Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Biden administration releases first-ever report on diversity in federal government

Biden administration releases first-ever report on diversity in federal government
Getty Images

The Biden administration has a new warning for private employers: “We are going to start being a competitor of yours,” said Dr. Janice Underwood, director of the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) at the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in an interview with The 19th.

The federal government will fight to attract top talent to its workforce. To that goal, OPM, which serves as the human resources arm of the federal government, has released its first-ever report on diversity across the federal workforce. The 31-page document breaks down hiring and retention across agencies and gives a snapshot of the administration’s efforts to remove barriers for applicants from underrepresented communities. It’s an area where the federal government has historically struggled, Underwood concedes.


In June 2021, Biden issued an executive order directing OPM and other federal agencies to draft a strategic plan for prioritizing diversity in hiring and retention. The February 15 report is a result of that order and offers some of the first simple, publicly accessible demographic data on the federal workforce, with breakdowns by race, gender and disability.

The numbers reflect a federal government that made marginal gains toward racial diversity between 2017 and 2021. Black employees accounted for 18.15 percent of the federal workforce in 2017 and 18.19 percent in 2021, while the percentage of Latinx employees jumped from 8.75 percent to 9.95 percent. Asian workers went from 5.99 to 6.49 percent, and Native American and Alaskan Native workers dipped in representation from 1.69 percent in 2017 to 1.62 in 2021. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders made up 0.51 percent of workers in 2017 and 0.59 percent in 2021.

Women made up 43.38 percent of the workforce in 2017, a number that grew to 44.44 percent in 2021. Nonbinary workers are largely excluded from the tracking, an area that the report and Underwood note will change with future reporting.

“Having this gender binary doesn’t go far enough [and] is not inclusive for our workforce,” Underwood told The 19th. “So OPM and the office of DEIA in particular are really taking the lead and reimagining what that could look like, everything from what it looks like on forms to what it looks like when you apply for jobs.”

Underwood said the government can’t change what it doesn’t measure. Officials add that the tracking effort, in general, is critical to serving an increasingly diverse public and also competing for the top minds in hiring.

“In order to recruit and sustain the best talent, we must ensure every service-minded individual feels welcome and supported in contributing their talents to the Federal workforce,” said OPM Director Kiran Ahuja in a statement.

The first-ever report reflects a government in the midst of cultural change. Last September, OPM launched a council of chief diversity officers across federal agencies. The group has been tasked with setting government goals and benchmarks and identifying obstacles that might keep some groups from applying for jobs.

Among the first changes has been to the federal government’s practices for hiring interns, positions that have historically been unpaid.

“Everybody can’t afford to move to Washington, D.C., for an unpaid internship, and we have amazing talent all over this nation that does not have proximity to Washington, D.C.,” Underwood said. “I’m really excited about the launch of the paid internship guidance that all of our federal agencies have received.”

While the report does not track employees’ LGBTQ+ status, it does emphasize the expansion of LGBTQ+-friendly practices, including increased use of pronouns throughout government to affirm trans and nonbinary colleagues, as well as reiterating that all contracted insurance carriers cover gender-affirming care.

It also offers data on disability hiring for the first time. Efforts to increase disability employment in the federal government are long-standing. Since the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the federal government has been obligated to hire people with disabilities, although the law did not set any particular numbers or benchmarks.

In 2010, President Barack Obama issued an executive order stating that the federal government, as the nation’s largest employer, must “become a model for the employment of individuals with disabilities.” The order directed federal agencies to improve efforts to recruit, hire and retain workers with disabilities, with the goal of hiring 100,000 more people with disabilities into the federal government over five years.

According to a 2015 report from the OPM, the government slightly exceeded that goal, at 109,575 new hires. However, the federal government has struggled with retention. People with disabilities working for the government are three times more likely than their non-disabled colleagues to quit.

In January 2017, before President Donald Trump was sworn in, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a rule to amend regulations related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that set a goal for 12 percent representation of people with disabilities among the federal workforce. At that time, 11.1 percent of federal employees identified as disabled.

According to the latest report from OPM, 16.6 percent of federal employees identify as having a disability, surpassing the benchmark set under the Trump administration. The report did not include information on disability representation in leadership.

Biden’s executive order requiring a government-wide strategic plan brought disability employment under the same umbrella as other diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility efforts.

The report is expected to have broad implications because the federal government often sets a standard for the private sector in business practices.

“We endeavor to be the model employer for the nation,” Underwood said. “But we have a lot to learn as well.”

This article originally appeared in The 19th.


Read More

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less