Definition of Civilian Labor Force (CLF):

Prior Years' Definition of CLF
(2004, 2003 and 2002 covering FY 2003, 2002 and 2001 respectively):

          "The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) data are derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics September 2003 Current Population Survey (CPS) and the 1990 Decennial Census.  The CPS is a sample of 50,000 households across the nation and the sample changes from year-to-year.   Because of the changing sample, there can be wide fluctuations in a group, like Hispanics, depending on which households are selected.  Because of the small sampling size, the CPS does not have separate counts for Asian/Pacific Islanders or Native Americans.   Each group's percentage representation in the CPS was extrapolated using the 1990 census to calculate their proportional representation from the CPS "Black and Other" category.  The CLF data cover every non-institutionalized individual 16 years of age and older, employed and unemployed, while Federal employment data exclude temporary, intermittent, or term-specific workers.  The CLF data include employed and unemployed U.S. citizens and noncitizens, while the CPDF data [OPM's Central Personnel Data File] are predeominantly Federally-employed U.S. citizens."

-- [Previous definition of Civilian Labor Force (CLF) in 2004, 2003 and 2002.  Editor.]

Definition of Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF):

Definition of Underrepresentation:

          "Underrepresentation, as defined in 5 CFR, Section 720.202, means a situation in which the number of women or members of a minority group within a category of civil service employment constitutes a lower percentage of the total number of employees within the employment category than the percentage that women or the minority group constitutes within the civilian labor force of the United States."
-- [SAME.  Definition is identical to prior years' definitions.  Editor.]

Definition of Occupational Categories:

          "Occupational categories discussed in this report are white-collar and blue-collar.   The white-collar category contains Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical or 'Other' white-collar occupations.  Professional occupations typically call for a baccalaureate or professional degree and, along with Administrative occupations, are the usual sources for selections to senior management and executive positions.  Positions in Technical, Clerical, Other and blue-collar occupations usually are limited to lower grades with limited opportunity for promotion to management levels.  Advancement in these occupations often depends on individual attainment of further education or advanced skills.  Employment data in this report are presented by occupational category and grade groups to provide a more informative profile."
-- [SAME.  Virtually identical to prior years' definitions of "Occupational Categories" by OPM.  Editor.]

What Does Underrepresentation Really Mean?

Chart from page 9 of the FY 2005 OPM report. The red notations were added by our editors.

In this chart from the FY 2005 OPM report, OPM estimates that only 7.4% of the Federal Workforce (FW) is comprised of Hispanics, while 12.6% of the Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF) is comprised of Hispanics.           OPM wants us to believe that this proves that Hispanics are "underrepresented" and therefore should be given preference in hiring and promotion.

          There are two very good reasons to reject OPM's "underrepresentation" argument, especially as it pertains to Hispanics in the graph above.

          First, the Civilian data used by OPM to compute "underrepresentation" includes non-citizens and unemployed individuals, whereas the Federal data, by definition, includes only employed individuals who are predominantly U.S. citizens.  This chart illustrates the non-comparability of the two sets of data used by OPM:

          Second, as a matter of philosophy, one must ask why statistical underrepresentation of particular skin colors has any bearing at all on the federal government's employment and promotion policies.  We are a nation which promises equal opportunity based upon effort and merit.   We are not a nation which promises equal results based upon skin color.  Or are we?

Update August 2006:  The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress stating in substantial part the following:           The EEOC and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management should discontinue their practice of counting non-citizen Hispanics in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF).  After all, as GAO helpfully points out in their report, the federal government does not hire non-citizens except in extremely rare instances.           Furthermore, GAO reports that when U.S. citizenship and level of education are taken into account, Hispanics are 24% MORE likely to be federal employees than non-Hispanics!           Victory!?  Vindication?   We'll see.  So far, according to GAO's report, both the EEOC and OPM have turned up their noses at the GAO's Aug. 2006 report, but change and rational thought may be in the wind!  Read all about the GAO Report. See the August 2006  GAO report which strongly recommends that the feds STOP counting non-citizen Hispanics in calculating racial quotas. See our Report

Adversity.Net Commentary

          OPM pointedly notes that the Code of Federal Regulations (5 CFR 720.202) defines underrepresentation in such a way that white males cannot, by definition, be underrepresented in federal employment and presumably therefore cannot be discriminated against in federal hiring!   Unless, of course, they become a statistical "minority" -- which may eventually happen!

          In fact, in the approximately 50 pages of fine print comprising the OPM report there is not one, single graphic or table illustrating the decline in employment by the feds of white males.

          Equally pointedly, OPM also does not define a concept of overrepresentation whereby hiring too many members of preferred racial groups would be discouraged if not illegal.

          In fact, the 2006 OPM report (covering FY 2005) -- just as the previous 5 years of OPM data Adversity.Net has analyzed -- continue to clearly illustrate that overrepresentation of selected, preferred races (overhiring) by the federal government is the standard hiring practice.

-- Tim Fay, Editor.

Column A:  OPM data shows 8.4% as the proportion of blacks available in the civilian population for the specific jobs and agency in question (EEOC in this example).  This constitutes a de facto "affirmative action target" (quota) for EEOC.

Column B:  OPM data shows that 44.3% of EEOC's workforce are blacks.

Column C:  This is an intermediate number used in Adversity.Net's calculations and is simply the difference between (A) the "racial target"; and (B) the actual employment of that race by the agency.  In the case of blacks at the EEOC the difference between (A) and (B) is +35.9%

Computation of Column C:
          Col B - Col A = Col C (difference between target "A" and actual employment "B")

Column D:  Using a simple computation, Adversity.Net used OPM's data to show that the percentage of blacks in GSA's workforce is 427.4% higher than the proportion of blacks in the civilian population.  The simple computation is as follows:

Computation of Column D:
( Col C / Col A ) X 100 = Col D (rate of over or under hiring, expressed as a % of the racial 'target' or 'goal' stated in Column A)

In this example, Col. C = 35.9 and Col. A = 8.4.  Using these numbers:

(35.9/8.4) X 100 = 427.4% more blacks work at EEOC than their proportion in the relevant civilian labor force.

          Adversity.Net defines this as "over hiring" of the designated minority group.  OPM, however, does not define "over hiring".

2006 OPM Annual Report to Congress (FY 2005 Hiring Data) EXAMPLE: Tabulation of Minority Hiring at the U.S. EEOC

Note 2 -- Our computation:  Col (B) - Col (A) = Col (C)

Note 3 -- Our computation:   [Col (C) / Col (A)] X 100 = Col (D)

More FY 2005 Charts and Excerpts: