African
American Underrepresentation of African Americans in the Forest
Service
Problems and
Solutions
By
The
African
American Strategy Group
Resource Group
USDA Forest Service
August 64th
2004
African American Underrepresentation
of African
Americans In the Forest
Service
Problems and
Solutions
ABSTRACT
By
James
L. Howard
AASG Lead Facilitator
The African American Strategy Group (AASG) has
completed its workforce analysis for African American employees in the Forest
Service (FS) during fiscal year 2004. This analysis has heightened AASG
awareness of the problems that contribute to the low workforce participation
rate of African Americans (AA) in the Forest Service. The AASG notes recent
accomplishments by the FS in the hiring of diversity candidates to regional
Forester positions. We also support fully the student hiring initiatives
instituted by the FS. However, the fact remains that AA employment has been at
a plateau of 4 percent for more than two decades. The major barriers to
correcting AA underrepresentation in the FS are fragmentation within resource
organizations, white backlash, and inadequate hiring and selection procedures.
Many organizations that were developed to provide solutions to the problem of
AA underrepresentation continue to focus on objectives and approaches that have
been unsuccessful for decades. Organizations such as the African American
Advisory Council (AAAC) have become fragmented around issues that do not affect
the bottom line, such as outreach and diversity awareness. White backlash is a
major factor in preventing many high level AAs from stepping forward to help
illuminate and solve the issue of underrepresentation. To correct faulty hiring
and selection procedures, we propose the Quality in Hiring approach used by the
Forest Products Laboratory, which incorporates accountability upward through
the rank and file. We recommend a restructuring of CR directors in field
locations. These directors could be affected by white backlash and should be
placed under the supervision of the National Civil Rights Director
The African American
Strategy Group (AASG) has completed its workforce analysis for African American
employees in the Forest Service (FS) during fiscal year 2004. Because of this analysis the AASG has a
heightened awareness of the problems that contribute to the low workforce
participation rate of African Americans (AA) in the Forest Service. This paper describes in detail the problems
that contribute to low AA employment—currently at 4 percent—and proposes
solutions to the problem. Although the
Chief of the FS ultimately has final say in all FS decisions, the Office of
Civil Rights (CR) has the job of developing programs and proposing solutions to
ensure that all races make up their correct percentages of the workforce based
on census population statistics. One of
the major issues discussed in this paper is white backlash. White backlash is considered to be a major
factor in preventing many high level AA’s from stepping forward to help
illuminate and solve the issue of underrepresentation. Another issue is the fragmentation of
resource organizations developed to provide solutions to the problem of AA
underrepresentation. These
organizations, such as the African American Advisory Council (AAAC), continue
to focus on objectives and approaches, such as outreach and diversity
awareness, which have not yielded the intended results; they have not affected
the bottom line. Outreach to
organizations such as the NAACP and Urban League seems to be done to gain
political capital for the agency and to date has not helped to increase the
employment level of AA’s in the FS. The
successful measurement of outreach and diversity objectives must be measured by
FS AA labor participation rates.
Keywords: Backlash,
fragmentation, underrepresentation
Introduction
African American employees
are a vital part of the Forest Service (FS).
The AASG was created to provide an African American (AA) perspective to
assist the Forest Service achieve its mission and vision, which includes
multiculturalism and diversity in all aspects of organizational life. To accomplish our primary goal of AA
representation within every aspect of the Agency, the AASG continues to operate
under the original charter, which states that the AASG will serve as the
conduit to the Chief for ideas and suggestions related to present and future FS
policies and practices—particularly those issues that affect the careers of AA
employees. The vision for the AASG is not new and remains a most difficult
challenge. However, the AASG remains
hopeful and certain that one day Forest Service employees will reflect our
diverse society in all aspects of organizational life, and that the Agency
shall truly become the employer of choice for all people regardless of race,
color, religion, disability, gender, or age.
The priority issue concerning AASG is the current 4 percent employment
level for FS AA employees (Appendix 3).
Forest Service Employees
The FS employment level for AA
employees continues to trail that of white employees in terms of overall
workforce representation (Table 1). Analysis of population census data (2002
Census) shows that AA’s makemakes up 13
percent of the general population and Whites 68 percent. AA employee representation throughout the GS
scale is relatively flat, fluctuating around 4 percent. This flat representation is quite divergent
when compared to other ethnic groups (see graph 1). At the upper management level, the FS has done a good job with
diversity hiring, especially with the recent hiring of AAminority
regional Foresters, but the FS still has work to do to be fully compliant in AA
hiring in positions other than those in the Senior Executive Service. Some regions have decade-old problems. For example, since its inception more than
90 years ago, the Forest Products Laboratory has never had an AA supervisor.
As the National data in
Tables 1 and 2 reveal, the overwhelming issue that emerges is one of
underrepresentation of AA’s or overrepresentation of
Whites. Using census data (Table 2) as
the basis for determining workforce participation rates by race, Whites should
only make up 68 percent of total FS employment, instead of the current 84 percent.
In the general population Whites make up 68 percent of the population, AA’s
13 percent, Hispanics 13 percent, Asians 4 percent, and other groups 2
percent. There is no clear explanation for this discrepancy, but actions should
be taken to correct this disparity across races. The correction of this disparity would support the Agency 2004
Civil Rights Plan Indicator 3.1.1, which states that the Agency uses Federally
mandated plans to (1) assess underrepresentation (2) target improvement, and
(3) develop and implement effective strategies for improving diversity. AASG believes that the vagueness of these CR
Indicators is a leading cause of underrepresentation in the FS workforce. The measures of success of these indicators
tend to also be vague, thereby making it difficult to pinpoint the problem and
develop appropriate
solutions over time.
Fragmentation
The goal of the FS 2004
Civil Rights and Performance Plan continues to be to increase the
underrepresentation of protected groups.
Yet, AA employment has been 4 percent for two decades. Also, the 2004
mid-year update of Workforce Planning Measures indicates that no progress is
being made in the hiring of AA employees.
Many organizations that were developed to provide solutions to the
problem of AA underrepresentation, such as the African American Advisory Counceil
(AAAC), have become fragmented in focusing on objectives that do not affect the
bottom line, such as diversity awareness and outreach. For example, outreach to
organizations such as the NAACP and Urban League seems to be done to gain
political capital for the Agency and, to date,date has not
helped to increase the employment level of AA’s in the
FS. If outreach and diversity awareness
are viable objectives, then there must be a clear statement of the problem that
drives these efforts. The success of
resource group activities must be measured by FS AA labor force participation
rates. Outreach and diversity awareness
are not ends in themselves but a means to accomplish increased hiring.
White Backlash
The representation of AA’s
in upper management positions continues to fluctuate around the full compliance
level. The belief has always been that decisions and direction from the top of
the FS management pyramid are needed to correct minority underrepresentation.
Because of this belief and the high representation of AA’s in
upper management positions, the question often arises as to why AA’s
are still struggling to achieve full employment levels in the FS. It is the belief of AASG that white backlash
plays a crucial role in the reluctance of AA managers to come forward in
regards to the issue of underrepresentation.
White backlash is defined as reprisal
actions taken by whites holding positions of influence against those who may be
white or non-white resulting in a lack of career development or career
threatening. It is believed by many that the fear of white backlash is a
leading reason why many AA’s in upper management tend to be
passive and not engaged in issues of underrepresentation. There have been numerous reprisal cases in
the FS. At one point reprisal panels
were established, but they were discontinued after a short while. If employees feel that managers aren’t to be
held accountable for reprisal actions, then they will be hesitant to voice
opinions on issues of concern. The only protection FS employees currently have
against reprisals is through union membership.
In order for employment percentages of AA’s and
other protected groups to rise to their appropriate FS levels, White employment
will either need to decline or hold steady while considerable minority hiring
occurs. White backlash is cited as the
primary reason why this hasn’t occurred.
White backlash does not
always take the form of direct reprisals.
It can also take the form of inactivity, a form of passive
reprisal. Managers in various locations
around the country simply can remain silent or take no action, for example, by
not using hiring initiatives that would increase AA hiring. On July 1, 2004, the FS Deputy Chief for
Business Operations issued a letter indicating that the Student Career
Experience Program (SCEP), as well as other recruitment tools and external
hiring authorities, should be used to meet future skill needs and increase
diversity of the workforce. He indicated that to date very little progress had
been made in minority recruitment. This
inactivity or passive reprisal is the result of the lack of accountability in
the Agency. Programs such as the
Scientific Recruitment Initiative (SRI) were established specifically to
increase the representation of underrepresented groups. If managers were held accountable for FS AA
underrepresentation through performance ratings, these recruitment programs
would be used more and progress could be made toward full compliance of
diversity goals. If the Agency were to
take appropriate disciplinary or corrective action when evidence indicates
reprisals are occurring, either outright or passive, the fear of white backlash
would be minimized.
Standardize Hiring
One of the major problems facing the FS in the attempt to
increase the workforce participation rate for AA’s is the
hiring and selection procedure. Many
locations do not incorporate simple outreach procedures as part of each job
vacancy. Programs such as SCEP are
being used to circumvent the faulty hiring approach taken in many
locations. While such programs are
good, they need to accompany a regular hiring approach, which includes
mandatory outreach by vacant position.
We propose as a solution an approach already used successfully at one FS
location (Appendix 2). By using the
Quality in Hiring approach, as well as student initiatives, the Forest Products
Laboratory (FPL) has the most diverse workforce of any FS station. Although some problems remain such as the lack of AA
in supervisory positions, FPL stands as the model for other locations
wishing to improve their diversity record.
The Quality in Hiring approach can be adapted and used at other FS
locations. The AASG proposes this
standard approach to hiring because it incorporates accountability upward
through the rank and file, and this approach has already yielded proven
results. The AASG recommends that
serious consideration be given to the Quality in Hiring approach as a tool for
improving FS diversity attainment levels.
Concluding Remarks
On July 1, 2004, the update
of Workforce Planning Measures was released to FS management. It was emphasized that the Agency as a whole
should utilize the full range of hiring options in moving toward key workforce management
objectives, one of which is an increase in minority hiring. The report also mentions the lack in
diversity gains. The AASG have noted
the recent accomplishments by the FS in the hiring of diversity candidates to
regional Forester positions. Although
these are noteworthy hires we still feel that more needs to be done to reach
full compliance levels, especially since we expect national AA employment
levels to fall significantly after the impact of A-76 is fully realized. We
support fully the student hiring initiatives instituted by the FS. But unless bold steps are taken, such as
instituting an FS-wide standardized hiring policy as well as improving FS accountability,accountability;
we will continue to drift further from the 12 percent minimumfull
employment levelthreshold for AA’s. Student initiatives and external hiring
authorities alone cannot achieve this objective. The impact of white backlash or reprisal must be dealt with
because it stunts the constructive dialog that could be occurring between
minority and non-minority
managers. The lack of supervisory training, accountability,
and disciplinary action is systematic and results in other agency failures. Also a CR Impact analysis
should be done to measure the impact of A-76 on AA FS employment levels,
considering the high
concentration of AA’s in affected positions. We recommend a
restructuring of the CR directors in field locations. These directors could be affected by white backlash and should be
placed under the supervision of the National Civil Rights Director.
Sources of Information
Business Operations. Human Resources Management. United States Forest Service. Update of Workforce Planning Measures. 2004.
Civil Rights. United States Forest Service. Evaluation Criteria Performance in Civil
Rights. 2004.
Civil Rights. United States Forest Service. Agency Civil Rights Performance Plan and
Self-Assessment Report. 2004.
United States Department of
Agriculture. Report of the Forest
Service Fiscal Year 2002. P.269. May
2003.
United States Department of Agriculture. Executive Summary. Evaluation Report.
Towards a Multicultural Organization.
1998.
United States Department of
Agriculture. Civil Rights at the United
States Department of Agriculture. One
year of Change. Civil Rights
Implementation Team. March 1998.
United States Department of
Agriculture. Civil Rights at the United
States Department of Agriculture. A
Report by the Civil Rights Action Team.
February 1997.
United
States Department of Agriculture. Implementation of the Civil Rights Action
Team Report at USDA. An Interim
Progress Report. September 1997.
United States Department of
Agriculture. Forest Service. Toward a Multicultural Organization. Report of the USDA Forest Service Task Force
on Work Force Diversity. March 1991.
Appendix 1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Table - 2 |
2002 Population Census Actual |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent
|
Percent
|
|
Total Pop |
Whites |
Black |
Asian |
Hispanic |
White |
Black |
|
288,369.00 |
196,845.00 |
36,746.00 |
11,559.00 |
38,761.00 |
68% |
13% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
Statistical Abstract of the United States 2003. |
|
|
||||
|
Values: In Thousands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graph 1.
Appendix 2
Standardized Forest Service
Quality In Hiring Policy
Policy
Recruitment and initial
selection only, not post appointment issues.
Policy should be reviewed by Partnership Council every 5 years or as
problems or issues arise.
Process
This
process is to be used for all permanent positions excluding non-competitive
appointments.
A.
In conformance with
approved staffing plans, supervisor prepares PD and “Knowledge, Skills, and
Abilities” and submits with SF-52 to AD.
B.
AD brings request to
Director/AD meeting for approval.
C.
If position is approved,
Human Resources (HR) notifies the supervisor, Quality in Hiring Pool (QIH
Pool), CREDO and EEO Specialist via e-mail message to the QIH Coordinator, the
CREDO Co-Chairs and EEO Specialist.
D.
QIH Pool and CREDO each
choose a representative for the Outreach Panel and notify the supervisor
and HR of the selections.
E.
Supervisor chairs
Outreach Panel consisting of one member from HR, one from the QIH Pool, one from
CREDO and the EEO Specialist (when available).
Panel reviews PD, and reviews rationale for scope of advertising
position (e.g. internal, FS-wide, government-wide, and/or external).
F.
The Outreach Panel
reviews the Selective Placement Factors, which should rarely be used, and the
KSAs then advises the supervisor on possible changes to ensure a diverse pool
of qualified applicants.
G.
The Outreach Panel
develops recruitment/outreach plan. (See Responsibilities section for more
information.)
H.
Position is advertised
according to the outreach plan, and candidates apply.
I.
HR reviews applications
to identify qualified and quality candidates.
When evaluating the qualifications of applicants for specialized or
technical fields, HR may consult with a subject matter Specialist.
J.
HR issues certificate(s)
of candidates to supervisor.
K.
Interview panel narrows
list to approximately 3-5 best candidates, and the supervisor arranges for
candidates to visit FPL for interviews and seminar presentations, as appropriate. The Interview Panel described in (L) assists
in narrowing down the candidates to be interviewed.
L.
The supervisor convenes
an Interview Panel of typically 3 to 5 members, including the
supervisor, technical peers, and the QIH representative to the outreach
panel. The interview panel develops a
list of questions to ask all candidates and forwards them to HR for review and
approval prior to interviewing the candidates.
M.
The Interview Panel provides
evaluation of the candidate(s) to supervisor and AD.
N.
Supervisor, with
concurrence of AD, makes selection.
O.
All application
materials, evaluation notes, interview notes and other materials used during
candidate evaluation are returned to HR for filing.
P.
If, at any point in the
process, the supervisor determines that none of the candidates appear to be
acceptable, the supervisor, with the concurrence of the AD, asks HR either to re-advertise
the position and/or he/she rewrites the PD for the purpose of attracting a
larger pool of acceptable candidates.
Responsibilities
Supervisor of
Vacant Position
A.
Write accurate position
description (PD) and describe the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs)
required in the position. Include in
the KSAs any acceptable equivalent descriptors for the requirements of the
position.
B.
Chair outreach panel to
develop and coordinate a comprehensive recruitment/outreach plan that will help
attract a diverse pool of qualified candidates.
C.
Review all certified
candidates carefully. When appropriate,
bring top candidates to FPL for interview.
Expenses to be paid from unit funds, with assistance from AD, as necessary. Conduct interview utilizing approved
interview questions. Consider input
from interview panel. Have prospective
scientist candidates present a technical seminar if possible.
D.
Select best candidate
after thorough review of all available information and after discussions with
the AD.
E.
Establish specific
performance requirements and discuss with new employee in first week of
employment.
Assistant
Directors (AD)
A.
Review PDs and KSAs, and
recruitment/outreach plan for completeness and accuracy.
B.
Require extensive outreach
efforts by supervisors and ensure that supervisors are aware of the need to
adequately fund outreach efforts.
C.
Emphasize important role
of supervision in hiring and evaluating employees during probationary period.
D.
Review decisions on
probationary employees with supervisors.
Director's Office
Staff (DO)
A.
Approve filling of
positions that meet FPL priority research goals.
B.
Emphasize the important
role of supervision in hiring and evaluating during the probationary period
(and beyond).
Human Resources (HR)
A.
Provide advice and
assistance on legal and regulatory requirements of the recruitment and
selection process.
B.
Provide necessary
training to supervisors and QIH Pool members on interviewing techniques.
C.
Provide input and
assistance for recruitment/outreach efforts, hiring process and retention
decision.
D.
Notify QIH Pool
Coordinator, CREDO chairperson and EEO Specialist after DO Staff approves the
filling of a position.
E.
Ensure that all necessary
documentation for each interview is collected from the Interview Panel and
stored appropriately in HR.
Quality in Hiring
Pool (QIH)
The Quality in Hiring Pool
consists of approximately ten volunteer and management appointed members who are
FPL employees and have approval of their supervisors to participate. The Partnership Council recruits and selects
QIH Pool members. The presence of a QIH
Pool member during the outreach and interview processes provides broader input
from the perspective of occupational group, professional degree, professional
experience, and KSAs. The committee establishes and maintains its own policy to
serve as a guideline for all member activities.
Pool
Member:
A.
Serve a two-year term,
but may be reappointed for additional terms.
B.
Ensures an open, fair,
and equitable hiring process
C.
Assist supervisors with
the development of the outreach plan and in conducting interviews.
D.
Provide consistency in
the interview process.
E.
Safeguard the QIH
Process and raise concerns during the hiring process to the QIH Pool
Coordinator.
QIH
Pool Coordinator:
A.
The QIH Pool coordinator
is appointed by current pool members and serves as point of contact between the
QIH Pool and HR, the PC, and hiring supervisors.
B.
Provides a copy of the QIH
Policy to supervisors who have vacant positions.
C.
Appoint a QIH Pool
member to participate on the outreach and interview panels for each vacant
position and notifies the supervisor, HR and the Civil Rights Director of who
will be serving on the panels.
D.
Safeguard the QIH
Process and updates the QIH operating procedures as needed.
E.
Refer problems with the
policy and function of QIH Process to the Partnership Council.
Civil
Rights and Employee Development Organization (CREDO)
A.
Provide a representative
to the outreach panel to assist in writing an outreach plan that will ensure
target group members are sought for fair consideration.
B.
Help identify and eliminate barriers to
employment for target group candidates.
Subject Matter Specialist (SME)
A. Provide technical expertise
in evaluating whether applicants for a position meet minimal qualifications
and/or quality experience requirements for the position being filled when HR
requests.
Partnership Council (PC)
A.
Develop, review, and
make changes to the QIH Policy.
B.
Serve as a source of
information and oversight for the QIH Pool.
C.
Recruit and select
employees to serve on the QIH pool.
Conflict of Interest
A.
QIH Pool members (and peers)
shall not serve on the Interview Panel if they have any special relationship
with any of the candidates being interviewed for the position being filled.
B.
A QIH representative
should not serve on the Outreach or Interview Panels for a position being filled
by his/her own supervisor.
C.
The QIH rep should not
serve on a hiring panel if a candidate for the position is the representative’s
current supervisor.
D.
In all cases that a QIH member
is uncertain if they may be involved in a situation that is a conflict of
interest or even may appear to others it is a conflict of interest, contact the
QIH Coordinating Representative for clarification or guidance.
Confidentiality
A.
The interview and
selection process is a confidential process, and it involves documents that are
covered by the Privacy Act.
The
interview panel members shall be instructed to keep personal information strictly
confidential and to return all materials to HR at the end of the interview
process.
APPENDIX 3
AASG ISSUE DOCUMENT
NATIONAL ISSUE
PROBLEM: The Forest Service (FS) African American
(AA) employee has been underrepresented across the entire FS Wage Grade (WG)
and General Schedule (GS) pay scales for more than a decade. This underrepresentation is very acute at
upper management levels. Total
representation has remained around the 4 percent level for many years. Past and current programs and policies
initiated to improve the wage position and overall employment numbers of AA
employee’s throughout the FS simply have not worked. This is extremely
troubling considering that current programs such as A76 will probably work to
reduce the overall number of AA employee’s in the FS.
POSITION: The position of AASG is that it is long
overdue for the FS stated desire to have the AA employee become a full
functioning member of the FS. The AA
employee as outlined in “Toward a Multicultural Organization” has not been
afforded the dignity and respect due every FS employee. AA’s continue to be
hired at a rate resulting in FS employment levels well below our 13 percent
general population level (2002 Census Data).
Although we are well represented at the Senior Executive Level (SES),
the total employment level for AA’s is well below the national average.
SOLUTION: Over the past two decades the FS has put
many programs in place with the intention of increasing the number of AA
employee’s in the FS. Although these
programs have not worked as intended they have been successful in creating a
pipeline of qualified AA’s seeking FS employment as well as a small number of
current employee’s ready for increased assignments. The reliance on programs such as the Executive Training Program
(ETP), simply have not worked for AA’s because the ETP don’t reach low enough
into the pay scales. We simply don’t
have enough employees at the GS 13-15 levels.
We suggest more local area recruitment of college students such as from
the Big 10 Universities. We cannot
continue to nurture the AA student in Southern United States expecting them to
fill incompatible FS jobs West of the Mississippi. We must begin to nurture and target AA students at other
universities. We must also target
currently employed qualified AA employees for management positions. If the FS takes these bold steps we will be
able to really be viewed as the organization that treats its employees with
dignity and respect.
AASG
REGIONAL ISSUES
FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY
Issue
description: The Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) has
been unable to meet the hiring levels for African Americans when compared to
the number of African Americans in the United States population. Anecdotal information would suggest that the
reason for the low numbers for African American employment at FPL is that they
are simply not selected for vacant position.
Possible
Solution: The director of FPL must take a more active role to ensure that
hiring decisions are made that result in the agency meeting its stated
long-term objectives for workforce diversity. The director must review the
decisions madke
by administrators and hiring officials and take actions to guarantee that
workforce diversity objectives are met.
WASHINGTON OFFICE
There are double standards
for employment and career advancement in the Forest Service that is accurately
perceived by African American (AA) employees.
Issue Description: The perception given by
senior management to AA employees in the Forest Service Washington Office of
National Forest System (NFS) and State & Private Forestry (S&PF) is
that you need to be in favor (good old boy network) and be a Caucasian to
advance to a leadership position. There
are no, or, very lax criteria/standards for Caucasian candidates whereas there
are rigid standards for AA candidates.
Furthermore, when AA candidates comply with the rigid standards the
rules automatically change and the AA candidate is eliminated from consideration
and replaced with one of the “good old boys”.
In NFS and S&PF, there
are no AA Senior Executive Service candidates in leadership positions as
Director(s). Often when vacancies are
advertised and an AA makes the best-qualified certification list there is procrastination
by senior management toof filling
the position with the qualified AA.
Furthermore, the AA candidate may be the best qualified and did
outstanding in the interview process, but they still fail by not being
selected. Various reasons over the years
of why an AA candidate is not chosen are that: (1) they need more field
experience (2) too young but other opportunities will be available in the
future, if they wait for their time, (3) Senior management has decided to
immediately fill the position.
Possible Solutions: Being fair in promoting diversity, instead of just talking the talk,
make it happen if senior management is truly sincere in making this agency the
agency of choice for all Americans. In
addition, as possible solutions are (1) in the selection process by the
selecting committee, AA representation should be established. This would promote a sense of fairness in
the selection process. (2) Promote a
Diversity Agenda in the Selection Process for all Americans of color at all
grade levels.
REGION ONE1
Issue Description: In this region, African Americans (AA) is the most
under represented group of employees. The region has upward of 3,000 employees
and only five are AA. We are hanging on in dead-end, non-supervisory, and
non-management positions at the GS-5-11 positions. There is little or no
mentoring, coaching, or role models to help guide AA through this maze-like
system. The outreach, recruitment, and retention issues in this region are
abysmal and no one is being held accountable. This region is not taking
advantage of some fine tools like the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP)
and Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP) to entice and recruit AA to
this region. One of the best avenues for AA to get their foot in the door in
this region has all but dried up (SCEP) – there haven’t been any AA SCEP
students in this region for over a decade now. Nearly all of the SCEP positions
in this region are going to other students. And for us we continue to get the
same old lame response such we can’t find them or they won’t move up here, etc.
With all of the information, technological advancements, and mobility we have
today, that response is a cheap one. However, this does not relieve management
of its responsibility of making sure that its outreach and recruitment efforts
are reaching all segments of society.
Possible Solution: We need a voice(s) at the table. Management needs to
know that we exist and we’re here to assist them in carrying out program objectives.
We need an advocate in the upper echelons to carry our message to senior
management officials. All of the members of the AASG must do their part and
ensure that their respective Forest Supervisor, Regional Forester, Director,
etc., know about our situation and support our cause with action and results.
We need to continue to ask probing questions like why this… or why that…. We
(AASG) need to be proactive and mentor the younger generation (students) and
trainees to try to get them in the pipeline. In the government in general and
the Forest Service in particular, we MUST have diversity in thought, sex, and
race (culture) if we are going to be an agency of choice when it comes to
employment. This diversity, for our sake, must be in key supervisory and
management positions throughout the agency.
REGIONS
2 THRU 4
Issue Description: AA’s employees are under represented in these
regions.
Possible Solution: Increased selection of qualified AA candidates.
Region FiveREGION 5
Issue Description:
In
Region 5 African Americans remain underrepresented in the workforce, most
noticeably absent in Regional Management Team Leadership positions. The Region only has one AA Staff Director, 2
AA District Rangers, and one Deputy District Ranger.
Possible Solution:
Utilize
the AASG in conjunction with the CR staff to develop a Regional Strategy with
action items specific to the goal of
increasing outreach and recruitment of AA’s, particularly for managerial
positions. Engage the AASG to assist in
aggressively marketing to the current AA workforce, the existing mentoring
program, details and training opportunities within and external to the Region.
REGIONS 6 THRU 9
Issue Description: AA’s employees are under represented in these
regions.
Possible Solution: Increased selection of qualified AA candidates.
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST
Issue
Description: The Pacific Southwest
(PSW) Research Station has not had a permanent EEO Manager responsible for CR
programs since September 2001.
Possible
Solution: The Research Station needs
to hire a full time EEO/CR Manager, so that CR programs are active, fully
implemented and monitored.
Issue
Description: Management is not
following through with outreach to AA’s for vacancy announcements. There is not system in place to monitor
individual outreach efforts. We are not
using national system i.e. 1890 Program, National Scientist Initiative Program, or
SCEP Program as tools to build a pipeline of AA employees.
Possible
Solution: The PSW Station Director
should take active role in ensuring that the managers are actively outreaching
to the AA
population. The Director should review
all the recruitment packages before the manager makes the
selection.
AA population. The Director should review all the recruitment packages
before the manager makes the selection.