Evaluation of Compensation Data Collected Through the EEO-1 Form (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 61-81
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 61... ...
FIGURE 2-3 Continued 61
|
From page 62... ...
62 FIGURE 2-4 EEO-1 Component 2 instrument data upload form (example)
|
From page 63... ...
Comparison of specific measures used in the Component 2 instrument to other federal data collections measuring employment are provided in Table 2-1. Employees: "Reports must include all full-time and part-time employees who were employed during the payroll period selected by the employer between October 1 and December 31 ([i.e., the]
|
From page 64... ...
The 10 EEOC job categories are: executive/senior-level officials and managers; first- or mid-level officials and managers; professionals; technicians; sales workers; administrative support workers (formerly office and clerical workers) ; craft workers (formerly craft workers, skilled)
|
From page 65... ...
, and establishments that reported only employee count data and not pay data (i.e., Type 6 reports)
|
From page 66... ...
Every employee identified in the workforce snapshot must be accounted for in one of the twelve pay bands for an EEO-1 job category. The pay bands are: (1)
|
From page 67... ...
• Type 6 reports do not require reporting individual counts by sex, race/ethnicity, job category, and pay band. When using the online entry mode, companies using establishment-list reports (Type 6)
|
From page 68... ...
The improved methodology considered that the reporting burden differed based on the number of forms required for a particular filer. The recalculated burden for filing both Component 1 and 2 instruments of the EEO-1 data collection was estimated as $614,391,388 and $622,015,798 for reporting years 2017 and 2018.16 Regarding information security, EEOC stated in its 2016 OMB information-collection request that it had completed a privacy impact assessment and would be fully compliant with Circular A-130 before launch of the EEO-1 pay-data collection.
|
From page 69... ...
Additionally, most employers were required to participate in both Component 1 and 2 data collections but at different time periods, which also may have created confusion. Last, significant time had passed between the reporting period and the continuation of data collection, creating possible data-retrieval problems.
|
From page 70... ...
First, the resulting data would be of low utility, meaning they were highly unlikely to be of real help in identifying unlawful or improper pay practices.19 Second, EEOC's respondent-burden estimates were inaccurate, such that the proposed paydata collection would be tremendously burdensome to implement, so was not justifiable by the anticipated data utility. Third, confidentiality concerns regarding the disclosure of potentially sensitive compensation data had not been properly addressed.
|
From page 71... ...
. Possession of aggregate EEO-1 pay data would allow NWLC to "focus its resources, analysis, and advocacy on the jobs, industries, and regions where intervention is most urgent" (NWLC et al.
|
From page 72... ...
EEOC must alert filers if it has decided by April 29, 2019 whether to collect 2017 or 2019 data;" • "If EEOC has not decided by April 29, 2019 whether to collect 2017 or 2019 data, it must issue a statement of its decision on its website and submit the same for publication in the Federal Register by May 3, 2019;" • "Beginning on May 3, 2019, and continuing every 21 days there after, EEOC must provide reports to plaintiffs and the court of all steps taken to implement the Component 2 data collections since the prior report, of all steps to be taken during the ensuing three week period, and indicating whether EEOC is on track to complete the collection(s) by September 30, 2019;" and • The court ordered that the Component 2 data collection(s)
|
From page 73... ...
Even if subsequent investigations access more complete data for a given establishment, poor reliability of initial data impairs EEOC's ability to describe the establishment size (by employee count) and industry, and to account for hours worked in pay comparisons.
|
From page 74... ...
(Chapter 3) • Collecting pay data in pay bands is not suitable for analysis of central tendency or dispersion.
|
From page 75... ...
• Data collected using the Component 2 Type 2 report required manual checks to confirm that employee counts across establish ments by sex, race/ethnicity, and job category were correct. Errors in counting employees across sex, race/ethnicity, and job catego ries could lead to misclassification of establishment and firm size, and therefore affect comparisons to similarly situated employees.
|
From page 76... ...
* • From the Component 2 information-collection request materials sent to OMB in 2016, it is not clear which system protocols were enhanced to protect the sensitive nature of pay data.
|
From page 77... ...
could then be eliminated, and firm-level data created by summing across establishment reports. These actions would increase coverage, simplify reporting, and reduce respondent burden.
|
From page 79... ...
In the panel's opinion, EEOC should transition to the collection of individual-level pay data, if prior field testing demonstrates its feasibility. If pay bands continue to be used, they should be narrowed, particularly for top earners.
|
From page 80... ...
The Component 2 instrument's measure of race/ethnicity is insufficient to compare similarly situated employees, such as Hispanic employees by race. It also does not correspond with the federal standard.
|
From page 81... ...
In 2019 and 2020, pay data (Component 2) were collected for reporting years 2017 and 2018.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.