Overview
HRD approved one state agency’s fiscal year 2022 annual progress report for its affirmative action plan. However, this state agency did not identify and detail the actions it took in order to meet one out of four of its affirmative action goals. This state agency identified a need to increase representation of veterans in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s office/clerical job category. This state agency had reported 0% representation of veterans in the office/clerical job category in its annual progress report for its affirmative action plan. However, this state agency did not document the good faith efforts it made in attempting to meet its goal, and HRD did not follow up with this state agency regarding this missing information before approving the annual progress report.
If HRD does not ensure that state agencies include all required information in these annual progress reports, then residents of the Commonwealth cannot be sure that these state agencies are creating and sustaining a diverse and inclusive workforce that reflects the Commonwealth’s demographics.
Authoritative Guidance
Section 3 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592 states, “The plans shall set forth specific goals and timetables for the achievement of these goals and shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws.” Furthermore, Section 3.2 states, “The secretariats and agencies shall annually submit progress updates on their Affirmative Action and Diversity Plans.”
ODEO’s responsibility to follow up with noncompliant state agencies is outlined in bullet points 6 and 10 of Section 7 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592, as follows:
- Either approve, return for amendment, or reject [affirmative action and diversity plans]; . . .
- Investigate instances of non-compliance with plan submission and reporting requirements and, where appropriate, determine and impose remedial courses of action, including the suspension of a non-compliant agency’s authority to post a new position or the imposition of a freeze on all personnel requisitions and appointment forms submitted by any non-compliant agency to the Chief Human Resources Officer.
According to Section 3.4 of HRD’s affirmative action plan template, “The agency’s obligation is to demonstrate ‘good faith efforts’ to select [people of color], women, veterans and persons with disabilities” to meet its affirmative action goals.
Reasons for Noncompliance
HRD officials told us that for affirmative action goals, it is the state agency’s responsibility to create goals and report on its progress toward meeting those goals.
Furthermore, HRD officials told us that this state agency did create a goal regarding its veteran population in its annual progress report. However, as previously stated, this state agency did not document any good faith efforts it made toward meeting that goal in its fiscal year 2022 annual progress report. HRD management did not know the reason why this state agency did not document these.
Recommendation
HRD should develop, document, and implement monitoring controls related to its annual progress report review. These monitoring controls should include guidance and procedures regarding (1) when HRD should either return for amendment or reject progress reports that are missing crucial information (such as the good faith efforts state agencies made toward achieving their goals) and (2) how HRD ensures that state agencies document any good faith efforts they made toward achieving their goals.
Auditee’s Response
Office and clerical positions do not turn-over as fast as some other positions, making it difficult to expand representation. In addition, with all the new technology encouraging electronic submissions, some office and clerical positions are being upskilled.
The state agency referenced here had two hires in the Office/Clerical category during the audit period ([fiscal year 2020–fiscal year 2021]); however, none of the hires self-identified as veterans. As you are aware, self-identification as a Veteran is a voluntary process. Therefore, if employees do not self-identify, we cannot designate them as veterans. We rely on the employees to self-identify as veterans.
In response to residents not knowing:
- whether state agency employees represent the demographics of the Commonwealth and
- whether state agencies take necessary measures to implement EO 592 “to ensure that,” as EO 592 states, “non-discrimination, diversity, and equal opportunity are safeguarded, promoted, and reflected in state workplaces.”
Residents and employees can access workforce data through the Public Diversity Dashboard on Mass.Gov. This dashboard provides transparency around the Commonwealth’s workforce and is updated quarterly. It has data on hires, promotions, and separations. The Diversity Dashboard provides a 12-quarter lookback at changing workforce data. This information can be viewed by the overall workforce, secretariat, and agency levels.
HRD will further enhance monitoring controls related to its annual progress report reviews.
Auditor’s Reply
We understand HRD’s explanation regarding why it is difficult to expand representation of veterans in the office and clerical positions. We also acknowledge that the people of the Commonwealth and state employees can access workforce data through the State Employee Diversity Dashboard on Mass.gov. However, HRD reviewed and approved an annual progress report that was missing crucial information. HRD should have returned this report to the state agency to fix before HRD approved it.
We strongly encourage HRD to implement our recommendation.
| Date published: | July 5, 2024 |
|---|