Header Image
Keli Wilson

Keli Wilson, M.A.

Senior Manager of EEO Compliance,
Diversity and Inclusion
Principal Consultant
SHARE:
Facebook Twitter Linkedin
Keli Wilson is a Principal Consultant with DCI Consulting Group, Inc. (DCI), where she provides guidance on equal employment opportunity and affirmative action statutes and regulations. Keli’s primary focus is in assisting Federal contractors and subcontractors with compliance assistance, such as preparing affirmative action plans, conducting pay equity compensation analyses, providing strategic audit advice, creating diversity and inclusion metrics, as well as training/developing recruitment and management teams in Fortune 500 companies. Additionally, Keli manages a team of consultants and analysts who also work with Federal contractors and subcontractors on OFCCP compliance requirements.

Keli has worked in the field of industrial and organizational psychology at DCI since June 2005. She writes articles on current OFCCP events which get distributed to the contractor community through the OFCCP Blog Spot, a DCI blog. In addition, she creates online web trainings for Federal contractors and subcontractors, presents webinars/teleconferences on OFCCP regulations and prepares white papers, all available or released by DCI. Prior to joining the DCI team, she received an M.A. degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Xavier University and a B.A. degree in Psychology from West Virginia University.

Keli Wilson ’s Recent Posts

With the recent news on diversity and inclusion challenges surfacing at Uber, CEO Travis Kalanick shared workforce diversity data related to technology teams. It was reported that Uber had 15.1% women in technical staff positions. Although other tech companies were mentioned, there are considerations to make before assuming those figures to be comparable to other organizations in the industry and whether the percentages look good or not. There are two apparent challenges that the tech industry faces when measuring diversity that must be considered: (1) finding a comparable benchmark that encompasses people that have the requisite skills to do the job; and (2) assessing diversity at the right grouping level. Given the challenges already faced with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics jobs, it may be a good start to focus on job-level workforce specifics rather than an aggregate category of technical staff.

So, where can a company focus effort on assessing current and increasing future workforce diversity? A first step in increasing diversity in the workplace is understanding the diversity of the talent pipeline. For example, if a company can understand upcoming talent pools to recruit from then companies may be better able to estimate future diversity growth opportunities (e.g., review the enrollment and degrees awarded trends from year to year in the targeted areas). Also, there are opportunities to evaluate the talent acquisition process to help identify gaps in the recruitment and selection process. For example, a talent acquisition diversity dashboard could be created to assess whether candidate pools, applicant pools, selection rates, and employment percentages are flagged as being statistically below, at, or above a comparable benchmark. Finally, as important as it is to understand the pipeline of talent, as well as recruit and hire qualified talent, it is also imperative to measure retention and minimize turnover. Minimizing turnover with inclusion awareness and training programs will help maintain and develop the diverse talent in the workplace.

Connect with DCI to learn more about diversity reporting, benchmarking sources, inclusion programs, and education opportunities on various diversity and inclusion topics (e.g., diverse candidate slate risk awareness, unconscious bias, inclusion best practices).

By Keli Wilson, Senior Manager of EEO Compliance, Diversity, and Inclusion

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

DCI Consulting Group (DCI) had representatives attend the SHRM Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) conference held October 25-27, 2016 in Austin, TX. A draw for the conference was to hear from business leaders on D&I initiatives, such as aligning D&I strategy to business objectives and attracting and retaining diverse talent by striving for an inclusive culture. A recap of the conference sessions, in which DCI was present and deemed to be a direct relation to both D&I and compliance, can be found within this blog.

The Business Case for Hiring Military Veterans: Strategies, Approaches and Best Practices

Nathan D. Ainspan, Ph.D., of the Transition to Veterans Program Office (TVPO) Department of Defense, spoke to attendees about initiatives to attract and retain veterans in the workplace. With approximately 200,000 annual transitions from the military, there is ample opportunity to improve and bridge the transition process for this skilled population. Dr. Ainspan has partnered with the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the Society of Human Resource Management for education, training and research in this field.

He outlined the skills veterans have that are in need as identified in a literature review, concerns by veterans transitioning (i.e., may be considered more of a career change than a transition which may take 6 months to a year for placement), as well as successful practices for attracting and retaining veterans (e.g., effective on-boarding, mentoring programs, and affinity groups). In addition, Dr. Ainspan noted the following resources:

Resources for Hiring

  • Local Installation Transition Office;
  • American Job Centers; and
  • Hiring Our Heroes.

Recruiting Resources

  • DoD SkillBridge Program;
  • DoDs Transition Assistance Program; and
  • VA’s Veteran Employment Toolkit.

Creating an Inclusive Culture in Your Organization

Lauren Aguilar, with Paradigm, summarized empirical evidence supporting an inclusive culture in this session. She covered the following concepts and shared how to optimize each for a more inclusive organizational culture:

  • Physical environment (e.g., cues in the environment)
  • Growth mindset (e.g., learn from mistakes)
  • Team communications (e.g., impact of interruptions)
  • Psychological safety (e.g., interpersonal risk taking)
  • Feedback (e.g., delivery and focus of feedback)

Managing D&I: Religion and LGBTQ Issues in the Workplace

Michael S. Cohen of Duane Morris LLP discussed the legal and practical implications of organizations addressing issues that arise related to LGBTQ status and requests for religious accommodation. This session included discussion of:

Response Options to Religious Accommodation Requests

  • Accommodation denied due to employee not holding a bona fide religious belief
  • Accommodation not available or poses undue hardship on the employer
  • Accommodation not needed, as request has no conflict with employment requirements
  • Accommodation offered (which employee may accept or reject)

LGBTQ Considerations

  • Effect of local laws on practices and policies
  • Level of inclusiveness in organization policies
  • Environment and culture
  • Demographics of leadership

Invisible No More ® – Seven Realities of the Invisible Becoming Visible

In a session focusing on invisible disabilities, Wayne Connell, founder and president of Invisible Disabilities Association based in Denver, CO, highlighted some points to keep in mind when working with individuals with invisible disabilities inside and outside of the workplace:

  • 74% of individuals with severe disabilities do not use assistive devices
  • 24% of Americans have 1 or more chronic illnesses
  • You can support individuals with invisible disabilities by:
    • Acknowledging their situation – do not assume that because you cannot see what they are going through that it is not real. Believe them first.
    • Acknowledging their losses – many people with invisible disabilities have had to alter or completely change the way they live their life as a result of their disability
    • Respecting their boundaries and limitations – ensure they have equal access/invitation to positive opportunities at work (i.e. just because they say no to participating in an activity once, do not assume they never want to be invited again or are always unable to participate)
    • Showing them you are listening – they are the best person to show you what they need to succeed
    • Showing them you are willing to help – maintain a friendly and open orientation toward assisting them with daily activities

Everything You Wanted to Know About Gender Transition in the Workplace but Didn’t Even Know to Ask

Grace Stevens, President of GVET, described her experience transitioning in the workplace and provided employers with best practices on supporting transgender individuals in their organizations. Here are some of the key takeaways:

  • Educate transgender employees that it’s OK for them to set boundaries (e.g., to not go into detail with others about their transition unless they want to)
  • Educate non-transgender employees to accept and respect the boundaries set by transgender coworkers
  • Advise employees going through transition that it may be beneficial for them to write a “coming out” letter to coworkers to address common questions (e.g., pronoun use)
  • HR should create and make publicly available (e.g., dissemination from top leadership recommended) a policy promoting the inclusion of transgender employees in the workplace and highlight resources available to transgender employees and how to access them.

What the #%!*: Political Correctness in the Workplace

In this session led by Marc Scheiner, attorney at Duane Morris LLP, discussion surrounding the issue of navigating political correctness in the workplace took stage. “Political correctness,” according to Scheiner, can be more applicably interchanged with “treating people with respect,” which is the ultimate goal of any harassment prevention program. Scheiner reminds us that we need to not only train managers on dealing with obvious inappropriate conduct (e.g. patent racism or sexism) but also less obvious forms such as:

  • Jokes
  • Stereotyping
  • Requests for dates
  • Pop culture references
  • And even more subtle forms such as:
    • “Positive” stereotypes
    • Unconscious bias
    • Microaggressions
    • Non-inclusiveness

While HR’s focus should be on managing and preventing inappropriate behavior and harassment, the focus of organizational leaders should center on creating a culture that encourages openness, promotes listening and mutual respect, and supports a learning environment.

The Neuroscience of Mitigating Bias and Elevating D&I

David Rock of NeuroLeadership Institute provided advice to employers based on research conducted at the Institute on understanding and breaking bias. The model he proposed using consisted of:

  • Accepting that brains are biased
  • Labeling the bias you are dealing with
  • Mitigating biases with brain-based strategies

Instead of raising awareness of the exclusion of particular groups, David Rock suggests employers build new habits that create inclusion, focusing on the smallest possible set of behaviors to shape in these new habits.

DCI staff look forward to networking with you at the 2017 D&I conference! Stay informed of DCI’s D&I initiatives (e.g., D&I program evaluations, trainings, employee life-cycle diversity dashboards and metrics) through our bi-weekly blogs.

By Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant; Jana Garman, Senior Consultant; and Jeff Henderson, Associate Consultant, at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

In accordance with the revised Section 503 regulations, federal contractors are required to invite applicants and employees to voluntarily disclose disability status and include these figures in their affirmative action plans. This information is strictly voluntary, so contractors may not compel or coerce employees or applicants to complete the form. Therefore, 100% participation of employees or applicants in the voluntary invitation is not likely.

Given this, DCI clients have raised concerns about low participation rates in this voluntary process and the impact that this will have on the disability goals and other analytics. Therefore, we conducted a follow-up to our 2015 survey for contractors to share their self-identification participation rates to establish an industry benchmark for contractor awareness. All information gathered from this survey was kept anonymous, and the following results have been aggregated.

This survey addressed six areas contractors should consider when interpreting self-identification results:

  1. Participation rate (percent of employees that filled out the survey);
  2. Response rate (of those that participated in the survey, what percent were disabled);
  3. Utilization rate (percent of employees disabled in comparison to the workforce);
  4. Applicant Participation Rate (percent of applicants that filled out the survey);
  5. Applicant Response Rate (of those applicants that participated in the survey, what percent were disabled); and
  6. Applicant Rate (percent of applicants identifying as disabled)

One additional analysis conducted was a correlation analysis to compare rates in comparison to contractor size. For example, are employees more likely to participate in the voluntary survey in a smaller company versus a larger company? The results suggest that the smaller the company, the more participation.

 1. Participation Rate

Participation rate was measured by the percent of the entire workforce that completed the voluntary self-identification form. Results showed that as the size of the company increased, the participation rate decreased.

  • Average participation rate: 32.33 (an increase from 22.32 in 2015)
  • Correlation between company size and participation rate: -0.49 (a stronger correlation than -0.28 in 2015)

2. Response Rate

Breaking the results down even further, response rate was also considered. Response rate assessed the percent of employees that responded affirmatively to having or having had a disability out of the employees that participated. Interestingly, this resulted in a positive correlation with company size, meaning, out of the employees that participated, the rate of those that responded affirmatively increased along with company size.

  • Average response rate: 6.69 (a decrease from 9.89 in 2015)
  • Correlation between company size and response rate: 0.12 (a weaker, albeit positive, correlation than 0.29 in 2015)

3. Workforce Rate

However, when affirmative responses were assessed against the entire company population, identified as utilization rate, we found a considerable decrease in the average number of employees who affirmatively self-identified as having or having had a disability. Much like the participation rate, a negative correlation was found between workforce rate and company size, meaning, as the size of the company increased, the number of employees who affirmatively self-identified decreased.

  • Average workforce rate: 1.89 (a decrease from 2.54 in 2015)
  • Correlation between company size and workforce rate: -0.33 (a stronger correlation than -0.07 in 2015)

As with the workforce rates, applicant rates were also assessed using the same methods.

4. Applicant Participation Rate

Applicant participation rate was measured by the percent of all applicants that completed the voluntary self-identification form. Results showed that as the size of the company increased, the participation rate among applicants decreased.

  • Average applicant participation rate: 62.8
  • Correlation between company size and applicant participation rate: -0.33

5. Applicant Response Rate

Applicant response rate assessed the percent of applicants that responded affirmatively to having or having had a disability out of the applicants that participated. Similar to workforce response rates, this resulted in a positive correlation with company size, meaning, out of the applicants that participated, the rate of those that responded affirmatively increased along with company size.

  • Average applicant response rate: 3.24
  • Correlation between company size and applicant response rate: 0.33

6. Applicant Rate

Finally, this survey assessed the rate of applicants who affirmatively self-identified out of the entire applicant pool. As with the workforce utilization rate, a negative correlation was found between applicant rate and company size.

  • Average applicant rate: 2.48 (an increase from 2.17 in 2015)
  • Correlation between company size and applicant rate: -0.05 (a weaker correlation than -0.16 in 2015)

When comparing self-disclosure rates to an industry benchmark, contractors should consider the method in which they analyze their company data. Here we have identified three potential ways contractors may be looking at their applicant and workforce data, with each providing different results. Specifically, the difference in response rate and workforce rate should be cause for concern. By using a denominator (total workforce versus those that participated in the survey), we see a substantial decrease in self-identification rates, and a reversal in the direction of the correlation. Each method provides a different picture of the data, with some more favorable than others.

Although the sample was relatively small, a number of industries were represented, such as banking, education, healthcare, and manufacturing, to name a few, as well as company sizes, which consisted of  ranges of 0-499 to over 50,000. Full survey results can be found here.

There were several comments in the survey that address challenges that employers are encountering with the self-identification invitation, such as:

  • Lower participation rates for employees without email access.
  • Employees don’t feel comfortable self-disclosing disability status.
  • Some employees who may meet the definition of having a disability do not consider themselves disabled.
  • Union dislike of the data collection.
  • Individuals sometimes completed the self-identification form as an applicant, but not once they were hired.

Recall that OFCCP is hopeful contractors will aspire for a welcoming environment in which applicants and employees feel comfortable self-disclosing disability status. It is imperative to effectively communicate how this information will be collected and maintained confidentially to appease any fear of information sharing or retaliation. This being said, it is important to communicate support from all levels of the organization, and share resources and information with employees on why this change is occurring.  In addition, consider providing supplemental information on the page before and after the mandated OFCCP form so that employees become more knowledgeable and comfortable with self-identifying. This supplemental page will be an opportunity for contractors to collect employee ID information to annually complete the utilization analysis (i.e., link disability status to job group within a location). Finally, monitoring the participation rates within your company will help you identify whether the workforce is more aware of and comfortable with the data collection.

DCI will continue to seek out opportunities to collect and present self-identification benchmarks to the contractor community.

By Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant, and Bryce Hansell, Associate Consultant at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

On June 15, 2016, OFCCP published its final rule updating the sex discrimination guidelines (41 C.F.R. part 60-20) from their period of dormancy since the 1970s. The long-awaited revisions, while reinforcing already-established sex discrimination principles from the dated publication, bring the regulations in line with current Title VII law and Supreme Court interpretations. Impacting federal supply and service contractors and subcontractors, as well as federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, the new regulations become effective on August 15, 2016. Here are the main takeaways:

  • There are no new imposed policy changes. For the most part, contractors should already be up-to-date with many of the policies and procedures outlined in the new rule.
  • Targeted outreach and recruitment efforts toward females as part of Executive Order 11246 affirmative action requirements will not violate these rules.
  • Proposed language referring to the requirement of contractors paying “equal” wages to similarly situated employees was removed in the final rule and, instead, replaced with language stating it will be a violation if wages, benefits, or other compensation are a result in whole or in part of the application of any discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.
  • There is a featured section on best practices in promoting gender neutral equal employment opportunity.

For more on the updated sex discrimination rules, be sure to visit the OFCCP website for a fact sheet, frequently asked questions, crosswalk of the old guidelines to the new final rule, and other resources.

By Jeff Henderson, Associate Consultant and Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant at DCI Consulting Group

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

The OFCCP announced a new Functional Affirmative Action Plan (FAAP) directive this week, which is effective as of April 28, 2016 through April 30, 2019. Although largely unchanged, there are some important updates for federal contractors to note regarding the application and maintenance processes of a FAAP agreement.

Previously, the guidance from the OFCCP was that to be eligible for a renewal of an existing FAAP agreement, the contractor must have had at least two functional units undergo a compliance evaluation during the three-year term of the agreement. Now, contractors are told that by having an approved FAAP agreement, they will undergo at least one compliance evaluation during the agreement period, which is not guaranteed of contractors developing establishment-based plans. Additionally, instead of requiring a conference to review and discuss the FAAP application materials, the FAAP unit now engages in FAAP negotiation processes that may not warrant a conference.

Updated FAQs on the FAAP program have not yet been released. Because there are few modifications resulting from the new directive, contractors may consider referencing the existing FAQs, keeping in mind the above noted changes.

By Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant, and Jana Garman, Consultant, at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

Today marks Equal Pay Day, which symbolizes the extra days of the year, on average, women must work to earn what men earned in the previous year. Pay equity is attracting a lot of attention in the news, in particular with the tech industry. Facebook disclosed yesterday that it not only regularly assesses compensation practices in the workplace, but that it has no gender pay gap. In addition to Facebook, Microsoft publicly shared a similar outcome of pay equity. This was a timely release of information to lead into Equal Pay Day.

Additionally, in March 2016, Amazon.com released its gender pay gap evaluation results, indicating women in their company earned 99.9 cents to every dollar a male peer earned in a similar job. In February 2016, Apple CEO Tim Cook reported that women earned 99.6 cents to every dollar a peer male earned at the company. However, there are still some critics of the methodologies used to describe the gender pay gap at these companies. Some critics claim that the highest paid people at Amazon, for instance, are still men, because men make up a higher percentage of the highest paying jobs at the company. Interestingly, this is a similar criticism of the pay gap found in President Obama’s administration as reported by the Washington Post in 2014:

One of the key reasons {of the gap} is that more men hold the higher-paying, senior jobs in the White House, and more women hold the lower-paying, junior jobs.”

While the tech industry is gaining the spotlight for disclosing whether gender pay gaps exist in the workforce, this is an issue pursued by society and enforced by the OFCCP and the EEOC. For example, there is an EEOC charge filed by five members of the U.S. women’s national soccer team on March 30, 2016, accusing U.S. Soccer of wage discrimination. In their complaint, the female players cited recent U.S. Soccer financial reports as proof, as they claim, that they earn only half as much as their male soccer comparators. However, the U.S. Soccer Federation refutes these claims, stating that the women’s soccer players signed a collective bargaining agreement. In addition, the Federation argues that the complaint filed by the women soccer players misrepresents the revenue contributions.

To continue discussion on this topic, DCI will be hosting a webinar. Agenda and registration information will be forthcoming soon.

By Joanna Colosimo, Senior Consultant, and Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant, at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

The application and approval process for entering into a Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP) agreement with the OFCCP is outlined in Directive 305 (renumbered to 2013-01), which became effective on December 17, 2012.

The OFCCP is currently seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Agreement Approval Process for Use of Functional Affirmative Action Programs.” As discussed in the Federal Register, this ICR “addresses the collection of information associated with the process for obtaining, modifying, updating, and renewing an agreement that allows contractors to develop and use functional AAPs.” The OFCCP has requested an increase in reporting burden from 7.6 hours per contractor (926 total) to 9.5 hours per contractor (1,427 total), which reflects the replacement of the renewal process with a certification requirement. Additionally, contractors seeking a new FAAP agreement will no longer be required to provide a copy of their Federal contract for approval.

The previously approved ICR expired on December 31, 2015; however, the expiration date is extended monthly (currently, to March 31, 2016) while OMB conducts the review and approval process for the revision. OMB has received and is considering all written comments regarding the ICR revision that were submitted by February 8, 2016. It is noted in the supporting statement from the OFCCP that there are currently 82 contractors with a FAAP agreement, covering more than 1,900 functional units. Based on trends in prior years, the OFCCP has estimated that there are approximately 10 new requests each year for FAAP agreements. Until OMB completes its review of the FAAP ICR, contractors are encouraged to continue communicating with the OFCCP regarding any updates, modifications, or renewals made to active FAAP agreements.

By Bryce Hansell, HR Analyst and Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

Last spring, DCI surveyed Federal contractors to assess participation rates regarding the revised Section 503 regulations (2015 results). The majority of contractors have likely reached a year of full compliance and implementation under the revised regulations. Given this, DCI has decided to re-survey the contractor community in hopes of gathering more robust self-identification benchmarks.

Under these regulations, Federal contractors are now collecting voluntary self-identifications of disability status from employees and applicants and including these figures in their affirmative action plans. Self-identification is voluntary, so contractors may not compel employees or applicants to complete and turn in the form. Therefore, 100% participation of employees or applicants in the voluntary invitation is not likely.

Based on this information, DCI clients have raised concerns about low participation rates in this voluntary invitation and the impact that this will have on the disability goals and other analytics.  Therefore, we have put together a short survey for Federal contractors to share their self-identification participation rates to establish an industry benchmark for contractor awareness. Your participation in this survey is strongly encouraged. All information gathered from this survey will be kept anonymous, and results will be shared only in the aggregate.

Please answer these questions as they relate to the entire company and not individual establishments. Even if you participated last year, we encourage you to participate again, as we will be analyzing a new data set and sharing the results.

SURVEY

By Bryce Hansell, HR Analyst and Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

The Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing, reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), set the framework for what data are required to submit in a compliance review.  Specifically, item 18 in the Itemized Listing requires contractors to supply “data on your employment activity (applicants, hires, promotions, and terminations) for the immediately preceding AAP year”.  The submission of update data is only required if the contractor is 6 months or more into the current AAP year upon receipt of the Scheduling Letter.

In some recent audits the OFCCP is automatically requesting data 2 years back from the Scheduling Letter date, which would include not only data from the AAP period under review, but also data from before and after the AAP period. This type of time period expansion may or may not be in accordance with regulatory guidance.

There are situations where OFCCP may reasonably request data outside of the AAP data timeframe. For example, it is acceptable for the OFCCP to seek records for a 2-year period in accordance with the general record-keeping obligations. Also, the Federal Contract Compliance Manual mentions that it may take special circumstances, such as the appearance of potential discrimination, to warrant a review period beyond the Scheduling Letter date. The OFCCP’s position in Frito Lay v. OFCCP was that these requests can be made if under a continuing violation theory, assuming that a violation was identified. Unfortunately, a formal ruling was not made in this case, so there is no final decision on whether the OFCCP’s position is appropriate.  However, it is important to be aware of when this request may not be appropriate.

Here are some tips for responding to a request for data outside the elected AAP year or beyond the Scheduling Letter date:

  • If there are no statistical indicators at the job title/group level (i.e., no apparent violations), then this may warrant a discussion with OFCCP. A simultaneous action would be to ask OFCCP to reevaluate the original data and confirm results.
  • If there are statistical indicators (i.e., potential violations), ask OFCCP to identify the specific job titles/groups with a statistical indicator and limit the data request to those only for the AAP temporal scope.
  • Should the OFCCP persist with a 2 year request, then contractors can identify the regulations at §60-2.1(c). It states that AAPs must be updated annually. If the OFCCP does not identify a special circumstance and the contractor is expected to update personnel activity on an off-cycle basis to coincide with the Scheduling Letter date, then this would exceed the annually updated portion of the regulations and approved burden-hour estimates from OMB. Additionally, it would devalue the requirement to annually develop AAPs and identify problem areas.
      • To illustrate how providing additional information may present an issue, imagine that you had a January 1, 2015 AAP and received a scheduling letter on October 12, 2015. For the desk audit you submit your annual January 1, 2015 AAP and an update July 1, 2015 AAP. During follow-up requests the OFCCP requests data for three applicant job groups from October 12, 2013 through October 11, 2015 (i.e., 2 years back from the date of the scheduling letter). Although you did not see statistical indicators for the job groups requested when you proactively analyzed them, after submitting the 2 years of data to the OFCCP they indicate that there are indicators when analyzing the combined data. Given that this data is outside the temporal scope of your proactive AAPs, this indicator could not have been proactively identified.

In the past, requests for data outside the temporal scope of the audit have been rare; however, as noted above, DCI has seen this request several times in recent audits.

By Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant and Amanda Shapiro, Senior Consultant at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

The OFCCP Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing – used to initiate OFCCP supply and service compliance evaluations – is set to expire March 31, 2016. In anticipation of this coming date, OFCCP must obtain approval through Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend the date and continue use of the letter. Although OFCCP reassures that no new items will be added to change or expand upon data collection, several “minor clarifying edits” (as described in OFCCP’s supporting statement to OMB) have been added. One addition that has raised concern amongst contractors is as follows:

“Please also be aware that OFCCP may use the information you provide during a compliance evaluation in an enforcement action and may share such information with other federal government agencies to promote interagency coordination and collaboration.”

Although OFCCP has communicated that the intent of the new language is merely to enhance transparency between the agency and the contractor community, there is some concern over potential implications of the proposed language. Most importantly, little information is available to expound upon what and how information may be shared between OFCCP and other agencies. Slightly more is known about information shared with OFCCP; for example, it is defined in the Active Case Enforcement (ACE) Procedures that OFCCP receives and reviews information on past complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for contractor establishments selected for audit (e.g., nature, status, and outcome of complaints). However, aside from broad practices outlined in the EEOC-OFCCP Memorandum of Understanding (e.g., OFCCP may refer cases to EEOC where appropriate), the type and extent of information that may be shared by OFCCP is largely unknown. In anticipation of questions that will undoubtedly arise from contractors, OFCCP may want to consider strategies for clarifying its practices and easing concerns surrounding interagency information sharing. One possible option may be for OFCCP to release a directive on this subject.

The 60-day public comment period will begin once OMB has reviewed the OFCCP information collection. DCI strongly encourages contractors to submit comments during this time (TBD) to voice concerns and/or suggestions for OMB consideration.

By Keli Wilson, Principal Consultant and Rachel Gabbard, Associate Consultant at DCI Consulting Group 

CONTINUE READING
SHARE
Facebook Twitter Linkedin

News

Really, I Come Here for the Food: Sex as a BFOQ for Restaurant Servers

Michael Aamodt, Principal Consultant at DCI Consulting Group, wrote an article featured in SIOP’s TIP publication, January 2017.

Recent Blog Posts

OFCCP Begins Mailing Scheduling Letters

DCI has just learned that OFCCP began to send out audit scheduling letters on March 17th.  At this time we are not certain how many were sent out, but we do know that 800 CSALs (Corporate Scheduling Announcement Letters) were sent to contractor establishments last month.  It is critical that corporate compliance representatives notify individual establishments in their organization to be on the look-out for any official OFCCP correspondence.  If you did receive a scheduling notice, please notify DCI immediately so that we can assist you with the audit process.

To read the audit distribution notice, please click here.

By Rosemary Cox, Senior Consultant at DCI Consulting Group

Read More