draft form in Appendix B, the list of specific physical or mental impairments is derived from Standard Form 256 (Self-Identification of Disability) developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and revised in July 2010. This form is used by federal agencies for affirmative action purposes under Section 501 of the

36

Rehabilitation Act. The definition of disability used here is the same as for Section 503.38 By offering comprehensive guidance for a respondent to self-identify a disability, the form would help employers avoid unintentionally missing any employees who should be included in their incumbency analysis.

All concerned stakeholders, including national disability rights organizations, recognize that it is essential that affirmative action requirements not force employers to hire individuals with disabilities who are not qualified for the position they seek to fill. In this regard, the situation is no different for individuals with disabilities than for other demographic groups for whom affirmative action programs have been in place for decades. In all cases, individual employers’ actual hiring decisions should continue to be governed by the nondiscrimination provisions of the Section 503 regulations, which require individualized, case-by-case determinations of whether a particular applicant and/or employee is qualified (i.e., can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation).

Comparing Incumbency to AvailabilityUnder the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, federal contractors must compare incumbency (the percentage of minorities and women in their current work force) in each job group to availability (to be estimated using ACS data, as discussed above) [41 CFR 60-2.15(a)]. Contractors can easily conduct parallel comparisons between incumbency and availability with respect to qualified individuals with disabilities for purposes of Section 503. No analytical issues are raised by this requirement that employers are not already accustomed to using in the context of race and gender.

38 Standard Form 256 reflects the 2008 Amendments to the definition of disability (ADA Amendments Act of 2008) used for purposes of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and is consistent with the questions in ACS.

37

V. ILLUSTRATIVE ANALYSIS OF ACS DATA

Section V describes how tabulations based on the new ACS survey questions on disability can be used to determine availability of the relevant labor pools by occupation, education level and geographic area in a manner similar to current procedures for women and minorities.

Definition and Calculation of Disability Rates As stated previously, the EEO Special Tabulation, based on 2000 Census Bureau data, is currently used by federal contractors for measuring availability of women and minorities. For example, the number of people with disabilities whose occupation is identified as accountant is calculated as a percentage of all people in the civilian labor force whose occupation is accountant.

The disability rates reported in this section use civilian labor force data for all ages 16 and older. They are different from the numbers presented in the previous 2010 EconSys report, which used data only for ages 18 to 64. Given the exploratory nature of the previous analysis, the research team for that report focused on using civilian labor force data of typical working age adults (age 18 to 64), excluding people under 18 and people of likely retirement age (65 and older). However, to render data in this report as consistently as possible with the data and methods applied to the EEO Special Tabulation, disability rates presented in this report do not incorporate age limitations, except when otherwise indicated.

In the previous report (2010), for ages 18 to 64, the overall national “availability” of people with disabilities, using 2008 ACS data was 5.8 percent, as shown in Table 5. In comparison, the availability for people with disabilities age 16 and older is 6.2 percent using 2008 ACS data. For 2009, the availability of people with disabilities is 6.0 percent for people aged 18 to 64 compared to 5.6 percent for the 18 to 64 age group.

Table 5. National Availability of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Age

Ages Included Percentage with Disability2008 2009

Age 16 and older 6.2% 6.0%Age 18 to 64 5.8% 5.6%

Disability Rates by OccupationUnder current affirmative action procedures for women and minorities, if a contractor has a total work force of fewer than 150 employees, the contractor may prepare a job group analysis utilizing EEO-1 categories as job groups — that is, the nine occupational groups used in Standard Form 100, the Employer Information EEO-1 Survey: Officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales, office and clerical, craft workers (skilled), operatives (semi-skilled), laborers (unskilled) and service workers.39

39 41 CFR 60-2.1238

Table 6 shows disability rates for these EEO-1 occupation groups for the civilian labor force for 2008 and 2009. Proportionally speaking, professionals have the lowest representation of people with disabilities, while operatives and laborers and helpers have the highest.

Table 6. Disabled Percentage of Civilian Labor Force by Major Occupation Group, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data, United States

Occupation Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability

Major Occupation Category 2008 2009Not Indicated 12.8% 11.7%Officials and Managers 4.7% 4.5%Professionals 4.0% 3.9%Technicians 4.9% 4.9%Sales Workers 5.8% 5.7%Administrative Support Workers 6.1% 5.9%Craft Workers 6.8% 6.6%Operatives 8.4% 8.2%Laborers and Helpers 8.1% 7.9%Service Workers 7.9% 7.5%Total 6.2% 6.0%

Large employers typically do not use categories as broad as those in Table 6 in their AAP analyses. Instead, they use specific occupations matching those within their own organizations. Table 7 shows the percentages of people with disabilities in the U.S. for selected occupations often found among large federal contractor work forces. A complete list of disability rates by occupation, using the 2009 ACS, is provided in the Appendix C of this report.

Table 7. Representation of People with Disabilities in Selected Occupations, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data

2008 ACS 2009 ACS

Census OccupationDisability

PrevalenceWorkers

NationwideDisability

PrevalenceWorkers

Nationwide20 Mgr-General and Operations Managers 4.0% 1,036,264 4.0% 989,083800 Fin-Accountants and Auditors 3.8% 2,134,532 3.5% 2,136,1681020 Cmm-Computer Software Engineers 2.6% 850,153 1.9% 887,9181320 Eng-Aerospace Engineers 4.0% 141,315 4.0% 141,9311550 Eng-Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters 5.4% 459,849 6.0% 424,6984220 Cln-Janitors and Building Cleaners 12.4% 2,654,884 12.0% 2,717,2114850 Sal-Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing 4.1% 1,556,202 4.5% 1,541,341

5700 Off-Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 5.0% 3,999,038 5.2% 3,982,9136230 Con-Carpenters 6.6% 1,653,484 6.7% 1,560,5256260 Con-Construction Laborers 6.5% 1,999,678 6.5% 1,978,0526350 Con-Electricians 5.9% 855,570 6.2% 854,5658740 Prd-Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 9.0% 846,144 7.5% 842,792

8960 Prd-Other Production Workers40 9.4% 1,324,577 9.3% 1,286,2319620 Trn-Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 9.8% 2,369,395 9.2% 2,360,669

40 Including Semiconductor Processors and Cooling and Freezing Equipment39

Year-to-year variation in disability rates can be due to a number of factors, including sampling differences and economic conditions. When it becomes available in 2012 for women and minorities, the EEO Special Tabulation tools will use pooled data from five years to ensure that availability percentages are stable and reliable. The same procedure should apply to data for persons with disabilities.

Disability Rates by Education LevelIn developing AAPs for race and gender, employers sometimes use the percentage of women and minorities available by education level to represent availability for jobs without particular skill or licensing prerequisites. The same is true for jobs where, for example, all necessary skills are acquired by on-the-job training, but for which the general level of thinking and communication skills presumed to be held by college graduates is required. For example, some jobs are typically filled by college graduates, regardless of academic field, such as entry-level insurance sales agents. Hence, when filling such positions, employers often look at the percentages of minorities and women holding a bachelor’s degree. Other jobs, such as restaurant dishwashers, require neither pre-trained skills nor education. For those jobs, employers typically look at the labor force with less education than a certain level. The same approach can be used to determine the availability of people with disabilities.

Table 8 reports the ACS-based representation of people with disabilities nationwide by education level. As a general pattern, educational attainment and the incidence of disability are inversely correlated moving from less than high school to a college degree. Among those with any college degree, however, the relationship between educational attainment and disability rate does not hold, so that individuals with doctoral degrees are not significantly more or less likely to have a disability than someone with only a bachelor’s degree. Overall, jobs that require a college or higher-level degree have from about one-half to one-third of the availability of people with disabilities as those requiring a high school diploma or less.

Table 8. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Education Level, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data

Education 2008

2009

Less than HS 9.3% 9.3%HS Diploma or GED 7.6% 7.4%Some College 6.2% 6.1%BA or BS 3.6% 3.4%MA or MS 3.7% 3.6%Professional/Doctorate 3.8% 3.5%

All 6.2% 6.0%

Disability Rates by LocationIn conducting availability analyses, employers have the flexibility to determine “reasonable recruitment areas” for occupational groups within their work forces. For some jobs, the recruitment area is highly local, while for certain higher-level jobs, the recruitment area can be

40

much larger — national or even international. Employers are not expected to take account of international availability in their affirmative action programs, however.

Disability rates do vary by location, as is illustrated in Table 9. This variation does not follow any obvious pattern. For example, in 2008, Massachusetts had the highest disability rates for laborers and helpers, but the lowest disability rate for officials and managers. The reasons underlying the patterns have not been studied in this report. What is important to note is that, just as they do for women and minorities, choice of recruitment area does affect the estimated availability of people with disabilities.

Washington, DC and Chicago ExamplesThis section illustrates how analysts might use ACS data to examine hiring in two metropolitan areas: Washington, DC and Chicago. In Washington, the example focuses on higher-level professional jobs involved in the consulting services, typical of many Washington-area federal contractors. In Chicago, the example focuses on jobs typically related to federal construction projects.

Table 10 shows disability rates by major job category for Illinois and for those states that surround the Washington, DC area, as well as the approximate Chicago and DC MSAs.41

Table 9. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability, by Major Occupation Category for Selected States, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data

Largest State in Each Census

Division

Officials and

Managers

Profes-sionals

Tech-nicians

Sales Workers

Administrative

Support Workers

Craft Workers Operatives

Laborers and

Helpers

Service Workers

2008Arizona 5.8% 5.1% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 7.5% 8.8% 7.0% 7.7%California 4.0% 3.7% 4.6% 4.7% 4.9% 5.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9%Florida 4.5% 4.1% 3.6% 5.8% 5.8% 6.3% 8.1% 6.7% 7.1%Illinois 4.0% 3.5% 3.5% 4.6% 5.3% 4.8% 7.3% 6.1% 6.5%Massachusetts 3.0% 3.8% 6.3% 5.1% 6.8% 5.7% 8.3% 9.9% 7.5%Missouri 5.8% 4.5% 5.7% 5.6% 6.9% 7.9% 11.8% 8.1% 9.2%New York 3.5% 3.5% 4.1% 4.3% 5.5% 6.0% 7.2% 6.7% 6.2%Tennessee 5.7% 4.3% 6.4% 6.8% 7.1% 9.4% 9.6% 9.0% 10.4%Texas 5.4% 4.6% 5.5% 6.1% 6.8% 7.4% 8.1% 8.0% 8.8%US Total 4.7% 4.0% 4.9% 5.8% 6.1% 6.8% 8.4% 8.1% 7.9%

2009

41 For reasons of confidentiality and statistical reliability, the smallest area for which the Census Bureau publicly releases ACS or Census data is the PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area), chosen to include approximately 100,000 respondents. PUMAs do not always fit perfectly within MSA boundaries. In Table 10, we approximate MSAs, by including all PUMAs included in all or in part in that MSA. Thus, our “approximate MSAs” are slightly larger than the actual MSA. Contractors preparing affirmative action plans will not need to perform this step because, in the new EEO Special Tabulation File to be released in 2012, the Census Bureau will already report data for MSAs.

41

Arizona 4.4% 4.4% 5.1% 6.0% 5.8% 7.1% 7.3% 6.6% 6.7%California 3.9% 3.4% 3.9% 4.5% 5.1% 5.1% 5.5% 5.2% 5.9%Florida 5.0% 3.9% 4.9% 5.6% 6.0% 5.2% 7.4% 7.9% 6.6%Illinois 3.4% 3.3% 4.6% 4.4% 5.0% 4.6% 6.6% 5.7% 6.3%Massachusetts 3.5% 3.3% 3.3% 5.1% 6.2% 5.2% 7.9% 8.9% 6.4%Missouri 5.3% 3.8% 6.3% 6.9% 7.1% 7.4% 12.1% 10.4% 9.0%New York 3.6% 3.5% 4.7% 4.3% 5.2% 5.2% 7.0% 6.0% 6.2%Tennessee 5.4% 4.7% 6.7% 7.0% 6.0% 9.4% 9.8% 8.5% 9.1%Texas 4.9% 4.4% 5.4% 6.0% 6.1% 7.1% 7.7% 8.3% 8.2%US Total 4.5% 3.9% 4.9% 5.7% 5.9% 6.6% 8.2% 7.9% 7.5%

Table 10. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Major Occupation Category for Selected States and Approximate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), 2009 ACS Data

Chicago MSA IL DC MSA MD DC VA DC-MD-VA

Officials and Managers 2.9% 3.4% 3.7% 3.9% 3.0% 4.4% 4.1%Professionals 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 3.8% 4.1% 3.6% 3.7%Technicians 5.5% 4.6% 5.2% 4.1% 7.5% 5.3% 4.9%Sales Workers 4.2% 4.4% 4.6% 5.8% 7.1% 5.1% 5.5%Administrative Support Workers 4.8% 5.0% 5.4% 6.5% 5.2% 6.1% 6.2%Craft Workers 4.1% 4.6% 7.0% 6.6% 4.3% 7.0% 6.8%Operatives 5.6% 6.6% 5.2% 7.0% 10.0% 7.5% 7.4%Laborers and Helpers 5.1% 5.7% 6.1% 7.4% 8.7% 6.2% 6.7%Service Workers 5.5% 6.3% 5.4% 6.0% 8.9% 7.1% 6.7%

42

We again note that contractors with fewer than 150 employees may prepare a job group analysis that utilizes categories as broad as the EEO-1 groups reported in Table 10. Larger employers typically use more occupationally-specific categories. The categories shown in Table 10 are only to illustrate typical variation in disability rates across broad occupational groupings. Table 11 shows disability rates for specific occupations for the same geographic entities shown in the previous table. As one might expect, more specific occupations produce a greater degree of variation across occupations than broader occupational groupings.

Table 11. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability by Census Occupation Code for Selected Occupations and States and Approximate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), 2009 ACS Data

Chicago MSA IL DC MSA DC MD VA DC-MD-

VA20 Mgr-General and Operations Managers 3.2% 3.3% 2.4% 0.0% 2.2% 4.3% 3.2%800 Fin-Accountants and Auditors 3.5% 3.4% 2.8% 6.4% 4.7% 2.8% 3.6%1020 Cmm-Computer Software Engineers 1.1% 1.1% 2.4% 8.5% 1.6% 2.4% 2.2%1320 Eng-Aerospace Engineers 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 0.0% 9.7% 2.4% 6.5%1550 Eng-Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters 8.7% 7.0% 6.8% 0.0% 9.8% 6.3% 7.7%

4220 Cln-Janitors and Building Cleaners 8.8% 10.4% 9.9% 14.3% 11.6% 12.1% 12.0%4850 Sal-Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing 2.9% 3.1% 3.3% 0.0% 5.9% 3.4% 4.4%

5700 Off-Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 5.3% 4.5% 5.2% 2.4% 5.4% 5.5% 5.3%

6230 Con-Carpenters 3.4% 4.3% 10.1% 3.7% 7.4% 9.5% 8.5%6260 Con-Construction Laborers 2.8% 3.9% 5.2% 0.0% 6.1% 5.9% 5.8%6350 Con-Electricians 4.6% 4.1% 4.6% 7.5% 4.2% 4.8% 4.7%8740 Prd-Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 2.8% 3.9% 1.2% 0.0% 5.9% 12.8% 10.4%

8960 Prd-Other Production Workers42 10.3% 8.6% 7.7% 0.0% 8.7% 7.7% 7.9%9620 Trn-Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 7.2% 7.3% 6.0% 7.8% 9.4% 5.9% 7.3%

In Table 11, nine cells are shaded. In those cells, the estimated availability of persons with disabilities in the indicated occupations and locations is zero. Readers should note, however, that these numbers are based on only one year of ACS data. When the official EEO Special Tabulation becomes available by the Census Bureau for actual employer use, it will be based on multiple years of data, thereby reducing the frequency of such occurrences. However, zero figures will still occur occasionally for persons with disabilities, just as they currently do for race and gender.

If in the Census Bureau’s judgment, the number of respondents in a particular location for a particular occupation (e.g., aerospace engineers in the District of Columbia) remains too small for reliable estimating — even with multiple years of data — then the normal practice of the Census Bureau is to not provide a number for that occupation in that location. In that circumstance, the employer must decide whether to use a different occupation, a different geographical labor market, or do something else (e.g., use some other data source). But the Census Bureau would presumably follow the same practices here they do for race and gender

42 Including Semiconductor Processors and Cooling and Freezing Equipment43

data. For example, they would almost certainly leave blank the number of American Indian aerospace engineers in the District of Columbia, although perhaps not for the entire Washington metropolitan area. Employers are already used to figuring out how to cope with that situation when analyzing race and gender data, and no new issues are raised by disability data.

Disability Rates for Selected States by Educational LevelTable 12 show disability rates by education level for selected states that have relatively high numbers of employees working for federal contractors. To a certain extent, some of the geographical differences in disability rates in the civilian labor force can be explained by differences in education. In areas where educational attainment is comparatively higher, one expects to see lower rates of disability. For example, when comparing New York to Tennessee, one sees lower disability rates for the former. Tabulating by education and state, there is generally less variation within each education category, particularly at higher levels of education, as shown in Table 12. For people with less than high school diplomas, however, there is still considerable variation in the disability rates, which in 2009, ranged from 6.1 percent in California to 13.6 percent in Tennessee. Based on this, one would expect geographical differences to affect the disability composition of the civilian labor force for lower-paying jobs more than for higher-paying ones.

Table 12. Percentage of Civilian Labor Force with Disability, by Education Level for Selected States, 2008 and 2009 ACS Data

Largest State in Each Census

DivisionLess than HS HS Diploma

or GEDSome

College BA or BS MA or MSProfessional or Doctorate

DegreeAll

2008 ACS DataArizona 7.0% 7.8% 7.4% 4.7% 5.4% 6.4% 7.0%California 6.2% 5.5% 5.4% 3.2% 3.5% 3.5% 6.2%Florida 8.5% 6.6% 5.8% 3.8% 3.7% 5.0% 8.5%Illinois 7.7% 6.5% 5.4% 2.9% 3.1% 3.5% 7.7%Massachusetts 11.7% 7.2% 6.2% 3.3% 2.4% 2.7% 11.7%Missouri 11.8% 8.9% 6.8% 4.2% 3.7% 4.1% 11.8%New York 8.3% 6.5% 5.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 8.3%Tennessee 13.5% 9.0% 6.9% 3.7% 4.3% 4.8% 13.5%Texas 8.8% 8.0% 6.9% 3.8% 5.0% 4.0% 8.8%U.S. Total 9.3% 7.6% 6.2% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 9.3%

2009 ACS DataArizona 7.2% 6.4% 6.5% 3.9% 4.5% 3.0% 7.2%California 6.1% 5.3% 5.3% 2.9% 3.5% 3.4% 6.1%Florida 8.4% 6.5% 5.7% 3.7% 4.0% 3.9% 8.4%Illinois 7.4% 6.0% 5.1% 2.8% 2.6% 3.6% 7.4%Massachusetts 10.9% 6.9% 5.3% 3.1% 2.7% 3.0% 10.9%Missouri 13.0% 9.2% 7.3% 3.6% 2.5% 4.1% 13.0%New York 8.2% 6.3% 4.9% 3.0% 3.2% 3.0% 8.2%Tennessee 13.6% 8.4% 6.6% 4.0% 4.3% 5.0% 13.6%Texas 8.3% 7.5% 6.5% 3.9% 4.2% 4.2% 8.3%U.S. Total 9.3% 7.4% 6.1% 3.4% 3.6% 3.5% 9.3%

44

An Option for Determining AvailabilitySection II of this report described the difference between data based solely on people in the labor force and that including additional jobless people who want a job, but are not currently actively seeking work. As shown in Section II of this report, including all who want jobs would increase the labor force by about 10 percent for people with disabilities, and by about 4 percent for people without disabilities.43 Adding those who want jobs would increase the number of unemployed by 71 percent for people with disabilities and by about 14 percent for people without disabilities.44

What are the implications of these facts for using the civilian labor force as the basis for determining availability of people with disabilities for affirmative action planning? The general answer is that estimates based on the civilian labor force alone are likely to be too low because they miss “discouraged workers” with disabilities.

ACS does not provide the full data needed to determine how many people “want a job,” are “marginally attached,” or who are “discourage workers,” as the BLS formally defines these terms. In particular, ACS does not ask whether an individual who is jobless and had not actively sought work in the previous four weeks had actively sought work in the previous 12 months. However, ACS does provide information that might reasonably be used to represent such labor force attachment, albeit in different way from how it is done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, using CPS data. In ACS, if the respondent worked within the past five years, questions are asked to determine that person’s most recent industry and occupation. So, even for people who are not technically in the labor force, if they worked within the past five years, ACS indicates their most recent occupation.

It is therefore possible for a subset of people not counted in the labor force to determine their most recent occupation. While we do not know if these people want to work, it may be reasonable to argue that these individuals have greater labor force attachment than people whose last job was more than five years ago, as well as those who have worked within that period but who do not report a specific occupation. At the least, it is likely that the most accurate measure of availability lies somewhere between what we derive from the civilian labor force and what we would derive if we “enhance” the labor force by including those who worked within the past five years and report an occupation. This option is explored more at the end of Section V in this report.

If current procedures for computing the availability of women and minorities are followed exactly for persons with disabilities, the Census Bureau would be asked to prepare data similar to those presented throughout this section. Following that model, those tabulations would calculate the percent of individuals with disabilities among all those who are in the civilian labor force (i.e., those who are currently employed or actively seeking employment).

As described in Section II, an Urban Institute study demonstrated that more than half of non-working adults with disabilities who were included in their study said that they encountered 43 From Table 4 in Section II, 1,496,000 is 71 percent higher than the 876,000 official unemployment

estimate

44 From Table 4 in Section II, 18,662,000 is 14 percent higher than 13,398,000 official unemployment estimate.

45

barriers to employment. Section IV cited additional research studies as well as statistics from the EEOC also documenting such problems. These barriers limiting employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities lead many to become “discouraged workers,” not included in the civilian labor force. Because this situation affects people with disabilities to a greater extent than other workers, it affects the relative distribution of people with disabilities and people without disabilities among those counted as available for affirmative action purposes.

OFCCP might consider requesting that the Census Bureau implement a slight, but important, modification of its computational procedures for individuals with disabilities. ACS provides a straightforward, defensible procedure for computing an alternative measure of labor force availability for individuals with disabilities, which, it is plausible to assume, encompasses both individuals who are currently in the civilian labor force and those discouraged workers who are nevertheless attached to the labor force.

In this approach, the ACS data the Census Bureau would be asked to use to compute the availability of people with disabilities would not be restricted to people in the civilian labor force. Instead, labor force availability would be based on all respondents for whom the ACS records an occupation, thus including people who are not in the labor force, but who did work within the past five years. Under the latter rule, availability would be based on all people who are currently employed, plus all those currently actively seeking work, plus those who have worked at some time during the past five years and describe a specific occupation they held during that time. This final group would allow reasonable, conservative inclusion of discouraged workers who presumably are qualified for, capable of and interested in employment for the occupation they reported when they responded to ACS.

For convenience, the two approaches to computing the availability of people with disabilities just discussed can be labeled Option A, Availability Among of Individuals Currently in the Civilian Labor Force, and Option B, Availability Among Individuals Attached to Employment. We should emphasize that our use of the word “attached” is not the same as the way it is used by BLS in its own work with the CPS to identify people who “want a job.” The ACS does not have the same questions available for determining whether people not in the civilian labor force want to work, therefore, we are using this method as a proxy.

Table 13 compares the two options nationwide and for selected example occupations. Under Option A, the nationwide, all-occupations availability of people with disabilities averaged 6.0 percent in 2009, while under Option B it averaged 8.0 percent — one third higher. Appendix C contrasts disability rates in the civilian labor force to disability rates for the “labor force attached” population for all Census-reported occupation. 45

45 Note that these numbers and those in Appendix C, Disability Rates by Occupation under Two Computational Options, are illustrative and based on 2009 data alone. Numbers will be slightly different, as well as more stable and reliable, when multi-year ACS data are used in these

computations.

46

Table 13. Comparison of Two Options for Determining Availability in Selected Occupations, ACS 2009

Census Occupation Code and Description Option A(Civilian Labor Force)

Options B(Labor Force Attached)

20 Mgr-General and Operations Managers 4.0% 4.9%1020 Cmm-Computer Software Engineers 1.9% 2.3%1550 Eng-Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters 6.0% 7.6%800 Fin-Accountants and Auditors 3.5% 4.5%5700 Off-Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 5.2% 6.8%6230 Con-Carpenters 6.7% 9.8%6350 Con-Electricians 6.2% 8.9%8960 Prd-Other Production Workers 9.3% 12.2%8740 Prd-Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 7.5% 10.8%9620 Trn-Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 9.2% 12.3%6260 Con-Construction Laborers 6.5% 9.6%4220 Cln-Janitors And Building Cleaners 12.0% 15.1%4850 Sal-Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing 4.5% 5.8%1320 Eng-Aerospace Engineers 4.0% 5.0%U.S. Total (All individuals indicating an occupation) 6.0% 8.0%

47

VI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM STEPS

As explained earlier, this report recommends that the basic approach for performing quantitative analyses and establishing placement goals for people with disabilities should follow closely the methods used for minorities and women. In accordance with regulations implementing EO 11246, the quantitative analysis components of an affirmative action program must include the following:

Organizational profile Job group analysis Placement of incumbents in job groups Determination of availability Comparison of incumbency to availability Placement goals

Following the principle of parallelism to minorities and women, employers’ existing procedures for AAP development would be applied with respect to disabilities in all these steps. The current OFCCP Technical Assistance Manual for Supply and Service Contractors provides an example of determining availability and utilization of women and minority groups. The study team for this report uses this example to demonstrate how the same methods can be readily applied to people with disabilities.

Here in Section VI, we present the highlights of this example. Appendix A, which immediately follows this section, presents the full example excerpted from the OFCCP technical assistance manual, showing the edits needed to accommodate incorporating people with disabilities into the process. The needed changes in the text are highlighted in yellow, and rows and columns that have been added to tables are highlighted in gray. This appendix demonstrates that what is required is simply insertion of a short phrase referring to individuals with disabilities in 23 instances in the text — wherever women and minorities are referred to — and adding one or a few rows or columns in six of the seven tables used in the analysis. Changes of this limited magnitude can be implemented by employers’ human resource management and data processing staffs with minimal effort or confusion.

Summary of the Step-by-Step ProcessThe quantitative analyses required of contractors under the regulations implementing EO 11246 include several components. First, the contractor must analyze its own work force, identifying the company’s organizational units and then undertake a job group analysis. Second, the contractor must determine the availability of individuals qualified to be employed in the reasonable recruitment area, using the most current and discrete statistical information available. Third, the contractor must then compare incumbency to availability. Underutilization is said to exist when this comparison reveals that the proportion of a targeted group in an employer’s work force is less than would reasonably be expected, given that group’s availability percentage. Fourth, when underutilization is determined to exist, the contractor must establish placement goals. Fifth, the contractor must then analyze its employment and hiring practices to determine if and where barriers exist that prevent the targeted group from obtaining

48

employment there and implement specific practical steps designed to address the underutilization.

Organizational ProfileAn organizational profile is a depiction of the staffing pattern within an establishment. The profile provides an overview of the work force at the establishment that may assist in identifying organizational units where women or minorities are under-represented or concentrated.46 Unlike race and gender, where both elements often are considered together (e.g., the percentage of minority women, percentage of white men, etc.), disability status should not be combined with race or gender for purposes of analysis. In a typical organizational profile, therefore, the only adjustment that would be needed in an affirmative action plan would be to add an additional line for each organizational tier counting the members of the employer’s work force who have disabilities.

Work Force AnalysisA work force analysis is a listing of each job title, ranked from the lowest paid to the highest paid, within each department or similar organizational unit, including departmental or unit supervisors. The work force analysis is derived from payroll records, organizational charts and collective bargaining agreements. Contractors are required to record four categories of data: information by job title, wage rate or salary range, department or organizational unit and lines of progression. An acceptable work force analysis contains the following:

Job Title Wage Rate or Salary Range Organizational Unit Lines of Progression

Table 14 shows how a work force analysis might be displayed for a single department or work unit (in this example, Administration). This table is identical to work force analysis tables currently used for minority status and gender in the OFCCP example, with one exception: Disability status has been added and is shaded for quick identification.

46 41 CFR 60-2.1149

Table 14. Example of a Job Group Analysis for a Single Department or Work Unit

DEPARTMENT/WORK UNIT: Administration MALES FEMALES

Disa

bilit

y

Job Title

Wag

e Ra

te

Occ

upati

onal

Cat

egor

y

Job

Grou

p

Tota

l Em

ploy

ees

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

General Manager S-10 1a 1a 1 1 1

Personnel Manager S-8 1b 1b 1 1 1

Executive Assistant S-3 5 5 1 1 1

Administrative Assistant H-8 5 5 1 1 1 1

File Clerk H-2 5 5 2 1 1 1 1

DEPARTMENT TOTAL 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 1

Job Group AnalysisA job group analysis is a method of combining job titles within the contractor’s establishment. This is the first step in the contractor’s comparison of the representation of minorities and women in its work force with their estimated availability.

As noted previously in this report, if a contractor has a total work force of fewer than 150 employees, the contractor may utilize EEO-1 categories as job groups. EEO-1 categories refers to the nine occupational groups used in the Standard Form 100, the Employer Information EEO-1 Survey: Officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales, office and clerical, craft workers (skilled), operatives (semiskilled), laborers (unskilled) and service workers.47

Table 15 shows a sample job group analysis for the OFCCP example. Occupational categories will vary from one employer to the next. In this example, the employer has chosen to use EEO-1 categories as its job groups, so that the example is most typical of an employer with fewer than 150 employees.

47 41 CFR 60-2.1250

Table 15. Sample Job Group Analysis for a Fictional Organization

Job Titles Job Group Name Occupational CategoryGeneral Manager

1a Executive/Senior Level Officials and ManagersController

Installation ManagerPricing-Billing Manager

1b First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers

Sales – Customer Support Manager Interior Design Manager Personnel Manager Installation Supervisor Furniture Repair Supervisor Interior Designer

2 Professionals

Office Space Planner General Ledger Accountant Payroll Administrator Purchasing Agent Pricing SpecialistOffice Equipment Sales Representative 4 SalesExecutive Assistant

5 Administrative Support Workers

Administrative Assistant File Clerk Billing Clerk Inventory Control Clerk Material Pricing Clerk Customer Information Sales Representative Call Center Agent Customer Service Complaints Clerk Systems – Specialist

6 Craft WorkersInstaller Furniture Repair Truck Driver 7 OperativesForklift Operator Installer Helper 8 Laborers and HelpersReceiving

Placement of Incumbent Job GroupsThe contractor must separately state the percentage of minorities and the percentage of women it employs in each job group.48 Table 16 presents an example of how this would be done for people with disabilities as well, continuing to use the fictional organization from the preceding sections.

48 41 CFR 60-2.1351

Table 16. Example of Incumbent Job groups by Minority, Gender, and Disability Status

Job Group

Total Number of Incumbents

Number of

Females

Female Incumbency

(%)

Number of Minorities

Minority Incumbency

(%)

Number with

Disability

Disability Incumbency

(%)1a 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%1b 6 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0%2 22 10 45.5% 4 18.2% 0 0.0%4 10 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 1 10.0%5 30 25 83.3% 13 43.3% 3 10.0%6 43 4 9.3% 15 34.9% 0 0.0%7 10 1 10.0% 3 30.0% 0 0.0%8 16 1 6.3% 6 37.5% 0 0.0%

Determining AvailabilityAvailability is an estimated number of qualified minorities or women available for employment in a given job group, expressed as a percentage of all qualified people available for employment in the job group. The availability establishes a benchmark against which the demographic composition of the contractor’s incumbent work force can be compared to determine whether an underutilization is present.

The contractor must separately determine the availability of minorities and women for each job group. In determining availability, the contractor must consider at least the following factors:

The percentage of minorities or women with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area. The reasonable recruitment area is defined as the geographical area from which the contractor usually seeks or reasonably could seek workers to fill the positions in question.

The percentage of minorities or women among those promotable, transferable and trainable within the contractor’s organization. Trainable refers to those employees within the contractor’s organization who could, with appropriate training which the contractor is reasonably able to provide, become promotable or transferable during the Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) year.

The contractor is required to use the most current and discrete statistical information available to derive availability figures. Examples of such information include Census data, data from local job service offices, and data from colleges or other training institutions. However, throughout this report, we have focused on Census data — that is, data from ACS soon to be tabulated by the Census Bureau into the new EEO Special Tabulation — as the source of such information.

The contractor may not draw its reasonable recruitment area to exclude minorities or women. For each job group, the reasonable recruitment area must be identified, with a brief explanation of the rationale for selecting that recruitment area. Similarly, the contractor may not define the pool of promotable, transferable and trainable employees to exclude minorities or women. For each job group, the pool of promotable, transferable and trainable employees must be identified with a brief explanation of the rationale for the selection of that pool.49 Table17 provides an example of how inclusion of persons with disabilities could be readily accomplished, again using the OFCCP example.49 41 CFR 60-2.14

52

Table 17. Example of How to Determine Availability of Protected Groups by Combining Internal and External Sources of Potential Applicants

Job Group: 6

Raw Statistics Value Weigh

t

Weighted Statistics Source of

Statistics

Reason for

Weighting

Minority

Female

Disability

Minority

Female

Disability

1. Percentage of target group with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area

18.5% 4.3% 6.2% 10% 1.85% 0.43% 0.62%2009 ACS Data

2. Percentage of target among those promotable, transferable, and trainable within the contractor’s organization

20.1% 44.6% 3% 90% 18.09% 40.14% 2.70%

Totals 100% 19.94%40.57

% 3.32%

In developing AAP goals for both women and minorities, the employer does this only once, not separately for women and then again for minorities. In the same vein, the same determination of internal and external weights already being applied to women and minorities would also be applied to persons with disabilities so that adding people with disabilities would cause minimal additional work for employers at this step.

Comparing Incumbency to AvailabilityThe contractor must compare the percentage of minorities and women in each job group determined, pursuant to Sec. 60-2.13, with the availability for those job groups determined, pursuant to Sec. 60-2.14. When the percentage of minorities or women employed in a particular job group is less than would reasonably be expected, given their availability percentage in that particular job group, the contractor must establish a placement goal in accordance with Sec. 60-2.16.50

Table 18 provides an example of how placement goals and determination of the need for them might be shown. This is identical to what is currently shown in the most recent OFCCP Compliance Manual, except that areas for disability – shaded in the table — have been added.

50 41 CFR 60-2.15. Regulations define ‘”reasonably be expected” as more than 2 standard deviations or less than 80% of the expected, and at least one whole person. In this simplified example, only the 80% rule is illustrated.

53

Table 18. Example of Determining Placement Goals Based on Incumbency and Availability

Placement GoalsPlacement goals serve as objectives or targets reasonably attainable by applying good faith efforts to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action program work. Placement goals also are used to measure progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity. A contractor’s determination under Sec. 60-2.15 that a placement goal is required constitutes neither a finding, nor an admission of discrimination.

Where, pursuant to Sec. 60-2.15, a contractor is required to establish a placement goal for a particular job group, the contractor must establish a percentage annual placement goal at least equal to the availability figure for that job group. The placement goal-setting process described above expects that contractors will, where required, establish a single goal for all minorities. In the event of a substantial disparity in the utilization of a particular minority group or in the utilization of men or women of a particular minority group, a contractor may be required to establish separate goals for those groups.51

The process for people with disabilities would be directly parallel. Thus, employers would be familiar with the required mechanics. We also note that employers often use consultants to produce their AAPs, who have automated software to perform each steps of the analysis. After only a modest amount of one-time re-programming, the requirement to address people with disabilities in parallel with women and minorities should impose very small incremental cost and effort on the part of employers.

51 41 CFR 60-2.1654

APPENDIX A. OFCCP EXAMPLE OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES UNDER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

Affirmative Action Program Element #1

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

ELEMENT #1

Contractors and subcontractors must construct an organizational profile of their work force using either an “organizational display” or “work force analysis” that provides detailed data reflecting staffing patterns within the establishment. [41 CFR 60-2.11]

An organizational profile is a depiction of the staffing pattern within an establishment. The profile displays data that will assist the company in identifying where in the company’s work force people with disabilities, women or minorities are underrepresented or concentrated. The contractor must use either an “organizational display” or “work force analysis” as its organizational profile. Each is described below, and examples are provided.

Organization DisplayThe organizational display is a detailed chart of the contractor’s organizational structure. For each organizational unit, the display must indicate the following:

The name of the unit and the job title, race, gender and disability status of the unit supervisor

The total number of male and female incumbents in each of the following groups: Blacks, American Indians, Asians, Hispanics and Whites Other Than Hispanics52

The total number of employees with disability

52 The current Technical Assistance Guide for Federal Supply and Service Contractors includes the following note: “OFCCP’s regulations regarding the race, ethnicity and job categories to be used by contractors have not changed to reflect the new categories required for the EEO-1 Report. However, OFCCP will accept AAPs and supporting records that reflect the categories outlined in either 41 CFR Part 60-2 or the new EEO-1 Report. For more information, see OFCCP’s Directive at http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dirindex.htm.”

55

AdministrationGen Manager, WM

Total: 62WM, 1HM

1WF, 1AAF, 1AIF1D

Sales/Customer SupportManager, WM

Total: 3618WM, 1AAM, 1AM, 1HM

10WF, 2AAF, 2AF, 1HF1D

DesignManager, WM

Total: 122WM

8WF, 1AAF, 1HF0D

Accounting - BillingController, AM

Total: 123WM, 1AM, 1HM,

5WF, 2AAF1D

InstallationInstall Manager, WM

Total: 7446WM, 7AAM, 4AM, 1AIM, 8HM

3WF, 2AAF, 1AF, 2HF1D

Note that the organizational display shows each department, the race/sex of the supervisor(s) and employees within each department, how many people with disabilities are employed within each department, and how all of the departments relate to each other.

Work Force AnalysisA work force analysis is a listing of each job title ranked from the lowest paid to the highest paid within each department or similar organizational unit, including departmental or unit supervision. The information in the work force analysis is derived from payroll records, organizational charts and collective bargaining agreements. Contractors are required to record four categories of data: information by job title, wage rate or salary range, department or organizational unit and lines of progression. An acceptable work force analysis is one that contains the following:

Job Title. Each job title must show the total number of employees, the total number of employees with disabilities, the total number of male and female employees, the total number of male and female employees in each of the following groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders and American Indians/Alaskan Natives. All job titles must be listed in a work force analysis as they appear in applicable collective bargaining agreements. All positions at your establishment must be included, even those positions where the incumbent was hired by a higher-level establishment (your corporate office, for example), and was included for goal-setting purposes in a corporate or mid-level AAP. If an employee is included in a different AAP, other than the AAP at the establishment in question, the organizational profile and job group analysis should be annotated to indicate in which AAP the employee is included.

56

Wage Rate or Salary Range. The wage rate or salary range data must be given for each job title. Titles must be listed in wage rate or range order within department or other similar organizational units. Contractors may maintain coded wage or salary information in the work force data; however, the code key must be provided for OFCCP review. Contractors must use consistent codes across department/unit lines, (e.g., a job with a salary code “57” in Department A, must pay the same as one coded “57” in Department B).

Organizational Unit. Organizational units used in work force analyses should be identifiable and must reflect the contractor’s actual organizational structure.

Lines of Progression. Lines of progression or usual promotional sequences must show the order of jobs in the line through which an employee moves from entry level to the top of the line, e.g., journeyman level. Lines of progression or promotional sequences may be identified from collective bargaining agreements, as well as from organizational charts.

Constructing an organizational profile provides a picture of employment patterns at your establishment. It is useful for identifying areas where people with disabilities, women and/or minorities are concentrated and where they are underrepresented or absent. It may indicate where there are potential problem areas and possible discrimination or inadequate affirmative action. The term “concentration” means that minority groups, people with disabilities and/or women are found in a particular unit (job area) of a contractor’s work force in numbers substantially greater than would be expected in terms of their overall representation in the contractor’s work force, or in a relevant unit of that work force. The term “underrepresentation” means the opposite (i.e., minority groups, people with disabilities and/or women are found in a particular unit of a contractor’s work force in numbers substantially fewer than would be expected in terms of their overall representation in the contractor’s work force or relevant unit of that work force).

For example… [text continues]

57

DEPARTMENT/WORK UNIT: Administration MALES FEMALES

Disa

bilit

y

Job Title Wage Rate

EEO-1 Category (EEO-1

Form or OFCCP

regulations)

Job Group

Tota

l Em

ploy

ees

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

General Manager S-10 1a 1a 1 1 1

Personnel Manager S-8 1b 1b 1 1 1

Executive Assistant S-3 5 5 1 1 1

Admin. Assistant H-8 5 5 1 1 1 1

File Clerk H-2 5 5 2 1 1 1 1

DEPARTMENT TOTAL 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 1

58

DEPARTMENT/WORK UNIT: Billing MALES FEMALES

Disa

bilit

y

Job Title Wage Rate

EEO-1 Category (EEO-1 Form or OFCCP regula-tions)

Job Group

Tota

l Em

ploy

ees

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Controller S-3 1a 1a 1 1 1

Pricing-Billing Manager

S-5 1b 1b 1 1 1

General Ledger Accountant

S-6 2 2 1 1 1

Payroll Admin. S-8 2 2 1 1 1

Billing Clerk H-5 5 5 3 1 1 2 2

Material Pricing Clerk

H-5 5 5 3 1 1 2 1 1 1

Admin. Assistant H-8 5 5 2 2 1 1

DEPARTMENT TOTAL 12 5 3 1 1 7 5 2 1

59

DEPARTMENT/WORK UNIT: Accounting - Design MALES FEMALES

Disa

bilit

y

Job Title Wage Rate

EEO-1 Category (EEO-1

Form or OFCCP regula-tions)

Job Group

Tota

l Em

ploy

ees

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Interior Design Manager

S-5 1b 1b 1 1 1

Interior Designer S-10 2 2 2 2 1 1

Office Space Planner

S-10 2 2 5 1 1 4 4

Admin. Assistant H-8 5 5 2 2 2

File Clerk H-10 5 5 2 2 1 1

DEPARTMENT TOTAL 12 2 2 10 8 1

60

DEPARTMENT/WORK UNIT: Sales - Customer MALES FEMALES

Disa

bilit

y

Job Title Wage Rate

EEO-1 Category (EEO-1

Form or OFCCP regula-tions)

Job Group

Tota

l Em

ploy

ees

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Sales – Customer Support Manager

S-5 1b 1b 1 1 1

Pricing Specialist S-7 2 2 6 5 3 1 1 1 1

Purchasing Agent S-7 2 2 7 5 5 2 2

Office Equipment Sales Rep.

S-9 4 4 10 8 8 2 2 1

Customer Information Sales Rep.

H-7 5 5 6 6 4 1 1

Call Center Agent H-7 5 5 3 1 1 2 1 1

Customer Service Complaints Clerk

H-8 5 5 3 1 1 2 1 1

DEPARTMENT TOTAL 36 21 18 1 1 1 15 10 2 2 1 1

61

DEPARTMENT/WORK UNIT: Installation MALES FEMALES

Disa

bilit

y

Job Title Wage Rate

EEO-1 Category (EEO-1 Form or OFCCP regula-tions)

Job Group

Tota

l Em

ploy

ees

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Tota

l

Whi

te

Blac

k/Af

rican

Am

erica

Asia

n/Pa

cific I

sland

er

Amer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

an N

ative

Hisp

anic

Installation Manager S-5 1a 1a 1 1 1

Installation Supervisor S-6 1b 1b 1 1 1

Furniture Repair Supervisor

S-6 1b 1b 1 1 1

Inventory Control Clerk

H-8 5 5 2 2 1 1 1

Systems Specialist H-8 6 6 12 10 8 2 2 1 1

Installer H-8 6 6 18 17 12 2 1 2 1 1

Furniture Repair H-9 6 6 13 12 7 3 2 1 1

Truck Driver H-9 7 7 8 7 5 1 1 1 1

Forklift Operator H-10 7 7 2 2 1 1

Installer Helper H-10 8 8 13 12 8 2 2 1 1

Receiving H-10 8 8 3 3 2 1

DEPARTMENT TOTAL 74 66 46 7 4 1 8 8 3 2 1 2 1

62

Affirmative Action Program Element #2

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

ELEMENT #2

Contractors and subcontractors are required to perform a job group analysis by combining jobs at the establishment with similar content, wage rates and opportunities to form job groups. [41 CFR 60-2.12]

The job group analysis is the first step in the contractor’s comparison of the representation of people with disabilities, minorities and women in its work force with the estimated availability of each person qualified to be employed. You must sort the various jobs at your establishment into job groups. A job group is a collection of jobs in an organization with similar job content (field of work and/or skill level), similar promotional opportunities and similar compensation. The job groups must be developed to fit the unique characteristics of each organizational unit, taking into account the size, type and complexity of the work performed. An example is provided at the end of this section.

Jobs within a job group usually reflect similar duties, skill levels and compensation. In determining which jobs to gather together for job groups, consider the following:

You may find the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, your collective bargaining agreement and/or position descriptions helpful in determining which jobs have similar content.

Salaried and hourly jobs are generally not grouped together. Overtime exempt and non-exempt jobs are generally not grouped together. Employees covered under different unions are generally not grouped together. Smaller contractors (fewer than 150 employees) may use the job group categories found

on the EEO-1 (Standard Form 100) Report as job groups: 3o Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managerso First/Mid-Level Officials and Managerso Professionalso Technicianso Sales Workerso Administrative Support Workerso Crafts Workerso Operativeso Laborers and Helperso Service Worker

Contractors with sufficiently large numbers of employees in the above categories may have job groups consisting of subgroups of the above categories. For example, the First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers category may be subdivided into job groups entitled “Middle Management” and “First-Line Supervisors,” or the Professionals category may be subdivided into job disciplines such as “Engineers” and “Accountants.”

63

Job groups generally do not contain jobs from more than one of the above “EEO-1” categories.

Job Group Analysis: Listing of Job TitlesJob Titles Job Group Name EEO-1 CategoryGeneral Manager

1a Executive/Senior Level Officials and ManagersController

Installation ManagerPricing-Billing Manager

1b First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers

Sales – Customer Support Manager Interior Design Manager Personnel Manager Installation Supervisor Furniture Repair Supervisor Interior Designer

2 Professionals

Office Space Planner General Ledger Accountant Payroll Administrator Purchasing Agent Pricing SpecialistOffice Equipment Sales Representative 4 SalesExecutive Assistant

5 Administrative Support Workers

Administrative Assistant File Clerk Billing Clerk Inventory Control Clerk Material Pricing Clerk Customer Information Sales Representative Call Center Agent Customer Service Complaints Clerk Systems – Specialist

6 Craft WorkersInstaller Furniture Repair Truck Driver 7 OperativesForklift Operator Installer Helper 8 Laborers and HelpersReceiving

64

Affirmative Action Program Element #3

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

ELEMENT #3

Contractors and subcontractors are required to perform a utilization analysis that includes the placement of the contractor’s employees into the job groups, the determination of the availability for employment of people with disabilities, minorities and women, and a comparison of their incumbency in the job groups to their availability. [41 CFR 60-2.13 – 60-2.15]

The utilization analysis is a series of separate, but interrelated, analyses used to identify whether people with disabilities, minorities or women are being employed at a rate that would be expected, based upon their availability for employment. The utilization analysis includes the placement of incumbents into job groups, the determination of the availability for employment of people with disabilities, minorities and women, and a comparison of their incumbency in the job groups to their availability. You must undertake the utilization analysis in order to identify whether there is underutilization of people with disabilities, minorities or women in any of the job groups, and, if there is, to establish placement goals designed to cure the underutilization. Your AAP will be used to record progress toward meeting these goals.

Placement of Incumbents in Job Groups (41 CFR 60-2.13)Having combined the job titles for the job group analysis, you must separately state the percentage of people with disabilities, minorities and the percentage of women you employ in each job group.

Job Group

Total Number of Incumbents

Number of

Females

Female Incumbency

(%)

Number of Minorities

Minority Incumbency

(%)

Number with

Disability

Disability Incumbency

(%)1a 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%1b 6 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0%2 22 10 45.5% 4 18.2% 0 0.0%4 10 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 1 10.0%5 30 25 83.3% 13 43.3% 3 10.0%6 43 4 9.3% 15 34.9% 0 0.0%7 10 1 10.0% 3 30.0% 0 0.0%8 16 1 6.3% 6 37.5% 0 0.0%

Determining Availability (41 CFR 60-2.14)After individual jobs have been aggregated into job groups, the next step is to determine the availability of people with disabilities, women and minorities for those job groups. Availability is a percentage estimate of the people with disabilities, women and minorities who have the skills required to perform the jobs within the job groups. To determine the availability percentages, contractors are required to consider two factors. These factors reflect availability outside the

65

contractor’s work force (such as people in the immediate labor area or reasonable recruitment areas), and availability inside the contractor’s own work force (such as people who are qualified and available via transfer, promotion or training). Contractors typically rely on Census data, state employment service data, and college graduation data in developing their external availability factors, and on their own work force numbers for developing internal availability factors.

Both factors must be considered, but contractors may weight each of the two factors according to each factor’s relevance to the job group in question. A “zero” weight is possible, depending on the factor and the job group in question. For example, with job groups involving professionals such as engineers or accountants, contractors generally give little or no weight to factors such as population data or overall work force data. Contractors must calculate percentages for both factors as described below.

1. Percentage of people with disabilities, minorities or women with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area. (refer to 41 CFR 60-2.14(c)(1)) This factor generally carries significant weight for complex or high level positions. The “reasonable recruitment area” represents the area from which the contractor usually seeks or reasonably could seek workers for a particular job group, and will vary depending on the types of jobs in the job group. For example, it may coincide with the immediate labor area for unskilled entry-level positions, or it may cover a larger area (state, region or nation) for managerial or professional positions. Generally speaking, the more complex a job or the higher the position in the organizational structure it occupies, the broader the recruitment area becomes. Contractors must use the most current and discrete statistical data available. Data sources for this factor may include Census data, state employment service data and graduation data from applicable training institutions.

2. Percentage of people with disabilities, minorities or women among those promotable, transferable and trainable within the contractor's organization. (refer to 41 CFR 60-2.14(c)(2)) This is the percentage of people with disabilities, minorities and women who are in feeder job groups and who are (at the start of the AAP year) or who will become (during the AAP year) promotable or transferable from those job groups into the job group under consideration. Data sources for this factor will reflect the contractor’s own work force numbers.

In the following example, for Job Group 6, internal availability is weighted 90 percent, and external has been weighted 10 percent. In a typical scenario, different job groups’ internal and external availability weighting would vary, depending on the degree of vertical diversification in the organization, as well as the size. Very small, as well as very flat, organizations typically have fewer potential internal applicants. Larger and more hierarchical organizations typically have larger numbers of internal applicants for openings.

66

Job Group: 6

Raw Statistics Value Weigh

t

Weighted Statistics Source of

Statistics

Reason for

Weighting

Minority

Female

Disability

Minority

Female

Disability

1. Percentage of target group with requisite skills in the reasonable recruitment area

18.5% 4.3% 6.2% 10% 1.85% 0.43% 0.62%2009 ACS Data

2. Percentage of target among those promotable, transferable, and trainable within the contractor’s organization

20.1% 44.6% 3% 90% 18.09% 40.14% 2.70%

Totals 100% 19.94%40.57

% 3.32%

Comparing Incumbency to Availability (41 CFR 60-2.15)After a contractor has formulated job groups and has determined the people with disabilities, minority and female availability percentages for each job group, you must compare the actual utilization of people with disabilities, minorities and women in each job group with their estimated availability, and identify those job groups where the percentage of people with disabilities, minorities and/or women employed is less than would reasonably be expected given their availability.

The term “underutilization” is used to refer to the presence of fewer people with disabilities, minorities and/or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected given their availability. Contractors use a number of methods to determine whether their actual representation rates are lower than would reasonably be expected. Some contractors declare underutilization when there is any difference between the availability percentage and the utilization percentage, while some conclude that underutilization exists when the number of people with disabilities, minority or female incumbents is at least one whole person lower than the number predicted by the availability percentages. Other contractors use an “80 percent” rule of thumb and declare underutilization only when the actual representation is less than 80 percent of availability (which is the expected representation). Still others use a “two standard deviation units” rule and test whether the difference between the actual and expected representation is statistically significant at approximately the 5% level (i.e., such that the probability that the observed representation or lower could occur by chance). Any reasonable method, uniformly applied, is acceptable to OFCCP.

67

Job Group1a 1b 2 4 5 6 7 8

Female Incumbency % 0.0% 0.0% 45.5% 20.0% 80.6% 9.3% 10.0% 6.3%Weighted Female Availability % 26.6% 42.8% 56.3% 50.1% 74.2% 40.6% 24.9% 12.6%Establish Goal? Yes/No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes YesIf Yes, goal for Female 26.6% 42.8% 50.1% 40.6% 24.9% 12.6%Minority Incumbency % 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Weighted Minority Availability % 12.1% 16.8% 20.6% 21.7% 24.4% 19.9% 29.3% 27.6%Establish Goal? Yes/No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesIf Yes, goal for Minority 12.1% 20.6% 21.7% 24.4% 19.9% 29.3% 27.6%Disability Incumbency % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Weighted Disability Availability % 3.4% 4.0% 3.5% 5.2% 5.5% 3.3% 7.6% 7.5%Establish Goal? Yes/No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes YesIf Yes, goal for Disability 3.4% 4.0% 3.5% 3.3% 7.6% 7.5%If incumbency is less than 80% of availability, then Yes is indicated for Establish Goal. Availability for this example was determined using EEO-1 job groups and 2009 ACS data for the U.S.

68

Affirmative Action Program Element #4

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM

ELEMENT #4

When the percentage of people with disabilities, minorities or women in a job group is less than would be reasonably expected given their availability, contractors are required to establish placement goals, which also serve as reasonably-attainable objectives and to measure progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity. [41 CFR 60-2.16]

In performing the utilization analysis just described, contractors may have some job groups where there is underutilization. Regardless of the method employed to make this determination, in those job groups where underutilization is identified, the contractor must establish a placement goal for people with disabilities, minorities and/or females into that job group. Placement goals are generally established as a percentage of the annual placement rate, (e.g., a goal of hiring women for 25 percent of the vacancies in the job group) and are used to measure progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity. The placement goal established must be at least equal to the availability percentage for people with disabilities, women and/or minorities, as applicable, for the underutilized job group. Contractors may establish higher goals if they desire. Although a contractor is required to make good faith efforts to meet its goals, the goals are not quotas, and no sanctions are imposed solely for failure to meet them. An example is provided at the end of the preceding section.

The following factors explain the difference between permissible goals, on the one hand, and unlawful preferences, on the other:

The goals component of the AAP is not designed to be, nor may it properly or lawfully be interpreted as, permitting unlawful preferential treatment and quotas with respect to persons of any race, color, religion, disability status, sex or national origin.

Goals are neither quotas, set-asides, nor a device to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent barriers to equal employment opportunity.

Goals under Executive Order 11246, as amended, do not require that any specific position be filled by a person of a particular gender, race, disability status or ethnicity. Instead, the requirement is that contractors engage in outreach and other efforts to broaden the pool of qualified candidates to include people with disabilities, minorities and women.

The use of goals is consistent with principles of merit, because goals do not require an employer to hire a person who does not have the qualifications needed to perform the job successfully, hire an unqualified person in preference to another applicant who is qualified, or hire a less qualified person in preference to a more qualified person.

Goals may not be treated as a ceiling or a floor for the employment of members of particular groups.

69

A contractor's compliance is measured by whether it has made good faith efforts to meet its goals. The failure to meet goals, by itself, is not a violation of the Executive Order.

70

APPENDIX B. DRAFT FORM FOR SELF-IDENTIFICATION

Note to reader: The form below should be made an integral part of the employer’s current form for self-identification of gender, ethnicity, and veteran status.

Purpose: Self-identification of people with disabilities is essential for effective Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action planning under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. The information you provide is confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only. Completing this form is voluntary and will not affect your application for employment.

PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX BELOW TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A DISABILITY:

_____Yes _____No

GUIDANCE IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION

A person with a disability is someone who:

(1) has a physical or mental impairment, which substantially limits one or more of the person’s major life activities;

(2) a record of such impairment; or

(3) is seen by others as having such impairment.

IF ANY OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLIES TO YOU, THEN CHECK YES TO THE QUESTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS FORM, AND YOU ARE DONE. THANK YOU.

IF YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER ANY OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLIES TO YOU, THEN LOOK AT THESE SIX QUESTIONS:

1. Are you deaf, or do you have serious difficulty hearing?

2. Are you blind, or do you have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?

3. Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, do you have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions?

4. Do you have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?

5. Do you have difficulty dressing or bathing?

71

6. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping?

IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, CHECK YES TO THE QUESTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS FORM, AND YOU ARE DONE. THANK YOU.

IF YOUR ANSWER IS NO TO ALL SIX QUESTIONS, THEN PLEASE LOOK AT THE FOLOWING LIST TO SEE IF ANY OF THESE SPECIFIC IMPAIRMENTS APPLY TO YOU. IF ANY APPLIES, CHECK YES TO THE QUESTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS FORM AND YOU ARE DONE. THANK YOU.

List of Impairments

Hearing

Total deafness in both ears (with or without understandable speech)

Vision

Blind (inability to read ordinary size print, not correctable by glasses, or no usable vision, beyond light perception)

Missing Extremities

Missing extremities (missing one arm or leg, both hands or arms, both feet or legs, one hand or arm and one foot or leg, one hand or arm and both feet or legs, both hands or arms and one foot or leg, or both hands or arms and both feet or legs)

Partial Paralysis

Partial paralysis (because of a brain, nerve or muscle impairment, including palsy and cerebral palsy, there is some loss of ability to move or use a part of the body, including both hands; any part of both arms or legs; one side of the body, including one arm and one leg; and/or three or more major body parts)

Complete Paralysis

Because of a brain, nerve or muscle impairment, including palsy and cerebral palsy, there is a complete loss of ability to move or use a part of the body, including both hands; one or both arms or legs; the lower half of the body; one side of the body; one side of the body, including one arm and one leg; and/or three or more major body parts

Other Impairments

EpilepsySevere intellectual disabilityPsychiatric disabilityDwarfism

Hearing Conditions

Hearing impairment/hard of hearing

Vision Conditions

Visual impairments (e.g., tunnel or monocular vision or blind in one eye)

Physical Conditions

Missing extremities (one hand or one foot)Mobility impairment (e.g., cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis,

muscular dystrophy, congenital hip defects, etc.)Spinal abnormalities (e.g., spinal bifida, scoliosis)Non-paralytic orthopedic impairments: chronic pain, stiffness,

weakness in bones or joints, some loss of ability to use part or parts of the body

HIV Positive/AIDSMorbid obesityPartial paralysis of one hand, arm, foot, leg, or any part thereofComplete paralysis of one handCardiovascular/heart disease with or without restriction or

limitation on activity; a history of heart problems w/complete recovery

Blood diseases (e.g., sickle cell anemia, hemophilia)DiabetesPulmonary or respiratory conditions (e.g., tuberculosis, asthma,

emphysema, etc.)Kidney dysfunction (e.g., required dialysis)Cancer (present or past history)Disfigurement of face, hands, or feet (such as those caused by burns

or gunshot wounds) and noticeable gross facial birthmarksGastrointestinal disorders (e.g., Crohn’s Disease, irritable bowel

syndrome, colitis, celiac disease, dysphexia, etc.)History of alcoholism

Speech/Language/Learning Conditions

Speech impairment – includes impairment of articulation (unclear language sounds), fluency (stuttering), voice (with normal hearing), dysphasia, or history of laryngectomy

Learning disability – a disorder in one or more of the processes involved in understanding, perceiving, or using language or concepts (spoken or written) (e.g., dyslexia, AD/ADHD)

72

IF NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS APPLIES TO YOU, AND NONE OF THE PREVIOUS QESTIONS APPLIES TO YOU, THEN YOU SHOULD CHECK NO TO THE QUESTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS FORM, AND YOU ARE DONE. THANK YOU.

73

APPENDIX C. DISABILITY RATES BY OCCUPATION UNDER TWO COMPUTATIONAL OPTIONS

74

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached10 Mgr-Chief Executives and Legislators 4.3% 5.7%20 Mgr-General and Operations Managers 4.0% 4.9%40 Mgr-Advertising and Promotions Managers 2.5% 3.2%50 Mgr-Marketing and Sales Managers 2.6% 3.3%60 Mgr-Public Relations Managers 3.6% 4.5%100 Mgr-Administrative Services Managers 5.2% 6.6%110 Mgr-Computer and Information Systems Managers 2.6% 3.2%120 Mgr-Financial Managers 3.1% 4.0%130 Mgr-Human Resources Managers 3.7% 4.7%140 Mgr-Industrial Production Managers 4.7% 5.8%150 Mgr-Purchasing Managers 4.2% 5.8%160 Mgr-Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers 5.4% 7.0% 200 Mgr-Farm, Ranch, and Other Agricultural Managers 7.7% 9.8%210 Mgr-Farmers and Ranchers 10.0% 13.2%220 Mgr-Construction Managers 5.9% 7.7%230 Mgr-Education Administrators 3.9% 5.0%300 Mgr-Engineering Managers 2.3% 2.6%310 Mgr-Food Service Managers 4.7% 6.1%320 Mgr-Funeral Directors 8.0% 9.2%330 Mgr-Gaming Managers 5.2% 6.9%340 Mgr-Lodging Managers 6.4% 8.1%350 Mgr-Medical and Health Services Managers 4.4% 5.8%360 Mgr-Natural Sciences Managers 1.1% 1.9%410 Mgr-Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers 6.8% 8.9%420 Mgr-Social and Community Service Managers 5.5% 7.2%430 Mgr-Miscellaneous Managers, Including Postmasters and Mail Superintendents 4.3% 5.5%500 Bus-Agents and Business Managers of Artists, Performers, and Athletes 6.4% 6.8%510 Bus-Purchasing Agents and Buyers, Farm Products 3.6% 5.9%520 Bus-Wholesale and Retail Buyers, Except Farm Products 5.7% 7.1%530 Bus-Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products 4.7% 6.4%540 Bus-Claims Adjusters, Appraisers, Examiners, and Investigators 5.1% 6.1%560 Bus-Compliance Officers, Except Agriculture, Construction, Health and Safety, and Transportation 5.6% 7.1%

600 Bus-Cost Estimators 6.6% 7.9%620 Bus-Human Resources, Training, and Labor Relations Specialists 4.1% 5.5%700 Bus-Logisticians 6.0% 7.3%710 Bus-Management Analysts 4.0% 5.0%720 Bus-Meeting and Convention Planners 3.2% 3.8%730 Bus-Other Business Operations Specialists 5.4% 6.8%800 Fin-Accountants and Auditors 3.5% 4.5%810 Fin-Appraisers and Assessors of Real Estate 5.0% 7.5%820 Fin-Budget Analysts 2.8% 4.3%830 Fin-Credit Analysts 3.3% 3.7%840 Fin-Financial Analysts 2.7% 3.2%850 Fin-Personal Financial Advisors 2.4% 3.1%

75

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached860 Fin-Insurance Underwriters 2.4% 3.6%900 Fin-Financial Examiners 2.8% 3.5%910 Fin-Loan Counselors and Officers 3.5% 4.6%930 Fin-Tax Examiners, Collectors, and Revenue Agents 7.9% 9.5%940 Fin-Tax Preparers 9.9% 12.1%950 Fin-Financial Specialists, All Other 6.0% 6.3%1000 Cmm-Computer Scientists and Systems Analysts 3.6% 4.4%1010 Cmm-Computer Programmers 3.6% 4.6%1020 Cmm-Computer Software Engineers 1.9% 2.3%1040 Cmm-Computer Support Specialists 5.6% 6.3%1060 Cmm-Database Administrators 3.6% 4.3%1100 Cmm-Network and Computer Systems Administrators 3.4% 4.0%1110 Cmm-Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts 3.6% 4.5%1200 Cmm-Actuaries 1.3% 1.6%1220 Cmm-Operations Research Analysts 3.5% 4.4%1240 Cmm-Miscellaneous Mathematical Science Occupations 1.5% 2.8%1300 Eng-Architects, Except Naval 3.8% 4.6%1310 Eng-Surveyors, Cartographers, and Photogrammetrists 5.8% 7.3%1320 Eng-Aerospace Engineers 4.0% 5.0%1340 Eng-Biomedical and Agricultural Engineers 2.2% 2.6%1350 Eng-Chemical Engineers 2.1% 3.0%1360 Eng-Civil Engineers 2.9% 4.0%1400 Eng-Computer Hardware Engineers 2.7% 3.8%1410 Eng-Electrical and Electronics Engineers 2.7% 3.7%1420 Eng-Environmental Engineers 4.6% 4.9%1430 Eng-Industrial Engineers, Including Health and Safety 3.5% 4.5%1440 Eng-Marine Engineers and Naval Architects 6.9% 7.6%1450 Eng-Materials Engineers 4.5% 5.4%1460 Eng-Mechanical Engineers 2.7% 4.4%1520 Eng-Petroleum, Mining and Geological Engineers, Including Mining Safety Engineers 3.1% 4.5%1530 Eng-Miscellaneous Engineers, Including Nuclear Engineers 3.3% 4.1%1540 Eng-Drafters 4.5% 6.1%1550 Eng-Engineering Technicians, Except Drafters 6.0% 7.6%1560 Eng-Surveying and Mapping Technicians 5.2% 6.7%1600 Sci-Agricultural and Food Scientists 2.9% 3.4%1610 Sci-Biological Scientists 1.9% 2.5%1640 Sci-Conservation Scientists and Foresters 2.1% 3.1%1650 Sci-Medical Scientists 2.1% 2.7%1700 Sci-Astronomers and Physicists 4.5% 6.9%1710 Sci-Atmospheric and Space Scientists 0.9% 1.5%1720 Sci-Chemists and Materials Scientists 3.6% 4.0%1740 Sci-Environmental Scientists and Geoscientists 6.3% 6.9%1760 Sci-Physical Scientists, All Other 3.5% 3.9%1800 Sci-Economists 4.0% 5.7%

76

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached1810 Sci-Market and Survey Researchers 3.3% 3.8%1820 Sci-Psychologists 4.9% 5.6%1840 Sci-Urban and Regional Planners 2.4% 3.3%1860 Sci-Miscellaneous Social Scientists, Including Sociologists 3.0% 3.7%1900 Sci-Agricultural and Food Science Technicians 6.3% 6.7%1910 Sci-Biological Technicians 5.1% 5.2%1920 Sci-Chemical Technicians 5.3% 7.0%1930 Sci-Geological and Petroleum Technicians 6.0% 6.8%1960 Sci-Miscellaneous Life, Physical, and Social Science Technicians 4.6% 5.3%2000 Cms-Counselors 6.5% 7.9%2010 Cms-Social Workers 5.5% 7.0%2020 Cms-Miscellaneous Community and Social Service Specialists 7.0% 9.2%2040 Cms-Clergy 5.9% 8.2%2050 Cms-Directors, Religious Activities and Education 5.7% 7.6%2060 Cms-Religious Workers, All Other 6.0% 8.0%2100 Lgl-Lawyers, and Judges, Magistrates, and Other Judicial Workers 3.6% 4.3%2140 Lgl-Paralegals and Legal Assistants 4.3% 5.6%2150 Lgl-Miscellaneous Legal Support Workers 5.0% 6.3%2200 Edu-Postsecondary Teachers 3.6% 4.6%2300 Edu-Preschool and Kindergarten Teachers 4.9% 6.1%2310 Edu-Elementary and Middle School Teachers 3.1% 4.3%2320 Edu-Secondary School Teachers 3.9% 5.0%2330 Edu-Special Education Teachers 4.8% 6.1%2340 Edu-Other Teachers and Instructors 5.5% 6.9%2400 Edu-Archivists, Curators, and Museum Technicians 5.5% 6.1%2430 Edu-Librarians 4.1% 5.5%2440 Edu-Library Technicians 7.7% 9.4%2540 Edu-Teacher Assistants 5.4% 7.1%2550 Edu-Other Education, Training, and Library Workers 3.8% 5.0%2600 Ent-Artists and Related Workers 5.4% 7.2%2630 Ent-Designers 3.6% 4.5%2700 Ent-Actors 5.0% 6.5%2710 Ent-Producers and Directors 2.7% 3.4%2720 Ent-Athletes, Coaches, Umpires, and Related Workers 3.1% 3.7%2740 Ent-Dancers and Choreographers 6.1% 9.1%2750 Ent-Musicians, Singers, and Related Workers 7.8% 10.1%2760 Ent-Entertainers and Performers, Sports and Related Workers, All Other 4.5% 8.0%2800 Ent-Announcers 7.5% 9.2%2810 Ent-News Analysts, Reporters and Correspondents 3.7% 5.4%2820 Ent-Public Relations Specialists 4.2% 5.6%2830 Ent-Editors 4.0% 5.3%2840 Ent-Technical Writers 4.7% 5.4%2850 Ent-Writers and Authors 6.3% 7.5%2860 Ent-Miscellaneous Media and Communication Workers 6.3% 6.9%

77

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached2900 Ent-Broadcast and Sound Engineering Technicians and Radio Operators, and Media and Communication Equipment Workers, All 3.8% 5.4%

2910 Ent-Photographers 6.7% 7.0%2920 Ent-Television, Video, and Motion Picture Camera Operators and Editors 5.1% 5.8%3000 Med-Chiropractors 3.7% 4.5%3010 Med-Dentists 2.3% 3.5%3030 Med-Dietitians and Nutritionists 4.5% 7.9%3040 Med-Optometrists 2.0% 2.7%3050 Med-Pharmacists 2.9% 3.8%3060 Med-Physicians and Surgeons 2.0% 2.9%3110 Med-Physician Assistants 3.8% 5.7%3120 Med-Podiatrists 0.0% 0.0%3130 Med-Registered Nurses 3.9% 5.3%3140 Med-Audiologists 5.0% 5.0%3150 Med-Occupational Therapists 2.2% 2.3%3160 Med-Physical Therapists 1.5% 1.7%3200 Med-Radiation Therapists 4.8% 5.7%3210 Med-Recreational Therapists 6.7% 6.5%3220 Med-Respiratory Therapists 4.1% 5.6%3230 Med-Speech-Language Pathologists 2.5% 3.1%3240 Med-Therapists, All Other 6.1% 6.5%3250 Med-Veterinarians 2.8% 3.9%3260 Med-Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioners, All Other 6.5% 6.7%3300 Med-Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians 3.6% 5.3%3310 Med-Dental Hygienists 2.4% 3.0%3320 Med-Diagnostic Related Technologists and Technicians 4.0% 5.3%3400 Med-Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics 4.9% 5.9%3410 Med-Health Diagnosing and Treating Practitioner Support Technicians 4.6% 5.6%3500 Med-Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses 6.2% 9.1%3510 Med-Medical Records and Health Information Technicians 6.3% 8.9%3520 Med-Opticians, Dispensing 5.4% 6.0%3530 Med-Miscellaneous Health Technologists and Technicians 6.1% 7.2%3540 Med-Other Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 3.5% 4.2%3600 Hls-Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides 8.6% 11.7%3610 Hls-Occupational Therapist Assistants and Aides 7.4% 7.2%3620 Hls-Physical Therapist Assistants and Aides 3.4% 4.2%3630 Hls-Massage Therapists 4.5% 6.0%3640 Hls-Dental Assistants 4.2% 4.9%3650 Hls-Medical Assistants and Other Healthcare Support Occupations, Except Dental Assistants 4.9% 6.8%

3700 Prt-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Correctional Officers 5.7% 7.8%3710 Prt-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Police and Detectives 4.1% 5.8%3720 Prt-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Fire Fighting and Prevention Workers 6.1% 6.6%3730 Prt-Supervisors, Protective Service Workers, All Other 7.1% 10.1%3740 Prt-Fire Fighters 3.0% 4.4%

78

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached3750 Prt-Fire Inspectors 6.7% 8.3%3800 Prt-Bailiffs, Correctional Officers, and Jailers 5.9% 8.3%3820 Prt-Detectives and Criminal Investigators 3.8% 5.2%3840 Prt-Miscellaneous Law Enforcement Workers 5.9% 10.5%3850 Prt-Police Officers 2.7% 4.1%3900 Prt-Animal Control Workers 4.9% 10.2%3910 Prt-Private Detectives and Investigators 4.1% 6.2%3920 Prt-Security Guards and Gaming Surveillance Officers 9.4% 12.8%3940 Prt-Crossing Guards 15.1% 19.9%3950 Prt-Lifeguards and Other Protective Service Workers 4.6% 4.4%4000 Eat-Chefs and Head Cooks 5.0% 7.3%4010 Eat-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Food Preparation and Serving Workers 5.5% 7.2%4020 Eat-Cooks 7.4% 10.1%4030 Eat-Food Preparation Workers 7.4% 9.6%4040 Eat-Bartenders 5.1% 7.2%4050 Eat-Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food 8.4% 10.8%4060 Eat-Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop 5.3% 6.7%4110 Eat-Waiters and Waitresses 4.6% 6.0%4120 Eat-Food Servers, Non-restaurant 8.1% 10.2%4130 Eat-Miscellaneous Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers 7.8% 9.9%4140 Eat-Dishwashers 15.5% 18.0%4150 Eat-Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop 4.5% 5.3%4200 Cln-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Housekeeping and Janitorial Workers 8.0% 10.2%4210 Cln-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Landscaping, Lawn Service, and Groundskeeping Workers 6.2% 8.1%

4220 Cln-Janitors and Building Cleaners 12.0% 15.1%4230 Cln-Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 9.2% 12.0%4240 Cln-Pest Control Workers 4.9% 8.0%4250 Cln-Grounds Maintenance Workers 8.0% 10.4%4300 Prs-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Gaming Workers 5.3% 8.0%4320 Prs-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Personal Service Workers 5.2% 7.0%4340 Prs-Animal Trainers 5.4% 6.6%4350 Prs-Nonfarm Animal Caretakers 7.2% 9.3%4400 Prs-Gaming Services Workers 6.7% 9.1%4410 Prs-Motion Picture Projectionists 3.5% 6.0%4420 Prs-Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers 11.8% 12.3%4430 Prs-Miscellaneous Entertainment Attendants and Related Workers 7.3% 8.4%4460 Prs-Funeral Service Workers 15.4% 20.4%4500 Prs-Barbers 9.7% 12.1%4510 Prs-Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists 5.0% 6.7%4520 Prs-Miscellaneous Personal Appearance Workers 3.8% 4.8%4530 Prs-Baggage Porters, Bellhops, and Concierges 6.3% 9.8%4540 Prs-Tour and Travel Guides 6.6% 8.8%4550 Prs-Transportation Attendants 4.9% 7.1%4600 Prs-Child Care Workers 7.5% 9.3%

79

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached4610 Prs-Personal and Home Care Aides 12.5% 15.6%4620 Prs-Recreation and Fitness Workers 4.7% 5.5%4640 Prs-Residential Advisors 5.2% 7.1%4650 Prs-Personal Care and Service Workers, All Other 9.2% 10.9%4700 Sal-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Retail Sales Workers 5.2% 6.9%4710 Sal-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Non-Retail Sales Workers 5.0% 6.3%4720 Sal-Cashiers 6.9% 9.1%4740 Sal-Counter and Rental Clerks 6.5% 8.5%4750 Sal-Parts Salespersons 7.2% 9.1%4760 Sal-Retail Salespersons 5.6% 7.3%4800 Sal-Advertising Sales Agents 4.1% 5.9%4810 Sal-Insurance Sales Agents 4.9% 6.4%4820 Sal-Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents 3.3% 4.5%4830 Sal-Travel Agents 5.8% 7.7%4840 Sal-Sales Representatives, Services, All Other 4.0% 5.3%4850 Sal-Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing 4.5% 5.8%4900 Sal-Models, Demonstrators, and Product Promoters 13.7% 16.0%4920 Sal-Real Estate Brokers and Sales Agents 4.8% 6.8%4930 Sal-Sales Engineers 2.0% 3.2%4940 Sal-Telemarketers 10.3% 14.6%4950 Sal-Door-To-Door Sales Workers, News and Street Vendors, and Related Workers 11.6% 14.4%4960 Sal-Sales and Related Workers, All Other 7.5% 10.0%5000 Off-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Office and Administrative Support Workers 4.8% 6.3%5010 Off-Switchboard Operators, Including Answering Service 11.1% 15.0%5020 Off-Telephone Operators 10.6% 14.3%5030 Off-Communications Equipment Operators, All Other 5.8% 9.0%5100 Off-Bill and Account Collectors 6.9% 9.0%5110 Off-Billing and Posting Clerks and Machine Operators 6.0% 7.4%5120 Off-Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 5.6% 7.4%5130 Off-Gaming Cage Workers 17.7% 16.6%5140 Off-Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks 5.7% 6.7%5150 Off-Procurement Clerks 4.9% 7.5%5160 Off-Tellers 3.1% 4.2%5200 Off-Brokerage Clerks 4.6% 5.4%5220 Off-Court, Municipal, and License Clerks 6.2% 8.0%5230 Off-Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks 6.5% 9.1%5240 Off-Customer Service Representatives 5.6% 7.1%5250 Off-Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs 7.6% 9.6%5260 Off-File Clerks 6.7% 8.7%5300 Off-Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks 7.0% 8.9%5310 Off-Interviewers, Except Eligibility and Loan 7.9% 10.2%5320 Off-Library Assistants, Clerical 6.1% 8.0%5330 Off-Loan Interviewers and Clerks 3.6% 4.9%5340 Off-New Accounts Clerks 6.6% 6.6%

80

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached5350 Off-Correspondence Clerks and Order Clerks 8.1% 9.2%5360 Off-Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and Timekeeping 3.2% 4.7%5400 Off-Receptionists and Information Clerks 6.7% 8.6%5410 Off-Reservation and Transportation Ticket Agents and Travel Clerks 6.8% 8.5%5420 Off-Information and Record Clerks, All Other 6.1% 9.7%5500 Off-Cargo and Freight Agents 2.1% 3.5%5510 Off-Couriers and Messengers 7.2% 10.2%5520 Off-Dispatchers 8.2% 10.9%5530 Off-Meter Readers, Utilities 5.0% 6.5%5540 Off-Postal Service Clerks 8.8% 11.9%5550 Off-Postal Service Mail Carriers 6.3% 8.7%5560 Off-Postal Service Mail Sorters, Processors, and Processing Machine Operators 9.7% 11.5%5600 Off-Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks 4.2% 5.9%5610 Off-Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks 6.4% 8.4%5620 Off-Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 8.1% 10.5%5630 Off-Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping 9.0% 14.0%5700 Off-Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 5.2% 6.8%5800 Off-Computer Operators 6.9% 9.7%5810 Off-Data Entry Keyers 6.5% 8.7%5820 Off-Word Processors and Typists 5.4% 7.2%5840 Off-Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks 4.7% 6.0%5850 Off-Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except Postal Service 8.3% 12.0%5860 Off-Office Clerks, General 6.1% 7.7%5900 Off-Office Machine Operators, Except Computer 7.7% 10.6%5910 Off-Proofreaders and Copy Markers 8.0% 11.4%5920 Off-Statistical Assistants 9.0% 9.6%5930 Off-Miscellaneous Office and Administrative Support Workers, Including Desktop Publishers 5.9% 7.7%

6000 Fff-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers 5.9% 8.3%6010 Fff-Agricultural Inspectors 7.7% 10.0%6040 Fff-Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products 6.1% 8.7%6050 Fff-Miscellaneous Agricultural Workers, Including Animal Breeders 6.5% 8.7%6100 Fff-Fishing and Hunting Workers 8.2% 11.9%6120 Fff-Forest and Conservation Workers 10.9% 13.1%6130 Fff-Logging Workers 13.6% 18.2%6200 Con-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers 6.3% 8.6%6210 Con-Boilermakers 7.5% 11.0%6220 Con-Brickmasons, Blockmasons, and Stonemasons 5.9% 9.3%6230 Con-Carpenters 6.7% 9.8%6240 Con-Carpet, Floor, and Tile Installers and Finishers 5.6% 9.1%6250 Con-Cement Masons, Concrete Finishers, and Terrazzo Workers 6.4% 9.6%6260 Con-Construction Laborers 6.5% 9.6%6300 Con-Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment Operators 9.0% 11.2%6320 Con-Construction Equipment Operators, Except Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment Operators 9.5% 12.7%

81

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached6330 Con-Drywall Installers, Ceiling Tile Installers, and Tapers 5.6% 9.4%6350 Con-Electricians 6.2% 8.9%6360 Con-Glaziers 5.5% 7.8%6400 Con-Insulation Workers 4.4% 6.0%6420 Con-Painters, Construction and Maintenance 6.2% 9.7%6430 Con-Paperhangers 11.2% 14.8%6440 Con-Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 5.9% 8.5%6460 Con-Plasterers and Stucco Masons 7.7% 8.9%6500 Con-Reinforcing Iron and Rebar Workers 8.4% 9.1%6510 Con-Roofers 5.9% 9.5%6520 Con-Sheet Metal Workers 8.3% 9.8%6530 Con-Structural Iron and Steel Workers 5.8% 8.8%6600 Con-Helpers, Construction Trades 6.9% 9.7%6660 Con-Construction and Building Inspectors 8.5% 10.4%6700 Con-Elevator Installers and Repairers 7.0% 9.6%6710 Con-Fence Erectors 11.1% 15.2%6720 Con-Hazardous Materials Removal Workers 5.8% 10.4%6730 Con-Highway Maintenance Workers 6.8% 9.0%6740 Con-Rail-Track Laying and Maintenance Equipment Operators 6.5% 12.7%6760 Con-Miscellaneous Construction Workers, Including Septic Tank Servicers and Sewer Pipe Cleaners 7.4% 10.9%

6800 Ext-Derrick, Rotary Drill, and Service Unit Operators, and Roustabouts, Oil, Gas, and Mining 8.5% 12.1%

6820 Ext-Earth Drillers, Except Oil and Gas 6.7% 8.9%6830 Ext-Explosives Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and Blasters 10.8% 13.5%6840 Ext-Mining Machine Operators 9.0% 13.5%6940 Ext-Miscellaneous Extraction Workers, Including Roof Bolters and Helpers 10.5% 12.3%7000 Rpr-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 6.2% 8.8%7010 Rpr-Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine Repairers 4.7% 6.3%7020 Rpr-Radio and Telecommunications Equipment Installers and Repairers 5.5% 7.7%7030 Rpr-Avionics Technicians 3.2% 5.2%7040 Rpr-Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related Repairers 7.8% 9.8%7100 Rpr-Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Transportation Equipment, and Industrial and Utility 3.6% 9.0%

7110 Rpr-Electronic Equipment Installers and Repairers, Motor Vehicles 5.2% 11.7%7120 Rpr-Electronic Home Entertainment Equipment Installers and Repairers 6.1% 7.9%7130 Rpr-Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers 4.0% 5.6%7140 Rpr-Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians 5.6% 7.2%7150 Rpr-Automotive Body and Related Repairers 5.1% 8.4%7160 Rpr-Automotive Glass Installers and Repairers 6.2% 7.2%7200 Rpr-Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics 6.4% 8.8%7210 Rpr-Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists 6.8% 9.2%7220 Rpr-Heavy Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Service Technicians and Mechanics 8.7% 10.5%7240 Rpr-Small Engine Mechanics 8.4% 13.5%7260 Rpr-Miscellaneous Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 6.6% 8.7%

82

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached7300 Rpr-Control and Valve Installers and Repairers 6.9% 7.9%7310 Rpr-Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers 6.1% 8.4%7320 Rpr-Home Appliance Repairers 7.6% 10.8%7330 Rpr-Industrial and Refractory Machinery Mechanics 7.1% 9.8%7340 Rpr-Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 7.4% 9.9%7350 Rpr-Maintenance Workers, Machinery 7.2% 10.5%7360 Rpr-Millwrights 11.0% 15.6%7410 Rpr-Electrical Power-Line Installers and Repairers 5.9% 8.3%7420 Rpr-Telecommunications Line Installers and Repairers 3.6% 6.4%7430 Rpr-Precision Instrument and Equipment Repairers 6.6% 7.8%7510 Rpr-Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine Servicers and Repairers 9.1% 11.0%7540 Rpr-Locksmiths and Safe Repairers 6.1% 8.2%7550 Rpr-Manufactured Building and Mobile Home Installers 7.1% 13.5%7560 Rpr-Riggers 5.1% 5.5%7610 Rpr-Helpers — Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers 8.3% 10.8%7620 Rpr-Other Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers 7.6% 10.5%7700 Prd-First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Production and Operating Workers 6.0% 8.4%7710 Prd-Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging, and Systems Assemblers 6.2% 13.7%7720 Prd-Electrical, Electronics, and Electromechanical Assemblers 6.4% 9.7%7730 Prd-Engine and Other Machine Assemblers 5.5% 9.6%7740 Prd-Structural Metal Fabricators and Fitters 4.2% 6.2%7750 Prd-Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators 9.8% 13.2%7800 Prd-Bakers 7.3% 9.6%7810 Prd-Butchers and Other Meat, Poultry, and Fish Processing Workers 6.2% 9.1%7830 Prd-Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying Machine Operators and Tenders 12.5% 11.7%7840 Prd-Food Batchmakers 7.1% 10.7%7850 Prd-Food Cooking Machine Operators and Tenders 13.6% 14.9%7900 Prd-Computer Control Programmers and Operators 6.3% 8.7%7920 Prd-Extruding and Drawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 10.4% 13.6%7930 Prd-Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 12.0% 13.5%7940 Prd-Rolling Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 5.6% 8.9%7950 Prd-Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 11.5% 14.8%

7960 Prd-Drilling and Boring Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 10.3% 16.7%8000 Prd-Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and Buffing Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 10.6% 13.2%

8010 Prd-Lathe and Turning Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 7.8% 11.6%8030 Prd-Machinists 5.9% 8.8%8040 Prd-Metal Furnace and Kiln Operators and Tenders 8.0% 11.7%8060 Prd-Model Makers and Patternmakers, Metal and Plastic 8.7% 12.5%8100 Prd-Molders and Molding Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 8.3% 11.6%8130 Prd-Tool and Die Makers 6.3% 9.2%8140 Prd-Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Workers 7.9% 10.8%8150 Prd-Heat Treating Equipment Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 6.2% 12.6%8200 Prd-Plating and Coating Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 9.7% 11.9%

83

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached8210 Prd-Tool Grinders, Filers, and Sharpeners 11.8% 15.9%8220 Prd-Miscellaneous Metal Workers and Plastic Workers 7.9% 11.0%8230 Prd-Bookbinders and Bindery Workers 9.3% 11.5%8240 Prd-Job Printers 4.3% 7.5%8250 Prd-Prepress Technicians and Workers 6.8% 10.5%8260 Prd-Printing Machine Operators 7.5% 9.6%8300 Prd-Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers 10.3% 13.9%8310 Prd-Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials 10.3% 12.9%8320 Prd-Sewing Machine Operators 7.6% 11.7%8330 Prd-Shoe and Leather Workers and Repairers 9.6% 13.8%8340 Prd-Shoe Machine Operators and Tenders 5.9% 9.1%8350 Prd-Tailors, Dressmakers, and Sewers 7.1% 10.6%8400 Prd-Textile Bleaching and Dyeing, and Cutting Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 8.3% 15.0%8410 Prd-Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 7.2% 10.9%8420 Prd-Textile Winding, Twisting, and Drawing Out Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 14.5% 20.3%

8450 Prd-Upholsterers 7.5% 10.4%8460 Prd-Miscellaneous Textile, Apparel, and Furnishings Workers, Except Upholsterers 5.8% 8.8%8500 Prd-Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters 6.9% 9.7%8510 Prd-Furniture Finishers 6.6% 10.1%8530 Prd-Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Wood 11.0% 16.1%8540 Prd-Woodworking Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Except Sawing 8.5% 11.3%8550 Prd-Miscellaneous Woodworkers, Including Model Makers and Patternmakers 10.7% 13.6%8600 Prd-Power Plant Operators, Distributors, and Dispatchers 5.7% 7.7%8610 Prd-Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators 6.7% 10.0%8620 Prd-Water and Liquid Waste Treatment Plant and System Operators 8.0% 10.1%8630 Prd-Miscellaneous Plant and System Operators 4.3% 7.4%8640 Prd-Chemical Processing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 5.9% 9.2%8650 Prd-Crushing, Grinding, Polishing, Mixing, and Blending Workers 8.9% 11.5%8710 Prd-Cutting Workers 17.0% 21.7%8720 Prd-Extruding, Forming, Pressing, and Compacting Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 12.4% 15.4%

8730 Prd-Furnace, Kiln, Oven, Drier, and Kettle Operators and Tenders 4.2% 7.0%8740 Prd-Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers 7.5% 10.8%8750 Prd-Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers 4.9% 6.7%8760 Prd-Medical, Dental, and Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians 6.7% 9.0%8800 Prd-Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and Tenders 8.8% 11.4%8810 Prd-Painting Workers 6.9% 9.7%8830 Prd-Photographic Process Workers and Processing Machine Operators 5.0% 8.6%8850 Prd-Cementing and Gluing Machine Operators and Tenders 7.0% 15.8%8860 Prd-Cleaning, Washing, and Metal Pickling Equipment Operators and Tenders 10.1% 11.6%8910 Prd-Etchers and Engravers 12.1% 13.7%8920 Prd-Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal and Plastic 6.2% 10.5%8930 Prd-Paper Goods Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders 9.1% 11.6%8940 Prd-Tire Builders 6.2% 7.3%

84

2009 American Community Survey, Civilian Population

Option A Civilian Labor Force

Option BLabor Force

Attached8950 Prd-Helpers-Production Workers 10.1% 12.5%8960 Prd-Other Production Workers 9.3% 12.2%9000 Trn-Supervisors, Transportation and Material Moving Workers 6.1% 8.1%9030 Trn-Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers 2.0% 3.4%9040 Trn-Air Traffic Controllers and Airfield Operations Specialists 1.3% 4.5%9110 Trn-Ambulance Drivers and Attendants, Except Emergency Medical Technicians 7.7% 12.0%9120 Trn-Bus Drivers 8.6% 11.8%9130 Trn-Driver/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers 7.7% 11.3%9140 Trn-Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs 9.4% 13.5%9150 Trn-Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other 16.6% 20.3%9200 Trn-Locomotive Engineers and Operators 8.6% 10.9%9230 Trn-Railroad Brake, Signal, and Switch Operators 1.3% 3.0%9240 Trn-Railroad Conductors and Yardmasters 7.3% 9.2%9260 Trn-Subway, Streetcar, and Other Rail Transportation Workers 4.6% 8.8%9300 Trn-Sailors and Marine Oilers, and Ship Engineers 6.9% 7.9%9310 Trn-Ship and Boat Captains and Operators 6.3% 9.1%9350 Trn-Parking Lot Attendants 9.7% 11.5%9360 Trn-Service Station Attendants 7.8% 10.3%9410 Trn-Transportation Inspectors 9.0% 11.4%9420 Trn-Miscellaneous Transportation Workers 5.2% 10.6%9510 Trn-Crane and Tower Operators 8.1% 12.0%9520 Trn-Dredge, Excavating, and Loading Machine Operators 11.1% 15.2%9560 Trn-Conveyor Operators and Tenders, and Hoist and Winch Operators 6.5% 8.8%9600 Trn-Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators 7.2% 10.9%9610 Trn-Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment 8.4% 10.9%9620 Trn-Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 9.2% 12.3%9630 Trn-Machine Feeders and Offbearers 10.8% 15.3%9640 Trn-Packers and Packagers, Hand 10.6% 13.6%9650 Trn-Pumping Station Operators 7.5% 9.7%9720 Trn-Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors 12.7% 15.6%9750 Trn-Miscellaneous Material Moving Workers 11.4% 13.3%Total Indicating Occupation 6.0% 8.0%

85