TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Figures 3

Executive Summary 5

Objective 5

Historical Context 5

Where are we today? 5

What is in this report? 6

Current Focus: Anti-Harassment Interdepartmental Team 6

Strategies Resourced in 2017 6

Strategies Begun Or Continued without additional Resources 8

What lies ahead? 9

Resourced Work 9

Reporting 11

Conclusion 11

Acknowledgments 12

Introduction 13

Workforce Equity Strategies 14

Workforce equity summary updates 16

Platform Strategies 16

Demographic Metrics Analysis 16

Training to Minimize Bias in employment decisions 21

Employee Performance Management System 22

Consolidated Human Resources (ONE HR) 23

Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan 24

Workforce Investment Strategies 25

Paid Parental Leave & Paid Family Care Leave 25

Employment Pathways 27

Targeted Recruitment 28

Increased Access to Training 31

Leadership Development Program 31

Mayoral & Council Directed WFE Strategies 35

Anti-Harassment Inter-Departmental Team (IDT) 35

Fire & Police Entry-level Assessment Changes 36

Employee Exit Survey 39

Employee Engagement Survey 39

Gender Justice Project 40

Wage Transparency 43

Step Exception Data Analysis 43

Supported Employment Program 44

Strategies For Later Phases of Implementation 46

Conclusion 47

Appendices 48

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 48

Appendix B: Summary Descriptions Of Strategies Proposed in the 2016 Workforce Equity Strategic Plan 52

Appendix C: WFE Strategies: Racial Equity Lens and Learning & Successes 56

Appendix D: Measuring Workforce Equity: Conceptual Framework, Baseline Results AND Technical Report 66

Introduction 66

Conceptual Framework 67

2017 Workforce Equity Metrics Baseline Data: Summary of Key Findings 73

2017 Workforce Equity Metrics Baseline Data: Technical Report 77

Appendix E: HR Consolidation Employee Engagement Activities List 104

Appendix F: SDHR Supported Departments, 2018 105

Appendix G: Leadership Expectation & Accountability Plan (LEAP) 106

Appendix H: 2018 WEPAC Membership 115

Appendix I: Usage and Back-Fill Costs of the Paid Parental Leave Employee Benefit in 2016 and 2017 116

Appendix J: Usage and Back-Fill Costs of the Paid Family Care Leave Employee Benefit in 2017 135

Appendix K: Employment Pathways Inter-Departmental Team (IDT) Additional Outcomes 144

Appendix L: Employment Pathways Inter-Departmental Team (IDT) Racial Equity Outcomes 145

Appendix M: Employment Pathways Inter-Departmental Team (IDT) Subcommittees' Learning and Successes List 147

Appendix N: Targeted Recruitment 2018 Actions 150

Appendix O: Seattle Police and Fire Hiring Equity Analysis Action Plan 151

Appendix P: January 5, 2018 Firefighter Testing Stakeholder Group 159

Appendix Q: Items Presented by SDHR to Public Safety Civil Service Commission (PSCSC) on 2/15/18 160

Appendix R: Gender Justice Strategies Overview 161

References 164

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by People of color (POC) / White, December 2017 17

Figure 2: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of color by Race Groups, December 2017 18

Figure 3: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Gender, December 2017 19

Figure 4: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2017 20

Figure 5: Race & Ethnicity of Emerging Leaders Training Participants 33

Figure 6: Gender of Emerging Leaders Training Participants 33

Figure 7: Legislation Action Requested for Seattle Fire and Police Departments 37

Figure 8: Supported Employees by Department, 2017 44

Figure 9: Employment Pathways IDT Racial Equity Outcomes 59

Figure 10. Conceptual Diagram of Workforce Equity Metrics 68

Figure 11: Workforce Groups and Levels of City Employment 69

Figure 12: Example Results Table: Levels of Hourly Wages by Race 69

Figure 13: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by People of color (POC) / White, December 2017 73

Figure 14: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of color by Race Groups, December 2017 74

Figure 15: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Gender, December 2017 75

Figure 16: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2017 76

Figure 17: Overall Representation by Race (POC/White) 78

Figure 18: Overall Representation by Race (Seven Race Categories) 78

Figure 19: Large City Departments by Race (POC/White) 79

Figure 20: Supervisor Levels by Race (POC/White) 80

Figure 21: Supervisor Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories) 80

Figure 22: Pay Scale Levels by Race (POC/White) 83

Figure 23: Pay Scale Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories) 84

Figure 24: Overall Representation by Gender 85

Figure 25: Large City Departments by Gender 85

Figure 26: Supervisor Levels by Gender 87

Figure 27: Pay Scale Levels by Gender 88

Figure 28: Overall Representation by Race and Gender (POC/White) 89

Figure 29: Overall Representation by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories) 90

Figure 30: Supervisor Levels by Race and Gender (POC/White) 91

Figure 31: Supervisor Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories) 93

Figure 32: Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (POC/White) 98

Figure 33: Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories) 100

Figure 34: Paid Parental Leave Use by Gender and Tenure, 2016-2017 118

Figure 35: Parental Leave Use by Department, 2016 Events (4-week policy) 119

Figure 36: Paid Parental Leave Use by Department, 2017 Events (12-week policy), to date* 120

Figure 37: Estimated Backfill Costs for PPL by Department, 2016 Events (4-week policy) 121

Figure 38: Estimated Backfill Costs for PPL by Department, 2017 Events (12-week policy)** 122

Figure 39: Paid Parental Leave Use by Job Title, 2016 Events (4-week policy) 123

Figure 40: Paid Parental Leave Use By Job Title, 2017 Events (12-Week Policy), To Date* 128

Figure 41: Paid Family Care Leave Use by Gender and Tenure, 2017 137

Figure 42: Paid Family Care Leave Use by Department, 2017 138

Figure 43: Estimated Backfill Costs for PFCL by Department, 2017 139

Figure 44: Paid Family Care Leave Use by Job Title, 2017 140

Figure 45: Employment Pathways IDT Deliverables, Challenges 148

Figure 46: Seattle Police Department Hiring Equity Action Plan 153

Figure 47: Seattle Fire Department Hiring Equity Analysis Action Plan 156

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

"Workforce equity is when the workforce is inclusive of people of color and other marginalized or underrepresented groups at a rate representative of the greater Seattle area at all levels of City employment; where institutional and structural barriers impacting employee attraction, selection, participation and retention have been eliminated, enabling opportunity for employment success and career growth." Workforce Equity Strategic Plan, City of Seattle, 2016

OBJECTIVE

This report is a review of the implementation of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan and establishes baseline workforce equity metrics as the City strives to reduce institutional and structural barriers to City of Seattle employment and support the well-being and inclusion of all employees serving the people who live and work in Seattle.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Mayor Jenny Durkan signed Executive Order 2017-13 on her first day in office to affirm the City of Seattle's commitment to the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) and workforce equity. This report is responsive to that commitment by our Mayor. It is the first annual Workforce Equity Accountability Report to the Mayor and the City Council. It tracks progress on the City's Workforce Equity Strategic Plan which was issued by the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) and the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) in July 2016.

WHERE ARE WE TODAY?

In line with Mayor Durkan's Executive Order 2017-13 and its values, the people who live and work in Seattle will be best served by the City only when the City's workforce reflects the communities they serve and is an inclusive and equitable workplace. As of 2017 employee data, the City workforce is representative of people of color collectively (39.4 percent of the City's workforce vs 37.8 percent of the county population). However:

People of color are underrepresented in upper levels of employment by supervisory authority and pay relative to the population. They make up 33.4 percent of employees with greatest supervisory authority and 31.0 percent of the top wage earners. Latinos are underrepresented at all levels of City employment (5.3 percent of the City's workforce vs 9.3 percent of the county population).

Women are underrepresented at all but the bottom levels of supervisory authority and wages. Women are 38.6 percent of the City workforce (50.1 percent of the county population) but at the top level, they make up 35.4 percent of supervisors. In the top level of wage earners, women make up 33.8 percent of employees.

Women of color are 19.0 percent of the county population but just 11.3 percent of the top level of supervisors and just 10.0 percent of the top level of wage earners.

These findings ground the purpose of this annual report and drive the work ahead.

WHAT IS IN THIS REPORT?

The City's definition of "workforce equity", found at the top of this executive summary, is both aspirational and operational, describing an environment of full representation and inclusion in the workplace. This is combined with a call for removing structural and institutional barriers that impede this vision and specific investments in the workforce itself. This report includes updates on strategies that will help us achieve this definition of workforce equity. It includes the implementation of the WFE Strategic Plan as resourced by the Mayor and City Council in 2017. The Strategic Plan has platform strategies which are fundamental to workplace culture change and workforce investment strategies which support employee career growth. Updates on each of these is in this report. Additionally, this report outlines previous and future workforce equity programs and initiatives.

Because this is the first update and many of these strategies were developed over the past year, this report will detail our efforts to date as opposed to outcomes many of which will take several years to manifest. All of the strategies undertaken have been developed using citywide teams and a racial equity lens, or will have a racial equity toolkit applied.

CURRENT FOCUS: ANTI-HARASSMENT INTERDEPARTMENTAL TEAM

The Anti-Harassment Interdepartmental Team (AH-IDT), comprised of 17 City employees and 4 labor representatives, has been meeting since March of 2017 to provide recommendations to prevent workplace discrimination and harassment. The recommendations will be available Summer 2018. SDHR will utilize current agreements with departments and its established relationships with Departments and HR Leaders to implement AH-IDT recommendations.

STRATEGIES RESOURCED IN 2017

PLATFORM STRATEGIES

Citywide Training to Reduce Bias in Employment Practices The Learning Advisor was hired in April 2017 to create the training program. 112 employees participated in a pilot of the first of the two classes in 2017 and their input was collected to revise the final version of the class. A draft of class two is complete however, the employee in the Learning Advisor role accepted a permanent position elsewhere. The new Advisor will finalize both classes and will create and present the train-the-trainer class for 70+ citywide employees with RSJI training. These same employees have received "facilitating race-based conversations" training.

Employee Performance Management System (E3) The E3 Advisor designed several classes to support the implementation of the E3 system including: goal setting, the Art of Feedback and performance review writing for managers. The advisor also created documentation for onboarding employees and managers to the system while managing implementation for 15 departments representing 2800 staff.

Consolidate Human Resources To assist in desigining an HR service model, 2 temporary employees were hired to support the assessment of HR programs, practices and policies in the 26 departments and offices of the City. This took place in the spring and summer 2017. That information was used to develop a central HR service model to provide consistent policy interpretation and implementation of programs that relate to workforce equity. SDHR and City departments signed agreements at the beginning of 2018 to formalize their partnership. Fourteen Departments currently receive full HR services from SDHR.

Workforce Equity Program Manager The Program Manager was hired January 2017 to drive and coordinate implementation of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan. They are a liaison to City Council and the Mayor's Office, including coordinating presentations and responses to requests for information, and are a project manager for: The Police and Fire Hiring Equity Analysis, the Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan, the Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace, creation of data collection and analytics, creation of this update report, and day-to-day information and reporting.

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

Paid Parental Leave - 384 employees used PPL (27% female & 73% male) as of March 2018.

Paid Family Care Leave - 156 employees used PFCL (64% female & 36% male) as of March 2018.

Employment Pathways The Employment Pathways (EP) Advisor was hired to staff the EP Interdepartmental Team (IDT) which formed in March 2017. The IDT purpose is to recommend a consistent, Citywide approach to internships, apprenticeships, youth employment, temporary work, and job training, with an emphasis on green jobs that promote environmental justice to support 2017 Council Resolution 31712. To date the IDT has completed the following to inform the recommendations due to Council at the end of 2018: finalized a definition of green jobs; applied a racial equity toolkit to their work to identify racial equity outcomes; completed an entry-level job report; created an inventory of City youth-serving programs, including those that self-identify as green; developed an inventory of City-resourced career development training; and documented the existing community involvement efforts in partnership with Department of Neighborhoods and the career outreach and recruitment efforts across the City.

STRATEGIES BEGUN OR CONTINUED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

PLATFORM STRATEGIES

Workforce Equity Metrics Analysis A conceptual framework for how the City can measure representation by race and gender at all levels of government (the "level analysis") as well as within various stages of the employee experience (the "pillars analysis") is complete. Additionally: the 2017 benchmark data on representation across all levels of City employment is complete and the wage & supervisory authority analysis is complete; the exit survey is in pilot; and the engagement survey pilot is planned for 2019.

Promote Sustained and Accountable Commitment by Leadership The Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC) completed the Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP) in early 2018. It is being considered for citywide distribution and adoption by the end of 2018.

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

Targeted Recruitment A targeted recruitment plan was developed in 2017. This plan was informed by the Department of Neighborhoods and the recruiting leadership of the Seattle City Light, Department of Transportation, Public Utilities, and Human Services.

Increased Access to Training Lynda.com employee subscriptions increased from 739 in 2016 to 3,681 in May 2018. The top five courses are: Unconscious Bias, Excel 2013 Essentials, SharePoint Online Essentials, Git Essentials, and Customer Service Foundations.

Leadership Development Program An Emerging Leaders program for individual contributors was designed and implemented. 7 sessions are complete with: 232 participants from 20 departments, 51% POC, and 40% field staff (two of the areas of participant focus).

Other Strategies The following are staged for later phases of implementation, some due to the need for bargaining. Most of the City labor contracts were not open for bargaining during 2017: improved access to flexible scheduling, employee benefits web portal, step wage increases, and revised seniority restarts.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 31588

Council Resolution 31588 has been primarily fulfilled by the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan, but the following are not included in the Plan, were not resolved in 2016, and continue to receive SDHR and OCR resources in response to this Council Resolution.

Fire and Police The Entry-Level Hiring assessment was completed in 2017 and implementation of the recommendations is underway. SDHR, the Mayor's Office, and the City Council are developing an implementation plan to use preference points for police applicants, such as foreign language fluency, for entry-level recruitment. The recommendations will be submitted to the Public Safety Civil Service Commission by the end of 2018 for their review and approval.

Employee Exit & Engagement Surveys The exit survey is in pilot with 16 departments and the engagement survey is drafted and is planned to pilot Q4 2018.

Gender Justice Project The key accomplishments to date by the Gender Justice Project include the all-gender restroom ordinance, LGBTQ action plan, gender identity competency training for front line staff, and the Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace.

Wage Transparency Public employee salary data was posted in March 2017 with name, department, classification (job title) and hourly salary.

Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee This Committee is active, completed the Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan and continues to review WFE strategies as they are developed.

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHT - SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

There are 110 supported employees in the City's award-winning supported employment program. This is up from 100 employees in 2016. The program integrates employees with developmental disabilities into a regular office setting and is the largest of its kind in the U.S.

WHAT LIES AHEAD?

This is what is planned for the remainder of 2018 and through 2019 to advance workforce equity:

RESOURCED WORK

1. Develop Citywide City Leadership Capabilities:

Citywide Training to Reduce Bias in Employment PracticesPart 2 will be completed in 2018 and phased implementation will occur in 2019 with assistance from Citywide RSJI and Equity trained "champions").

Employee Performance Management Continue to support the 15 departments that utilize E3 Performance Management.

Leadership Development Programs City Leadership Academy Training will be refreshed and launched in Fall 2018. SDHR will continue to support the Emerging Leaders training.

Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan The Plan will be implemented citywide by the end of 2018.

2. Consolidated Human Resources HR Consolidation was originally a part of the WFE Strategic Plan. The City has reached a stage where One HR is an initiative on its own. It's an overall strategic approach to HR services that contributes to workforce equity. In the future One HR will have funding considerations and reporting mechanisms separate from the Workforce Equity Plan.

3. Creation of data metrics, collection and analytics This ongoing work will include development of a framework to analyze employee inclusion at the City as well as the following data collection capabilities:

Connect the NEOGOV application system to HRIS by creating a field in the latter to capture the Applicant ID from the former;

Improve disposition code use in the NEOGOV hiring system to capture reasons for disqualification of candidates, from initial application to final hire, to assess hiring trends;

Standardize Step Exception form utilization for all requests, including denials;

Improve leave tracking for paid parental leave, paid family care leave, and demand for these leaves, as well as employee tenure tracking systems;

Fix the disparity between minimum qualifications on job postings and desired qualifications.

4. Employment Pathways Recommendations are due to the Mayor and Council at the end of 2018.

5. Targeted Recruitment Initial metrics for tracking progress on the implementation of the targeted recruitment plan will be in place by the end of 2018.

6. Additional Access to Training purchasing additional subscriptions to Lynda.com, and partnering with City departments to do so, will allow more employees access to an online video training company that offers training on a variety of topics that can be accessed at the employees' convenience.

7. Police and Fire Hiring Equity RSJI Team members across the City will be able to participate on Firefighter interview panels in Q3 2018 and an entry-level police officer exam preference points system will be developed by Q1 2019.

8. Employee Exit Survey The survey will be launched citywide by the end of 2018.

9. Employee Engagement Survey The pilot will occur in the fall of 2018 and the survey will be launched in 2019 with timing based on stakeholder feedback.

10. Gender Justice Project Two trainings will continue with limited implementation: the 'Understanding Gender Identity in the Workplace' training for all staff at the City and the 'Gender Identity Competency' training for front-line staff.

11. Wage Transparency Updated public employee salary data will be posted annually. A Racial Equity Toolkit will be undertaken in 2019.

12. Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee This committee will continue to meet to guide workforce equity policy and to apply racial equity toolkits to the work underway for many of the policies listed here.

13. Supported Employment The plan is to continue to grow this program with the addition of 50 new positions made available to departments for their use.

REPORTING

This annual report ensures accountability to the public, City employees, the Mayor and Council. SDHR recommends future workforce equity annual reports are submitted by the end of the first quarter each year. This will mean the analysis includes more recent data from the previous year at the time of publication and thus be more reflective of the current workforce. It will also allow for recommendations presented in the report to better align with the City budget cycle.

CONCLUSION

As Mayor Jenny Durkan's office, City Council, and our dedicated public servants continue to prioritize workforce equity, we know what work lies ahead of us. Continued progress towards our aspirational workforce equity vision requires sustained commitment by leadership as well as appropriate resourcing. At a time in which Mayor Durkan and City Council are pressed to manage competing and urgent City priorities like housing affordability, criminal justice reform and environmental protection, we know that resources may be limited. Yet, we also know that an inclusive, safe and equitable workforce will better enable our leadership and employees to whole-heartedly and successfully provide the internal and external facing services, projects, policies, and programs that benefit our City and community members.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the following people and teams for their time and insights. Without their contributions, neither this report nor equity in our City workforce is possible. This work and report exists because of a deep commitment to workforce equity and race and social justice by the leadership at the City of Seattle. Thank you:

City Leadership

Jenny Durkan, Mayor

Seattle City Council

Susan McNab, Acting Director, Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR)

Mariko Lockhart, Director, Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR)

Ben Noble, Director, City Budget Office (CBO)

Workforce Equity Division Team, SDHR

WFE Accountability Report Leadership

Andrea Ramirez, Equity Training and Leadership Development Advisor, SDHR

Ann Marie Summerhill, Learning, Development and Organizational Effectiveness Director, SDHR

Bailey Hinckley, Workforce Equity Project Manager, SDHR

Briana Jarett, Executive Assistant, SDHR

Carrie McCann, Internal Services Rates Advisor, SDHR

Dave Wright, Workforce Planning and Development Advisor, SDHR

Deborah Jaquith, Communications Manager, SDHR

Debbie White, Employment Pathways Strategic Advisor, SDHR

Deena Pierott, Equity Recruitment and Engagement Strategic Advisor, SDHR

David Hennes, Revenue Forecast Manager, CBO

Felecia Caldwell, Director, Workforce Equity Division, SDHR

Heather Weldon, Supported Employment Program Manager, SDHR

Jeanne Fulcher, Employment Pathways Strategic Advisor, SDHR

Jessica Wang, Fiscal and Policy Analyst, CBO

Joseph Russell, Labor and Policy Economist, CBO

Kathryn Ewing, Economist, CBO

Laura Southward, Deputy Director of Service Delivery, SDHR

Laurra Corsello, One HR Strategic Advisor, SDHR

Loren Othon, Gender Justice Project Advisor, SOCR

Melinda Merrell, Finance & Business Operations Manager, SDHR

Patricia Narvaez-Wheeler, Workforce Equity Project Manager, SDHR

Shauna Fitzner, City Leave Administrator, SDHR

Solomon Alemayehu, Finance Manager, SDHR

Tamar Zere, Deputy Manager of Race and Social Justice Initiative, SOCR

Travis Taylor, City Investigator, SDHR

Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC) (Please see Appendix H for a full list of WEPAC members)

INTRODUCTION

In November 2015, a previous Mayor and the Seattle City Council mandated that the Seattle Department of Human Resources, in partnership with the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, develop and produce a Workforce Equity Strategic Plan. These departments delivered on that request in July 2016, presenting a plan to align employee survey data and workforce equity best practices with an aspirational future state of workforce equity at the City of Seattle. The definition of workforce equity adopted in the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan is:

The Plan resulted in recommended workforce equity strategies, including this annual Workforce Equity Accountability Report, to monitor and track the progress of these strategies. This initial report serves to monitor progress on each strategy, including both process and outcomes, and to establish baseline workforce equity metrics for the City as a whole. City Council Resolution 31588 and Executive Order 2015-02 also directed the City to implement additional workforce equity strategies, such as changes to the Fire and Police Exams. Mayor Durkan's office has prioritized anti-harassment efforts, including the Anti-Harassment IDT. This document reports on all strategies being implemented and prioritized across the City.

Each workforce equity report provides a summary update of its status and progress, including:

Implementation and Outcomes: What the City committed to and what has been done

What's ahead in 2018: The work anticipated for the remainder of 2018

Recommendations: What is needed for continued successful implementation of this strategy

Appendix C includes updates on the Application of a Racial Equity Lens and Successes and Learnings for each strategy.

WORKFORCE EQUITY STRATEGIES

The Workforce Equity Strategic Plan distinguished two types of strategies for advancing workforce equity: platform strategies and workforce investment strategies.

Platform strategies address structural and institutional barriers to full inclusion and are foundational to removing barriers in the workplace, enabling equitable access and participation for all. Workforce investment strategies provide benefits to and support career development for all employees while dismantling barriers to full engagement. This includes access to training, benefits, and career growth, which are critical for sustained inclusion, attraction, and support of a diverse and engaged workforce.

The workforce platform strategies implemented and reported on are:

1. Employee demographic data analysis including: measuring progress on the definition of WFE, the employee exit survey, and the employee engagement survey

2. Training to minimize bias in employment decisions

3. Employee performance management system (E3)

4. Consolidated human resources (One HR)

5. Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan

The workforce investment strategies implemented and reported on are:

6. Paid parental leave and paid family care leave

7. Employment pathways

8. Targeted recruitment

9. Increased access to training

10. Leadership development

Other WFE Strategies (not included in the WFE Strategic Plan but directed by the Executive or by Council Resolution 31588):

11. Anti-Harassment Inter-Departmental Team

12. Fire and Police entry level assessment changes

13. Employee exit & engagement Survey

14. Gender Justice Project

15. Wage transparency

16. Step exception data

17. Supported Employment Program

Strategies for later phases of implementation:

18. Seniority re-starts

19. Step-wage increases for part-time employees

20. Employee web portal

21. Improved access to flexible scheduling

The WFE Strategic plan called for the development of workforce equity metrics to measure progress across all strategies towards the workforce equity vision. It was included as a platform strategy but moving forward is introduced at the beginning of this report before the individual WFE strategies, titled 'Measuring Our Progress Towards Workforce Equity'.

WORKFORCE EQUITY SUMMARY UPDATES

PLATFORM STRATEGIES

DEMOGRAPHIC METRICS ANALYSIS

SDHR, in collaboration with the Economics & Revenue team in the City Budget Office (CBO), has developed a framework for how the City of Seattle will measure progress towards the definition of workforce equity outlined in the introduction using employee demographics and survey responses. Metrics and figures presented in this initial report will serve as a baseline for tracking change on an annual basis. (However, change to these metrics will likely be gradual, as they represent broad trends with many societal causes.) Below is a summary of results. For a description of the conceptual framework, including plans for creating additional metrics in the future, as well as more detailed results for those metrics presented below, see Appendix D.

In 2017, the City of Seattle measured results towards the achievement of the WFE vision using the "Levels Analysis": an analysis of representation by race and gender across different levels of the City's workforce (supervisory authority and wages). A previous report commissioned by the City has examined workforce representation for occupations as compared to estimates of locally available labor pools (see DCI Consulting Group, Inc. (2015), City of Seattle Workforce Pay Equity and Utilization Report). This report found that the City generally met this legal standard of non-discrimination. By contrast, the analysis herein reflects the City's ambition to go beyond this threshold and commit itself to a diverse and highly inclusive workforce where, as described in the Strategic Plan, "underrepresented groups would be equally included at each level of employment from the lowest to the highest paid and the least to most tenured employees." In doing so, the City aspires to have "a workforce that better reflects and serves residents while contributing to the deconstruction of societal barriers to opportunity."

The figures below show the demographics of the City of Seattle workforce compared to those of both Seattle and King County. However, the analysis herein focuses on the county as the population of comparison. The WFE team, in preparing the analysis of this report, chose the King County population as the basis for "general population" comparisons because it encircles Seattle and thus allows for the inclusion of workers who commute into the city daily. These and many others do not live within Seattle city limits but are served by city services and are thus part of the population we wish to reflect. Further, King County represents a more stable population base for future comparison than Seattle, where affordability is driving rapid change and displacement.

Summary of Key Findings

Overall, the City of Seattle workforce is representative of people of color collectively (39.4 percent of the City's workforce vs 37.8 percent of the county population). However, people of color are underrepresented at the top levels of City employment compared to the county population. Among the top level (fourth quartile) of supervisors, they compose 33.4 percent of employees. By pay, people of color make up 31.0 percent of the top level (fourth quartile) of wage earners and 32.1 percent of the third level (quartile).

Figure 1: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by People of color (POC) / White, December 2017

By race categories, Hispanics are the most underrepresented group across the entire City Workforce (5.3 percent of the City's workforce vs 9.3 percent of the county population). In fact, this under-representation of Hispanics appears widespread as it is found at all four levels of supervisors and wage earners. Asians and those reporting multiple races are also underrepresented at the top level of supervisors compared to the county population.

Figure 2: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of color by Race Groups, December 2017

By gender, the City of Seattle Workforce is very imbalanced: overall, just 38.6 percent of City employees are female as compared to 50.1 percent in the county population. This imbalance is driven by the five largest departments (in order: Police, City Light, Parks, Seattle Public Utilities, and Fire) whose collective workforce is just 30.7 percent female. Given this overall imbalance, it is not surprising that women are underrepresented at many levels of the workforce relative to the general population. Among supervisors, women are underrepresented in all but the bottom level (first quartile). In the top level, they make up 35.4 percent of supervisors. Across the pay scale, women are again underrepresented in all but the bottom level. In the top level of wage earners, they make up 33.8 percent of employees.

Figure 3: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Gender, December 2017

When examining representation at a more granular level, by race/gender cross-sections, both women of color and White women are underrepresented in the overall City Workforce, as the overall gender imbalance would suggest. Women of color are most underrepresented at the top levels of City employment. This group makes up 19.0 percent of the county population but just 11.3 percent of the top level of supervisors and just 10.0 percent of the top level of wage earners.

Figure 4: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2017

(For the full report, please see Appendix D, "Measuring Workforce Equity: Representation by Race and Gender across Levels of the City of Seattle's Workforce, Technical Report.")

TRAINING TO MINIMIZE BIAS IN EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS

Implementation & Outcomes

One of the five platform strategies approved by City Council in 2016 is the implementation of a citywide training program to minimize bias in employment practices. The program requires all managers, supervisors, and employees involved in recruiting, hiring, promoting, and discipline processes and decisions to attend as a proactive way to minimize bias and increase equity in all employment decisions. This is approximately 2,500 City employees.

To support the design, development, and implementation of this work, the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan requested two positions to meet the objective by December 31, 2018, only one position was approved, which has impacted the ability to deliver the full scope of the work by original due date.

In April 2017, the Workforce Equity Learning Partner was hired to build and implement the training to minimize bias in employment decision-making program. The Workforce Equity Learning Partner led a Core Team which included partners from recruiting, human resources, and equity advisors to collaborate in the development of the program.

The Workforce Equity Learning Partner used data from the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan Listening-sessions and conducted a focus group with citywide recruiters to understand the challenges, skill gaps, and potential solutions to create a more equitable employment environment. Part 1 of the program was developed and piloted in 2017 with 112 employees participating from 10 departments and providing feedback for improvement.

What's Ahead in 2018

A recently hired Workforce Equity Learning Partner is finalizing Part 1 of the program and developing Part 2, as well as a "train-the-trainer" program. Citywide RSJI trained employees will help with the start of a phased implementation program in 2019.

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Implementation & Outcomes

The continued adoption of the citywide E3 (Equity, Engagement, Expectations) Performance Management System is another Workforce Equity Action Plan platform strategy. E3 uses objective, standardized performance evaluation tools to reduce unfair/potentially biased employee evaluation practices. Employees are evaluated in three areas: Goal Achievement, Competencies, and Overall Performance. The universal core competencies for all employees include: Accountability & Action, Communication, Equity & Inclusion, Service, and Teamwork. In addition to the universal core competencies, people managers are also evaluated on Direction & Delegation and Aligning Performance for Success.

The E3 pilot kicked off in April 2016 with four departments (SDHR, SDCI, ITD, DEEL) and 963 employees. An additional five departments and 475 staff launched E3 in 2017 (HSD, SPR, CEN, SPL, and DON). E3 has focused on the on-going partnership between employees and managers from setting goals, meeting on an on-going basis throughout the year, a formal mid-year check-in, to the employee review. Feedback from employees and managers has been positive.

What's Ahead in 2018:

In 2018, six departments (OSE, OIRA, ARTS, EEC, OPCD, and FAS) with 1,139 employees launched E3.

There are several additional opportunities to continue the development of the E3 Performance Management System, including the development of:

Employee Learning Development Plans

360 Review Process

Probationary/Off-Cycle Employee Reviews

CONSOLIDATED HUMAN RESOURCES (ONE HR)

Implementation and Outcomes

Establishing a consolidated Human Resources is identified as one of the platform strategies in the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan (2016). The WFE Strategic Plan defines a consolidated Human Resources as having developed a human resources service delivery model, with central alignment and accountability to enhance consistency and equity in recruiting, benefits, training, promotion, and other employment programs

Between 2015-2016, SDHR worked with the newly formed Human Resources Leadership Team (HRLT), comprised of central HR and citywide HR leaders, to develop the City's first HR Strategic Plan. This plan presented a strategy for bringing all HR employees and functions into a consolidated service model. The HR Plan was also incorporated into City's WFE Strategic Plan as a platform strategy. During this timeframe, SDHR began improving its centrally provided services including worker's compensation and training and began working as Business Partners with smaller City Departments (now totaling 15 Departments) with full HR services from SDHR.

Throughout 2017, SDHR and Department HR Leaders began working closer together to align and better understand the HR services, processes, and procedures provided throughout the City. This collaboration enabled SDHR to clarify HR roles citywide, focus on more equitable and effective workforce outcomes, improve accountability, while still offering flexibility necessary to meet citywide and unique Department needs. In addition, SDHR worked to inform and engage all HR staff as HR alignment has occurred in preparation for a consolidated HR in the future. An overview of this stakeholder engagement is provided in Appendix E.

What's Ahead in 2018

In 2018, SDHR is focusing on the following actions:

Implement Joint Accountability Agreement Memorandum between SDHR and Departments

Finalize governance framework within SDHR and between SDHR and Departments

Begin HR Budget Allocation preparations for 2019

Develop and begin implementating standard practices for Leave Adminstration and Recruiting/Hiring

Facilitate anti-harassment standard operation procedures through the HR Leadership teams managed by SDHR

Continue to work on aligning HR policies, procedures, practices, and people citywide.

LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN

Implementation and Outcomes

Throughout the various employee engagement activities conducted in 2016 during the development of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan, employees and leadership identified accountability by City Leadership as an essential component to progressing towards the City's vision of workforce equity. The Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC) was charged with creating a plan. WEPAC convened from October 2017 through February 2018 to develop a draft Leadership Accountability and Expectations Plan (LEAP) to guide department directors in championing workforce equity and race and social justice. The plan provides City department leadership with a matrix of expectations, behaviors, and actions that demonstrate commitment and accountability to workforce equity with department-level leadership. Examples of behaviors and actions included in the matrix, include:

Participate and complete the following RSJ trainings: Race the Power of an Illusion, Racial Equity Toolkit, and Implicit Bias

Identify the projects, programs, policies, services, and/or budget decisions on which departments applied racial equity toolkits.

Review and analyze department's procurement practices for equity.

Incorporate the recommendations of the Anti-Harassment IDT into department and leadership practices.

What's Ahead in 2018

WEPAC will finalize a recommended dissemination strategy for the LEAP and identify how the LEAP can align with leadership accountability across the City. One possible method is to integrate the LEAP into Department Performance Agreements as well as hiring processes for manager level positions and above. This will raise the competencies and capacity of department leadership.

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE & PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE

Implementation and Outcomes

Extending paid family leave beyond traditional parental leave is one of the workforce investment strategies in the 2016 Work Force Equity Strategic Plan. The effort acknowledges that employees have many family-care obligations which often fall to women, and particularly women of color. Like paid parental leave, paid family leave has been proven to increase employee engagement and morale, reduce employee anxiety and stress, and increase workforce inclusion and productivity. Paid family care leave became available (retroactively) starting January 1, 2017.

In 2015, Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 124753 that created a four-week paid parental leave benefit for City of Seattle employees. That benefit became available to any eligible employee welcoming a new child via birth, adoption or fostering on or after May 17, 2015 and provided four weeks of fully paid leave (pro-rated for part-time employees) for bonding with the child. Then, in February of 2017, Ordinance 125260 extended this benefit to a total of 12 possible weeks, with the final four weeks being subject to the availability of other leave balances of the employee (the employee must use any sick and/or vacation accumulations beyond two weeks and one week, respectively, to supplement some or all of the final four-week period). The extended benefit became available (retroactively) to eligible employees welcoming a child on or after January 1, 2017.

The Workforce Equity team collaborated with a number City partners in creating the project plan for implementation throughout the first quarter of 2017. The group held weekly meetings for status updates on action item execution, and to address the processes for implementation of paid parental leave and paid family care Leave benefits. Seattle Department of Human Resources hired a strategic advisor and project manager for determining and developing changes to our payroll and human resource systems, to communicate changes, and to conduct the necessary trainings to ensure a successful and equitable program.

As of the end of 2017, 964 City employees had benefited from the City's paid parental leave and paid family care leave programs. Data demonstrates that the program has successfully implemented these new benefits for employees.

For the full report on usage and backfill costs of the Paid Parental Leave Employee Benefit in 2016 and 2017, see Appendix I. For the full report on usage and backfill costs of the Paid Family Care Leave Employee Benefit in 2017 see Appendix J.

What's ahead in 2018

Stakeholder engagement is currently under way to review and implement new state mandated family and medical leave for workers and employers, which will be effective in 2020. The program will be funded by insurance premiums, paid by both employees and employers, starting in January of 2019. The state-sponsored insurance program will allow workers to take up to 12 to 16 weeks when they welcome a new child into their family, are struck by extended illness or injury, or need to take care of an ill or ailing relative.

Additionally, there is a need for better data on the demand for family and medical leave among employees. SDHR is working to improve this through the addition or revision of pay codes that would allow employees who are taking leave to report, via their biweekly timesheets, both the leave type they wish to use as well as the option to report the reason for taking leave (for example, an employee who has taken vacation time to care for an ailing parent).

EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS

Implementation and Outcomes

The Employment Pathways Inter-Departmental Team (EP IDT) formed in March 2017 to make recommendations for a consistent citywide approach to City of Seattle (City) internships, apprenticeships, youth employment, temporary work, and job training. The goal is to reduce barriers and create pathways to regular employment at the City. The Mayor and City Council passed Council Resolution 31712 in October 2016 to support employment pathways as a workforce investment strategy, with an added emphasis on green pathways beginning with entry-level jobs.

The facilitation process and work of the IDT thus far has obtained buy-in from 16 different departments and ensures an equity framework. It has also helped to clarify areas for revision, improvement, and focus. Some successes that stand out and more information about outcomes can be found in Appendix K-M.

What's Ahead in 2018:

The EP IDT and IDT subcommittees will continue to develop the Employment Pathways recommendations centered on racial equity. The following deliverables will be produced in 2018:

1. Recommendations on ways to promote upward mobility and success in green jobs, City, and local employment opportunities;

2. Outreach and engagement strategies that promote the success of people of color in collaboration with the Equity and Community Engagement Strategic Advisor;

3. A coordinated structure for the City to partner with workforce training partners who support diverse communities; and

4. Engagement with regional employers around leading workforce equity practices.

TARGETED RECRUITMENT

Implementation & Outcomes

In 2017 the Equity and Community Engagement Strategic Advisor (hired in 2016) created a targeted recruitment plan that will is now in implementation 2018. These recommendations were informed by the Department of Neighborhoods and the recruiting leadership of various departments including City Light, Department of Transportation, Public Utilities, and Human Services.

Targeted Recruitment Plan Goals:

1. Promote and foster reciprocal partnerships between the communities of the Seattle region and SDHR. Collaborate closely with communities, nonprofit organizations, universities, and colleges on engagement strategies.

2. Improve our ability to share information more effectively and efficiently with our community stakeholders.

3. Increase talent pipelines and employment pathways.

4. Partner with other public-sector agencies to launch a public-sector diversity career fair to increase diverse talent pipelines and multi-agency employment opportunities.

5. Identify and use culturally appropriate data analysis tools that recognize and utilize community cultural assets and knowledge.

What's Ahead in 2018

In 2018, we will implement and expand the targeted recruitment plan. Specifically, City hiring managers and recruitment teams are strategically planning how a position will be advertised to best ensure outreach efforts will generate a well-populated, diverse pool of qualified applicants (including women, racial/ethnic minorities, veterans, and persons with disabilities). These efforts will be documented. Additional methods for targeted recruitment will be developed and rolled out throughout the year as they become available. For additional actions planned for 2018 please see Appendix N.

INCREASED ACCESS TO TRAINING

Implementation & Outcomes

One of the Workforce Investment Strategies identified in the Workforce Equity Action Plan includes increased access to training. In 2017, SDHR purchased Lynda.com subscriptions for citywide employees. Lynda.com is a subscription-based, online video training company that offers training on a variety of topics, including computer skills, project management, communication, time management, and leadership development. Subscriptions rose from 739 in 2016 to 1,814 in 2017. The top four courses accessed were:

1. Unconscious Bias

2. Excel 2013 Essentials

3. SharePoint Online Essentials Training

4. Effective Listening

SDHR's Learning, Development, & Organizational Effectiveness team also developed three new e-learning trainings: E3 Implicit Bias Review, E3 Self-Assessment for Employees and Introduction to Emergency Preparedness.

What's Ahead in 2018:

In 2018, an E3 Goal Setting e-learning will be developed and there are plans to develop a process for approving additional Lynda.com courses.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Implementation

Another investment strategy identified in the Workforce Equity Action Plan is the creation of leadership development programs. The greatest need identified to create equitable employment opportunities for all employees was to create a leadership program for individual contributors, as most training was geared toward supervisors.

In 2016, a Core Team was created to identify, design, develop, and implement a leadership program for individual contributors. The Core Team was composed of citywide Learning Partners from HSD, SPU, Parks, Seattle Center, SDHR, and an external consultant. The Emerging Leaders program is a four-day, hands-on experiential course for non-supervisory City employees who want to build their self-leadership skills and was piloted in March 2017.

During 2017, seven sessions were offered, and 232 participants completed the course. Participant demographics were:

Balanced between field/service/maintenance positions (40%) and office positions (60%).

Consistent with or greater than City demographics for historically underrepresented and marginalized groups.

Representative of 20 City departments.

What's Ahead in 2018

In 2018, a minimum of six Emerging Leaders classes will be held and to increase access to the program, a variety of locations will be selected, including the Seattle Municipal Tower, Seattle Center, Camp Long and Parks facilities. An analysis will be conducted to evaluate the career mobility opportunities the participants have been able to access. Additionally, a 2018 City Leadership Academy cohort will begin in the fall of 2018.

Race & Ethnicity

Gender

Gender

MAYORAL & COUNCIL DIRECTED STRATEGIES

The following workforce equity strategies predated the WFE strategic plan. The following strategies and data analysis presented were not required or recommended by the workforce strategic plan but were requested by other legislation.

ANTI-HARASSMENT INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TEAM (IDT)

Implementation and Outcomes:

In February of 2017, several affinity and employer groups called for former Mayor Murray's office to act on racial and sexual orientation-based harassment which impacts employees across the City. Mayor Durkan immediately prioritized an Anti-Harassment Initiative when she took office. Her efforts included calling for an Anti-Harassment Inter-Departmental team to address much needed institutional and workplace culture change to make the City of Seattle a safe workplace for all employees.

In late March of 2018, a group of dedicated City employees took on this task. The Anti-Harassment Inter-Departmental Team (IDT), which is comprised of 17 City employees and 4 Labor representatives, met for three days off-site to ground themselves in this work. They were introduced to current policies and reporting structures, went through a power analysis exercise, were reminded that the City 'leads with race' and explored what that meant for anti-harassment efforts. The IDT continued to meet weekly for twelve weeks.

The group broke into three sub-committees, each focusing on a specific area for change: training, reporting mechanisms, and personnel rules.

The Training Subcommittee considered the City's current trainings and gave input into what new trainings may be necessary, such as bystander and witness training or training for middle management and front-line supervisors.

The Reporting Subcommittee addressed potential improvements to the current reporting structure, as well as considered what additional reporting mechanisms may be needed.

The Policy Subcommittee examined the City's personnel rules and recommended potential updates or revisions that reflected the suggested reporting and policy changes from the larger IDT.

What's Ahead in 2018:

Recommendations are due to the Mayor and Council in the Summer of 2018. These recommendations will incorporate feedback from the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) Employee Engagement Survey, which is was sent out to all City employees in the Spring; as well as employee focus groups facilitated by the Office for Civil Rights. Although not complete, the overarching themes for the recommendations are as follows:

Accountability & Values

Creation of department accountability measures to set expectations for a workplace free of discrimination and harassment.

Multiple strategies to communicate city values, vision, and expectations.

Central Hub

Establish an independent entity to support citywide intakes, investigations, and review to replace existing system. Communicate and educate on multiple entry points and resources for support.

Ensure options to be anonymous, confidential, rooted in Race & Social Justice, independent, and relational.

Independent Advocate System

Launch employee advocate system to be a support through intake, reporting, investigation, resolution, and aftercare process.

Advocates will be survivor centered, competent, passionate, RSJI-trained, skilled in trauma-informed care practices and a non-reporter.

Comprehensive Training

Provide and require comprehensive education on prevention and response of workplace and discrimination at all levels.

FIRE & POLICE ENTRY-LEVEL ASSESSMENT CHANGES

Implementation and Outcomes

Workforce Equity Council Resolution 31588, Executive Order 2015-02, and Council Bill118969 requested departments take actions that would result in an inclusive and diverse workforce with specific references to the Fire and Police Departments. Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) serves as the testing administrator for Fire and Police entry and promotional exams on behalf of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission (PSCSC). In this role, SDHR has worked with other stakeholders to respond to the following legislated items:

Figure 7: Legislation Action Requested for Seattle Fire and Police Departments

Legislation Legislative Action Requested

Council Resolution 31588 & EO 2015-02 Equity Review: Review policies, practices, and potential cultural barriers at the SPD and SFD that may create potential workforce disparities and propose strategies to address those gaps (section 1.d)

Sharing Best Practices: Utilize SPD and SFD as models, to create and propose citywide strategies for enhanced best practices and aspirational goals around recruitment and retention of women, people of color, and underrepresented populations (section 1.e)

Council Bill 118969 Language Preference Points: An applicant for an SPD position deemed fluent in a language other than English may be entitled to have 10 percent credit added to his or her examination score for initial hiring or promotion. To receive such credit the applicant's fluency will be verified by the hiring authority based on a measure established by the Department (section F.1.b)

Community Service/Work Experience Preference: An applicant for an SPD position who has completed service in the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or other verified equivalent work experience or community service of two years or more may be entitled to have 10 percent credit added to his or her examination score. To receive such credit on his or her examination score, an applicant's equivalent work experience or community service will be assessed by the hiring authority based on standards to be established by the Department. (section F.1.c)

Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR), Seattle Fire Department (SFD), and Seattle Police Department (SPD) hired a public safety consultant, the Sawgrass Group Inc., to identify barriers to inclusive entry-level hiring for SPD and SFD. The aim was to develop recommendations to entry-level hiring. The goal is to have police officers and firefighters representative of the communities they serve, who are best able to perform their duties on behalf of the diverse communities of Seattle.

Multiple stakeholders from SFD, SPD, CBO, and SDHR were involved in the analysis portion of this work. The Community Police Commission was also engaged during this process. This resulted in the following actions taken to date:

1. A new firefighter testing stakeholder group was formed to provide input on the 2018 firefighter testing project plan. This group (listed in Appendix Q) met on January 5, 2018 and has been continuously informed of the process moving forward.

2. The entry-level fire exam process was changed in the following ways:

Exam format: Shifting written exams to a video format

Exam timeframe: Extending the window applicants can test from two-days to eight weeks

Exam scoring: Scoring of mechanical, math, and reading will be pass/fail; rank will be based on combined Human Relations, Work Attitudes, and Oral Board scores

Oral board composition: Adding one non-uniformed civilian to the oral boards (two uniformed panelists, one non-uniformed civilian)

Implicit Bias training for firefighter oral board panelists

3. Seattle Police Department began the work of the implicit bias training recommendations of the proposed action plan. All sworn members of the department attended an implicit bias training put on by the Anti-Defamation League entitled "Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons of the Holocaust."

4. Throughout 2017 SPD sustained earlier improvements to recruitment and implemented additional outreach strategies. Changes included:

developing a "recruiting cadre" of department officers who are trained and serve as recruiting liaisons in their precincts and in the community, allowing for wider reach and more direct connections;

increasing quality and quantity of outreach engagement at local events (with a focus on cultural and affinity group events.)

The net effect of these efforts has been positive. Although much work remains to be done, significant changes in recruitment/hiring implemented by the department have produced results. As a result, the department's 2017 and 2018 YTD hiring was more diverse than Seattle as a whole. The hiring of persons of color in recent years is as follows:

2014: 22%

2015: 30%

2016: 30%

2017: 35%

2018 YTD: 45%

5. Regarding Police Testing, SDHR has begun work with the Mayor's Office and Council to gather additional information needed to implement the preference points legislation. Specifically, the City must identify

how preference points connect with the job description and the classification specification, and

how this will be implemented once approved by the PSCSC. SDHR has already developed a plan to implement language preference points for entry police exams upon formal approval from PSCSC. This work will be completed in 2019.

EMPLOYEE EXIT SURVEY

Implementation and Outcomes

In response to the DCI report and EO-2015-02 and Council Resolution 31588, SDHR launched a pilot citywide exit survey in January 2018 (the department is also planning a citywide engagement survey also discussed in this report). The six-month pilot exit survey is currently being sent to all departing employees of the below departments:

Seattle City Light

Seattle Parks and Recreation

Seattle Center

Seattle Department of Human Resources and 13 smaller departments served directly by SDHR generalists (employees from these departments are approximately 30 percent of all City employees). For a list of all SDHR supported departments participating in the pilot please see Appendix F.

What's Ahead in 2018

The pilot for this survey is intended to run through the second quarter of 2018. Results and HR staff feedback will then be considered and revisions to the survey and survey process will be made during the third quarter of 2018.

The first round of de-identified, department-level reports were distributed to department HR business partners and leadership in May of 2018.

SDHR intends to begin surveying departing employees of all City departments starting in the fourth quarter of 2018.

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SURVEY

Implementation and Outcomes

Executive Order 2015-02: Workforce Equity Initiative, and accompanying Council resolution 31588, state that an interdepartmental team (IDT) led by the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) and the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) shall "Develop a consistent Citywide exit interview and employee engagement process that is centrally tracked and shows reasons why employees stay or leave City employment." In response to this, SDHR launched a pilot citywide exit survey in December of 2017. An update to that process is provided in the Employee Exit Survey section of this report. The following describes SDHR's planning of a second survey, a citywide employee engagement survey.

The survey has been designed with the intention of gathering employee feedback on topics including productivity, management, and workplace culture. Results will be analyzed at the citywide and department level and will allow department leadership to understand how they compare to other departments across a range of themes, such as collaboration, empowerment, career opportunity, communication, department leadership, recognition, resources, and overall employee engagement.

The survey will also seek to measure employees' sense of inclusion in their workplace. Inclusion refers to the treatment of an employee by coworkers and the institution in a way that is collaborative and fosters a sense of belonging while not requiring the employee to alter their personality to be accepted. To assess inclusion, a battery of 15 questions will be integrated into the engagement survey. They were developed specifically to assess inclusion by Professor Michlle Mor Barak of the University of Southern California, an expert on diversity and inclusion in the workplace and author of the book Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace.

What's Ahead in 2018

As of the publication of this report, SDHR has prepared a draft engagement survey that is undergoing the first stages of review by stakeholders. A citywide pilot engagement survey is planned for launch in 2019.

GENDER JUSTICE PROJECT

Implementation and Outcomes

The Gender Justice Project (GJP) seeks to address gender and race-based inequities in the City workforce and in City policies, programs, and service delivery. The project envisions a city where a person's gender, gender identity, and race will no longer determine their ability to earn a living wage, access housing, or achieve healthy life outcomes.

Executive Order 2015-02, signed in early 2015, called on the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) to continue the development of the comprehensive Gender Justice Project (GJP), with a focus on policy, programs, training, and services centered on those who have been the most impacted to achieve stronger outcomes for all.

Since 2015, the GJP has contributed to several bodies of work related to this vision of addressing and eliminating gender-based inequities in Seattle, including:

All-Gender Restroom Ordinance

City of Seattle LGBTQ Action Plan

Gender Identity Competency Training for Front Line Staff: Launched 2016

Building Awareness and Supporting Seattle's Gender Diverse Community

Ban on the Use of Conversion Therapy on Minors: Passed and Implemented 2016

Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace

For a detailed summary on each of these bodies of work please see Appendix S.

What's Ahead in 2018

In 2018, the Gender Justice Project will continue to seek new ways to collaborate with and support the LGBTQ community in Seattle, including engaging with local advocacy groups, our civil rights commissions, and other stakeholders. the Gender Justice Project will also continue our outreach efforts for raising awareness on the ban on the use of conversion therapy for minors.

The aim for 2018 is to roll out the Understanding Gender Diversity in our Communities training to other departments whose work includes direct interactions with the community. Pending adequate resources, the Gender Justice Project also aims to develop a Gender Identity in the Workplace training.

WAGE TRANSPARENCY

Implementation & Outcomes

Wage transparency provides new and existing employees a basis to negotiate starting wage or raises with management thus removing barriers to information that may discourage these types of conversations, especially for women and people of color. At the City, this is especially important for employees entering the workforce since they may be better poised to establish a more comparable starting wage, setting them up for incremental increases that will track for equally experienced and educated colleagues. For this reason, wage transparency was one of strategies recommended in the Gender Equity in Pay Task Force and then included in the WFE Action Plan.

After taking all necessary precautions for confidentiality related to domestic violence the City published all Executive and Legislative Staff salaries by position and department on the City of Seattle Wage Data webpage in 2017. SDHR will update the data every year and Seattle IT administers the City of Seattle Open Data Portal found at data.seattle.gov/.

What's Ahead in 2018

SDHR will post wage information in 2018, as well as explore metrics to track the impact of posting wage transparency data and will utilize a RET to qualitatively assess the wage transparency program.

STEP EXCEPTION DATA ANALYSIS

Implementation & Outcomes

Executive Order 2015-02 directed SDHR to follow up on potential disparities set forth in the 2014 "City of Seattle Workforce Utilization Study" produced by DCI consulting group, including the tracking of step exceptions granted. The City specifically asked to track the number of applicants requesting step exceptions and to analyze significant racial/gender differences in percentage of exceptions granted.

At the writing of this report SDHR has not received all step exception request forms, including those denied, thus making an analysis unfeasible.

What's Ahead in 2018

The SDHR Workforce Equity and Comp Class teams are working to identify process improvements for the collection of step exception data to facilitate this analysis.

SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Implementation & Outcomes:

Today, the City employs 110 people with developmental disabilities in 16 departments The Supported Employment program's hallmark is its ability to design effective positions that adapt to individual human and organizational needs. Each job is customized by bundling a variety of entry-level duties into positions that individually match candidates' skills, which also allows other employees to maximize their time.

What's Ahead in 2018

The goal is to continue to expand this program through rigorous outreach and education with departments. This will ensure that job development continues within City departments and involves intensive marketing, education, and training of City employees to expand attitudes and beliefs about people with development disabilities and the benefits of including this population in the workplace.

New Supervisor Training: Newly hired supervisors and managers are often unfamiliar with the needs of their Supported Employees. Ensuring a positive work environment and smooth transition for employees and the manager requires consistent training. This training is provided on a continual basis to new supervisors, managers, and directors.

STRATEGIES FOR LATER PHASES OF IMPLEMENTATION

The following strategies were either not resourced in the WFE Action Plan and/or require labor negotiation that has not yet occurred. These strategies will be assessed by the Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Council as they plan for 2019.

Improved access to flexible scheduling Increased equity in decision-making around flexible scheduling requests will facilitate lower-paid positions access to flexible scheduling arrangements. Lower-paid positions are typically populated with the same employees who may be more likely to live outside of the City due to the increased costs of living in Seattle, and are most likely to benefit from equitable access to flexible scheduling arrangements allowing for a better work-life balance. Work-life balance strategies are a known mechanism for increasing the participation and retention rates of employees (Smeaton et al., 2014).

Seniority restarts The current seniority restart process creates a barrier to workforce equity as employees who accept a promotion are more exposed to layoff during economic downturns. The DCI report links this to women and people of color's representation in higher-level roles at the City (DCI, 2015). If an employee's seniority is not "restarted" upon promotion, one barrier to upper-level positions at the City of Seattle would be dismantled, better supporting a diversity of employees in accepting promotion opportunities.

Step wage increases for part-time employees As women are more likely to hold part-time positions at the City of Seattle, they are disproportionately impacted by the current step wage strategy for employee wage raises, which, at this time, measures eligibility for raises by hours of service (DCI, 2015). Best practices in the workforce equity report recommend tracking eligibility by years of service as it will increase the participation and retention of part-time employees (DCI, 2015).

Employee benefits web portal Standardized information regarding career and work-life balance opportunities helps to dismantle barriers to workplace inclusion (Goldstein & Lundquist, 2010). When employees have tools that enable equitable access to leave and career development opportunities, some of the barriers to workforce equity that stem from discretionary decision-making are removed, boosting employee morale, participation and promotion opportunities.

CONCLUSION

As Mayor Jenny Durkan's office, City Council, and our dedicated public servants continue to prioritize workforce equity, we know what work lies ahead of us:

Continued analysis and production of citywide workforce equity metrics to measure long term progress towards the City's vision of workforce equity.

A consolidated human resources model that will create more streamlined and standardized HR practices across the City allowing us to deepen workforce equity practices and data collection.

Employment Pathways recommendations to City Council on reducing barriers and creating pathways to regular employment at the City with an emphasis on the role of internships, apprenticeships, youth employment, temporary work, job training, and green jobs.

Anti-Harassment recommendations to City Council on the policy, reporting structure, and training needs of the City to ensure that the City is a safe workplace for all employees.

The application of a Racial Equity Toolkit to: 2018 changes to the entry level firefighter testing process, citywide exit survey, citywide engagement survey and the Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan for department directors.

The phased citywide roll out of The Training to Minimize Bias in Employment Decision Making for all decision makers involved in employee attraction, selection, retention and participation.

The phased citywide roll out of the E3 Performance Management System to standardize employee performance evaluation practices and thus enhance the City's ability to track and monitor workforce equity.

Continued progress towards our aspirational workforce equity vision requires sustained commitment by leadership as well as appropriate resourcing. At a time in which Mayor Durkan and City Council are pressed to manage competing and urgent City priorities like housing affordability, criminal justice reform and environmental protection, we know that resources may be limited. Yet, we also know that an inclusive, safe and equitable workforce will better enable our leadership and employees to whole heartedly and successfully provide the internal and external facing services, projects, policies, and programs that benefit our City and community members.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

citywide employee performance management A system that enables clarity, transparency and accountability across the City on employee expectations, performance to those expectations, career development opportunities, coaching and discipline, as well as a performance review process where employees have the opportunity to provide feedback on their supervisor.

consolidated human resources A human resources service delivery model, with central alignment and accountability to enhance consistency and equity in recruiting, benefits, training, promotion and other employment opportunities.

employment pathways A consistent citywide approach to City internships, apprenticeships, youth employment and job training that reduces barriers to regular employment at the City of Seattle and creates pathways to regular employment for successful internship, apprenticeship, youth employment and job training candidates.

full-engagement An aim of employee productivity for and loyalty to the employer and the customers they serve.

improved access to flexible scheduling A centrally administered human resources process to ensure fair consideration of all requests for flexible work scheduling. (Covering any existing strategies, such as telecommuting, flexible hours, "4/10's" or "9/80's," etc.)

improved tracking of workforce demographic metrics tracking A comprehensive data collection and analytics system(s) that supports City accountability on inclusive practices through a net turnover report by demographics in each department, employee engagement and exit surveys and an annual accountability report, among other data collection strategies.

increased access to training A set of days each year granted to all employees to take City training programs of their choice, for the purpose of workplace skill development or career advancement. Examples of eligible training include: professional skills, written and verbal communication, leadership development, computer skills and project management courses.

infant at work A program where the City would accommodate, when possible, employees with infants under the age of 6 months in the workplace, to ease job re-entry after welcoming a new child.

interactive, externally-facing employee web portal A web portal where all employees can see their eligibility for individualized leave for different life events, training opportunities and career growth pathways.

leadership development programs A training program and protocol to help more employees attain the eligibility criteria for promotions into higher levels of citywide responsibility.

onsite childcare A childcare center(s) run by the City of Seattle and located near major employment centers citywide (spaces would be limited).

paid family leave (PFL) A benefit that includes both paid family care leave and paid parental leave.

paid family care leave (PFCL) Paid leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition. (For the City of Seattle, it is recommended herein that "family member" be defined based on the City's existing Family Medical Leave policy, which includes an employee's spouse/domestic partner, or a child or parent of the employee or his or her spouse/domestic partner.)

paid parental leave (PPL) Paid leave for welcoming a new child into the home (birth, adoption or foster care). The City of Seattle currently offers this benefit at 4 weeks.

platform strategy A workforce equity best practice that catalyzes organizational culture change through communication, leadership and accountability.

race and social justice initiative A commitment by the City of Seattle to eliminate racial disparities and achieve racial equity in Seattle.

racial equity toolkit A process and a set of questions to guide the development, implementation and evaluation of policies, initiatives, programs, and budget issues to address the impacts on racial equity.

revised seniority restarts A change to seniority calculations for layoffs where a promotion no longer "restarts" an employee's seniority.

step wage increases A change to eligibility for wage increases where wage progression within an employee's classification is determined by years of service rather than hours of service.

subsidized childcare A partial childcare subsidy for families with children under 5 years of age, based on qualifying criteria, valid toward any licensed caregiver.

sustained and accountable commitment by leadership A practice of consistent communications, actions and accountability to employees on workforce equity and inclusive workplace standards.

targeted recruitment A revised employee recruitment and job posting protocol that decreases barriers to applying to City jobs, and increases representation of underrepresented and marginalized groups in applicant pools.

training to minimize bias in employment decisions A training requirement for all supervisors and employees involved in hiring and promotion decisions to increase awareness of the potential for unintentional bias in employment decisions, including, but not limited to, hiring, promotions and coaching, and to provide tools to overcome these dynamics in decision-making.

under-leveraged talent An employee or potential job applicant who faces barriers to their full participation in the workplace or job application process such that their skills are not put to their best, most productive use.

workforce equity A workforce that is inclusive of people of color and other marginalized or underrepresented groups at a rate representative of the greater Seattle area at all levels of City employment; where institutional and structural barriers impacting employee attraction, selection, participation and retention have been eliminated, enabling opportunity for employment success and career growth.

workforce investment strategy

An inclusive strategy that supports the career development for all employees while dismantling barriers to full engagement (including access to training, benefits and career development) for targeted employees, creating a workplace where all employees feel valued and labor talent is utilized at its fullest potential.

workplace equity An inclusive workplace that enables workforce equity.

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS OF STRATEGIES PROPOSED IN THE 2016 WORKFORCE EQUITY STRATEGIC PLAN

Consolidated Human Resources

Consolidation will facilitate centrally aligned and accountable employment programs, policies and practiceswhether the services are delivered centrally or locallyso that each employee receives equitable treatment (Aguinis, Culpepper & Pierce, 2010). Without centrally aligned and consistently delivered employment and human resource services, there would not be an authority accountable so that all employees have equal access to workforce equity strategies; unequal access to these strategies may result in increasing barriers to workforce equity rather than increased support for equity (Aguinis et al., 2010).

Training to Minimize Bias in Employment Decisions

If the 3,200 managers and supervisors at the City have awareness and tools to address their unintended biases, the barriers to inclusive hiring, promotion and coaching practices, among others, will be reduced. This strategy will help eliminate barriers to employment within the City's hiring process that stem from hiring panel bias, enabling a more inclusive hiring process that results in a diversity of successful candidates (Lindsey et al., 2013; Kravitz, 2008; Pendry, Driscoll & Field, 2007; Hebl & Kleck, 2002).

Sustained and Accountable Commitment by Leadership

Consistent messaging on workforce equity, with an accountability process set up for tracking progress among City leaders and departments, will result in sustainable inclusion in the workplace, attracting and supporting a diversity of employees (Czopp, Monteith & Mark, 2006). For example, accountability could include race and social justice criteria in the awarding of discretionary merit leave, such that employees who remove barriers to workforce equity are rewarded for that behavior. This accountability will also be captured in an annual workforce equity accountability report, which could include the following metrics: a net turnover report by demographics, an accounting of department best practices, department employees acknowledged for their leadership on workforce equity, and a count of leadership communications on workforce equity by department each year.

Adopted Citywide Performance Management

Consistently administered performance management enables all employees to support and coach their team members in career growth and development, allows employee reviews to include feedback on explicit bias in the workplace and reduces barriers to equitable access to promotion and career growth opportunities for all employees. This strategy aligns with the three to five-year ongoing implementation for the City's performance management system, E3 citywide Performance Management, and the core competency of "Equity & Inclusion" that will be expected from all employees. In addition to increasing access to feedback that enables career growth for employees through performance management, City leaders could leverage performance management to celebrate employees and managers leading on workforce equity and could track the effect of workforce equity efforts.

Improved Tracking of Workforce Demographics

More detailed data gathering will facilitate identification of, as well as dismantling of, barriers to workforce equity and adequate storytelling about the City of Seattle employee life cycle from recruitment to separation. Greater demographic storytelling to employees aids in a culture shift where employees can track and engage with the progress on workforce equity, increasing their participation and inclusion in the workplace (Lindsay et al., 2013; Kalev et al., 2006).

Web Portal

Standardized information regarding career and work-life balance opportunities helps to dismantle barriers to workplace inclusion (Goldstein & Lundquist, 2010). When employees have tools that enable equitable access to leave and career development opportunities, some of the barriers to workforce equity that stem from discretionary decision-making are removed, boosting employee morale, participation, and promotion opportunities.

Workforce Investment Strategies

Paid Family Leave

Extending paid family leave beyond just parental leave would create a more inclusive policy and acknowledge that employees have many family-care obligations that often fall to women and particularly women of color. Similar to paid parental leave, paid family leave is known to increase employee engagement and morale as well as reduce employee anxiety and stress, increasing workforce productivity as well as workplace inclusion for all employees.

Targeted Recruitment

Recruiting and hiring practices that are targeted towards removing barriers to the recruitment of more diverse applicant pools will increase the attraction of people of color and other marginalized groups to the City of Seattle workforce. Creating community pipelines for talent and ensuring job postings are shared in venues where a diversity of talent will access them is critical to increasing the diversity of applicant pools (Kravitz, 2008).

Leadership Development Programs

Leadership Development training should be available to all employees to increase uptake and lead to a greater number of City employees eligible for and successful in movement into higher paying roles. It is thought that increasing the availability of trainings for employees to become supervisors and trainings for supervisors to become managers, the City will see a greater number of its employees eligible for and successful at moving into higher paying roles at the City. Improved employment growth and promotion opportunities increase the participation and retention of employees, resulting in a more inclusive workplace.

The City has implemented the City Leadership Academy, with race and social justice and workforce equity principles fully integrated into the program, and intends to develop a mid-manager leadership program through a similar lens in 2016. The City Leadership Academy could be leveraged as a part of this program but there is still a need for funding to implement the programs.

Increased Access to Training

The City of Seattle currently offers extensive training opportunities with an e-Learning training option under development. This strategy would shape and reinforce a culture that encourages and expects employees to pursue training to develop the skills to take on roles with greater responsibility. This strategy will result in more employees with skills necessary for promotional opportunity, increasing retention and participation of all employees as well as enhancing employee access to higher paying roles.

Improved Access to Flexible Scheduling

Increased equity in decision-making around flexible scheduling requests will provide lower-paid employees access to flexible scheduling arrangements. Lower-paid positions are typically populated with the same employees who may be more likely to live outside of the City due to the increased costs of living in Seattle, and are most likely to benefit from equitable access to flexible scheduling arrangements allowing for a better work-life balance. Work-life balance strategies are a known mechanism for increasing the participation and retention rates of employees (Smeaton et al., 2014).

Employment Pathways

The City of Seattle experiences greater diversity in its Employment Pathways programs than in the regular employment applicant pools because of fewer structural barriers to the application process, such as minimum education and experience criteria (Schmitt & Quinn, 2009). A consistent citywide approach to City internships, apprenticeships, youth employment and job training, that connects these entry-level roles to regular employment roles will reduce barriers to employment at the City of Seattle and increase the diversity of the workforce.

Additionally, Employment Pathways programs are a best practice of employers found in the benchmarking review. These pathways allow an employer to capitalize on the job training they have already invested. This strategy aligns with the additional benchmarking trend in hiring for aptitude in the STEM fields, training employees and retaining top performers. (Hough, Oswald & Ployhart, 2001). Mapping the City's current practices, identifying best practices and implementing a citywide approach could help the City to better leverage their Employment Pathways programs to reduce selection costs and barriers to regular employment at the City.

Seniority Restarts

The current seniority restart process creates a barrier to workforce equity as employees who accept a promotion are more exposed to layoff during economic downturns. The DCI report links this to women and people of color's representation in higher-level roles at the City (DCI, 2015). If an employee's seniority is not "restarted" upon promotion, one barrier to upper-level positions at the City of Seattle would be dismantled, better supporting a diversity of employees in accepting promotion opportunities.

Step Wage Increases for Part-Time Employees

As women are more likely to hold part-time positions at the City of Seattle, they are disproportionately impacted by the current step wage strategy for employee wage raises, which, at this time, measures eligibility for raises by hours of service (DCI, 2015). Best practices in the workforce equity report recommend tracking eligibility by years of service as it will increase the participation and retention of part-time employees (DCI, 2015).

APPENDIX C: WFE STRATEGIES: RACIAL EQUITY LENS AND LEARNING & SUCCESSES

Training to minimize bias in employment decisions

Racial Equity Lens

A Racial Equity Toolkit has begun on the program. A racial equity outcome identified for this program is to eliminate barriers for people of color to attraction, selection, participation, and retention that stem from biased decision-making throughout the employee lifecycle. At this juncture Steps 1 and 2 of the toolkit have been addressed, and as the program continues to be developed, the Racial Equity Toolkit will be completed to meet the defined outcome.

Successes & Learning

Implementation of the pilot program led to important instructional design feedback. After initial review by pilot participants, the first two parts of the program were found to be too elementary to meet the more advanced equity needs of City employees.

The Workforce Equity Learning Partner accepted a full-time permanent position with another organization and resigned in December which impacted the ability to deliver the full scope of the work by December 31, 2018. However, a recently hired Workforce Equity Learning Partner is finalizing Part 1 of the program and developing Part 2, as well as a "train-the-trainer" program.

Employee performance management system

Racial Equity Lens

As an E3 pilot department, the Parks Department RSJI Change Team Lead was instrumental in designing and applying an equity lens in all design discussions and decision-making. Two racial equity toolkit sessions were conducted with employees across the City as part of the core competency selection process.

The first toolkit was delivered in two parts to review the citywide core competencies universal to all employees and the citywide people manager competencies. The racial outcome for the toolkits was to eliminate racial disparity in how goals are set, monitored, and evaluated regarding the Core and People Manager competencies. Feedback from the RET sessions was used to update the language of the competencies for the 2016 pilot. After the first E3 Performance Management cycle, the pilot departments provided additional feedback that was incorporated into the competencies to create inclusive language and clarity on the observable behaviors for the three-point rating scale: Needs Improvement, Fully Performing, and Exceeds Expectations.

Learning and Successes:

The primary challenge for the E3 Performance Management is adequate resources to fully build and support the implementation of E3. Currently, there is one dedicated resource, the E3 Performance Management Advisor, to support departments and their employees as they launch E3. Approximately 24 departments and 8,850 employees have yet to launch E3. This is a sunset position that is set to expire on December 31, 2018.

Consolidated human resources

Racial Equity Lens

As a platform strategy of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan, One HR has been built with an equity lens throughout its entire development and has embedded racial equity subject matter experts for consultation and leadership in all aspects of its rollout. The entire premise of One HR is to establish and uphold a human resources service delivery model, with central alignment and accountability to enhance consistency and equity in recruiting, benefits, training, promotion, and other employment opportunities. Applying a racial equity lens to all HR work is the nucleus of One HR.

Successes and Learning

To transform a city of "many HRs" into a citywide "One HR" model, important baseline data and information was needed to inform future decisions about HR consolidation. With the development of the WFE Strategic Plan, SDHR focused its initial One HR work on understanding and assessing the HR services individual departments provide, creating communication channels through surveys and with stakeholder groups, developing an HR service model option for citywide implementation, and regularly engaging with HR Leaders and Departments through the JAAM. An overview of these key developmental actions that facilitate HR alignment across the city are described in more detail below:

Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan

Racial Equity Lens

The LEAP will undergo a Racial Equity toolkit in by end of 2018

Learning and Successes

The LEAP draft was completed and is attached to this report as Appendix E. In acknowledging that leadership represents a spectrum of experience in understanding, implementing, and operationalizing equity and inclusion, the LEAP will be accompanied by a resource document to support Director's in their own personal and professional journeys. The resource document will be finalized in Q2.

Paid Parental Leave and Paid Family Care Leave

Racial Equity Lens

An official Racial Equity Toolkit has not yet been applied to this strategy; however, an equity lens was applied to all of the strategies originally proposed in the WFE Strategic Plan. Application of this lens included stakeholder engagement through an employee survey and listening sessions in 2016. Because of these engagement efforts we learned that Paid Family Leave was most important to our employees and an equity enhancing strategy, and thus Paid Family Care was added as a sister strategy to Paid Parental Leave.

Learning and Successes

After the initial implementation phase, project stakeholders gathered together to recognize successes and learning. The implementation of new Paid Parental Leave and Paid Family Medical Leave benefits for employees was a great accomplishment. Project management for the project allowed for visible time lines, contingency planning, and supported inter-departmental communication.

Successes Learning

Timely application of the benefit when the legislation became effective Understanding vendor and technology constraints

Training for HR, payroll, and leave coordinators Ensuring concepts and requirements were understood

Updated InWeb information, including forms, frequently asked questions, and calculation tools Short timelines for engagement with stakeholders, including employees

Employment pathways

Racial Equity Lens

The Employment Pathways IDT is grounded in racial equity. The EP IDT intentionally integrated RET questions into the work process to ensure that equity is being considered throughout each process and decision point. The purpose of the initial meeting in July 2017 was to create racial equity outcomes for each deliverable. The secondary purpose was to establish a safe and equitable space for the EP IDT members to articulate concerns and create constructive solutions. The group has created racial equity outcomes that will be revised as needed; reference Appendix G for further details.

Figure 9: Employment Pathways IDT Racial Equity Outcomes

Long-term Racial Equity Outcomes

People of color are equitably represented in City-resourced workforce development programs and at all levels of City employment, including green pathways.

City pathways will eliminate inequitable outcomes for people of color and promote their career advancement.

All City outreach and engagement practices promote equity so that people of color are competitive applicants for City and regional jobs.

Build strong relationships with workforce partners that serve racially diverse populations that result in promoting a racially diverse talent pipeline for City and regional jobs.

All private and public sector employers hire and advance people of color and other underrepresented groups equitably.

Learning and Successes

1. The identification of the long-term racial equity outcomes has been a significant success in that it has provided a concrete way to ensure that racial equity is central to both the process and outcomes of Employment Pathways IDT.

2. The Employment Pathways IDT has preliminarily identified pilot projects to advance equitable employment pipelines in the following areas: temporary workers, youth navigational support, and capital improvement projects.

3. The EP IDT Outreach Subcommittee is documenting existing community involvement efforts to create a consistent approach to conducting outreach.

4. The EP IDT Training/Backfill Subcommittee identified where training resources are being spent related to employment pathways and where programs may not align with regular employment and advancement opportunities; preliminary mapping that shows training resources appear concentrated at developing skills to access entry-level (in the City or with other employers), or for upper-level occupational mobility; very few resources are available for entry level (temps and fulltime) to move up in their career trajectory. The EP IDT Training/Backfill Subcommittee has also been exploring opportunities to diversify City apprenticeship programs.

5. The EP IDT Upskill Subcommittee has identified structural barriers to upward mobility at the City, like an outdated classification system that uses outdated minimum qualifications that do not match the job tasks, and a pocket system that cannot be flexible to business needs, as well as cultural barriers to employment pathways such as lack of consistent mentorship and development opportunities. (For a full list of the EP IDT's Subcommittees' Learning and Successes see Appendix H). A table listing the challenges identified by the EP IDT can be found in Appendix H.

Targeted recruitment

Racial Equity Lens

To keep those most impacted at the center of targeted recruitment strategies, the Targeted Recruitment Team strives to maintain continuous authentic engagement with culturally specific community-based organizations and those liaisons within the City that have existing fruitful engagement and/or partnerships with historically marginalized communities. These include the Department of Neighborhoods, Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, Parks and Recreation, and the Office for Civil Rights; and the following community-based organizations: Urban League of Seattle, El Centro de la Raza, and the Asian Resource Center.

Learning and Successes

SDHR has been able to make inroads in successfully collaborating with other departments to match department recruitment partners to specific events. For example, connecting information technology HR representatives to IT job fairs in the region. Despite these partnerships, there is still much opportunity to coordinate and collaborate across all departments.

SDHR is gaining a better picture of which communities the City may need to proactively reach out to, ensuring our outreach is not dedicated solely to those communities or groups who have the existing resources, relationships, or networks to request assistance from SDHR. There is a need to create additional partnerships with smaller community-based organizations who are not as well funded as the larger community-based organizations. Often these smaller community-based organizations yield higher engagement from communities of color and other marginalized populations which assists in our targeted recruitment efforts.

Increased access to training

Racial Equity Lens

A Racial Equity Toolkit has yet to be applied to this strategy.

Learning and Successes

The number of users increased from 739 to 1,814 between 2016 and 2017 across 34 departments.

Leadership development

Racial Equity Lens

A Racial Equity Toolkit was conducted on the overall program and the racial equity outcome was to increase access for people of color in the City workforce to leadership skills training that support career mobility. Based on program participant demographic data, the program has initially met its goal to have a balance between both field and office staff as well as racial and gender demographics.

Learning and Successes:

a. The Racial Equity Outcomes have been realized with the higher participation of traditionally marginalized and underrepresented staff.

b. Each class has either been at capacity or had a waitlist of participants.

c. To increase accessibility, courses are being held at locations beyond SMT, including Camp Long and Seattle Center.

d. Career mobility success has been reported anecdotally with an increase of out-of-class, promotional, and lateral movement. The anecdotal information will be verified through a variety of tools including a survey of past participants.

Anti-Harassment IDT

Racial Equity Lens

While the tight timeline of the IDT does not allow for application of a full Racial Equity Toolkit process, the three-day orientation grounded participants in racial equity and provided guidance and tools to allow the group to keep those most impacted at the center of their work. Each subcommittee is developing a racial equity outcome to center the importance of applying a racial equity lens to the processes and in the development of recommendations.

Learning and Successes

The Inter-Departmental Team brought together employee representation across racial/ethnic groups, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, supervisory authority, tenure at the City, departments, and job categories. And yet, the group is acutely aware and mindful of who is not represented in the group and has committed to transparency in the process and decision making. At the writing of this report, the IDT is still determining how they will enact this

Fire and Police Entry Level Assessment Changes

Racial Equity Lens

At the end of 2018 the entry-level firefighter testing process will convene stakeholders to undergo an equity and continuous improvement review to examine data, assess intention versus outcomes, and make recommendations to improve processes for the next application cycle.

Learning and Successes

Entry-Fire Recruitment: While the changes to the testing process are intended to ensure an equitable and valid testing process, we are concerned that a lack of recruiting resources at SFD may result in a small number of diverse candidates applying to be a firefighter.

Resourcing: Staffing transitions, the number (and scope) of changes to the testing process, and the abbreviated timeline have added to the challenges of implementing this work in 2018.

Employee exit survey

Racial Equity Lens

SDHR will use the City's Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) to assess any potential impacts of the survey on people of color and other marginalized communities. The SDHR RSJI Change Team and the WFE Program Manager will collaboratively implement the RET process in Q3 of 2018 and the results of the RET analysis will inform edits to the survey content and process.

Learning and Successes

Shortly after launching the Pilot, SDHR identified the need to refine how SDHR would respond to departing employees requesting a Human Resources (HR) response via the survey. Originally, the survey included the option of requesting an HR response. A follow up question was added to the survey so that now respondents are asked if they wish to speak to a HR representative responsible for their department or to an HR representative not associated with their department.

Employee engagement survey

Racial Equity Lens

The engagement survey design team collaborated with the Equity Training and Leadership Development Advisor to apply a racial equity lens to the initial development of the engagement survey questions. SDHR will use the City's Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) to assess any potential impacts of the survey on people of color and other marginalized communities. The SDHR RSJI Change Team and the WFE Program Manager will collaboratively implement the RET process and the results of the RET analysis will inform edits to the survey content and process.

Learning and Successes

As the WFE team began to research various employee engagement strategies, it became apparent that developing an engagement survey that can be used as a management tool may yield more favorable workforce equity results by providing managers and leadership with actionable data down to the workgroup level.

Gender Justice Project

Learning & Successes

Ban on the Use of Conversion Therapy on Minors is a law that was passed and made effective in 2016. Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) are practices or treatments that attempt to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, based on the discredited theory that being LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) is a defect or disorder. GJP staff supported Councilmember Gonzalez's efforts to develop a ban on the use of conversion therapy on minors within Seattle city limits. This law was passed and made effective in 2016. GJP staff also led the administrative rule-making process with relevant stakeholders and have worked with the community to carry out an outreach campaign that focuses on schools and community centers.

After extensive input from community, including the Seattle LGBTQ Commission, Gender Justice League, Ingersoll Gender Center, LGBTQ Allyship, and Pride Foundation, SOCR worked with the Mayor's Office to pass the All-Gender Restroom Ordinance, which helps achieve greater restroom access for transgender and gender diverse individuals.

GJP developed and launched training in 2016 on gender identity for frontline City staff, titled Understanding Gender Diversity in our Communities: All Gender Restrooms. This training launched in 2016 and has been delivered to Seattle Parks recreation and community staff throughout the department. Our intention is to deliver this training to frontline staff across the City. However, lack of staff has made it challenging to expand the training beyond the Parks department. In the past we have contracted with a community member who helped develop and deliver the training. We have also benefited from some assistance from RSJI staff, though it has been limited due to capacity. We foresee a similar issue with the training on gender identity in the workplace, as our capacity may not be able to meet demand.

In October 2016, SOCR and the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) formed an inter-departmental group to develop the Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace a rubric for departments to create a more welcoming environment for transgender and gender diverse employees, and a protocol for accommodating gender transitions in the workplace. The main racial equity outcome envisioned is that all transgender employees of color at the City of Seattle can transition with ease, respect, and dignity, and on the employee's terms. This guidance was released in 2017 to all departments and will soon be accompanied by a supplementary training.

Executive Order 2015-02 called on SOCR to develop and manage a web portal that would serve as a place for employees and community members to find resources and information regarding Citywide programs in support of women and working families. While the idea to create a portal was formed with good intentions, we believe employees would be better served by accessing this information through SDHR's InWeb site, since expertise regarding leave benefits and policies is held by SDHR. Since the development of new leave programs, SDHR's InWeb site has been updated to include extensive information on the City's parental and family leave benefits.

SOCR developed a webpage for the GJP, which includes information on the project's history, work, and accomplishments.

Wage Transparency

Racial Equity Lens

In general, women and people of color are less likely to ask for more salary and having this information encourages them to have conversations and use this data as a basis to better advocate for themselves. This wage transparency supports an equitable workforce by providing information on the wages of immediate colleagues.

Successes & Learning

Posting wages has implications for some employees who are in the City's Supported Employment Program and those who are under protective court orders. Not posting the wages for these employees required additional support from SDHR and should continue to be offered each year to employees.

Supported Employment Program

Racial Equity Lens

City supported employees are represented at a level that exceeds the racial demographics for American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians and African Americans with developmental disabilities living in Seattle and King County, with a slight underrepresentation of Latinos and whites with developmental disabilities. This is based on statistics provided by King County Department of Health and Human Services.

The City of Seattle is the only employer in the region to work with and/or be accessible to all community-based organizations serving the employment-support needs of people with developmental disabilities. We have placed a high value on working with as many community-based organizations as possible, this has allowed for increased access to a racially diverse group of job candidates with developmental disabilities.

Learning and Successes

Our Supported Employment program is recognized as the "best practice" model in the nation as well as internationally. We have received numerous awards over the years and in 2017 received the Washington Governor's "Employer of the Year" award from the Governor's Committee on Disability Issues and Employment, for the fourth time, as well as the "Outstanding Supported Employment Champion" award from Puget Sound Personnel.

APPENDIX D: MEASURING WORKFORCE EQUITY: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, BASELINE RESULTS AND TECHNICAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION

SDHR, in collaboration with the Economics & Revenue team in the City Budget Office (CBO), has developed a framework for how the City of Seattle will measure progress towards its definition of workforce equity using employee demographics and survey responses. This report describes in detail the methodology used and initial results that will serve as a baseline for tracking change on an annual basis (though change to these metrics is expected to be gradual as they represent broad trends with many societal causes).

Results shown herein are only half of those that will be produced in future years, as explained below. Specifically, these pertain to the first half of the definition: the representation of people of color (POC) and other marginalized or underrepresented groups at all levels of City employment. While the Strategic Plan did not specifically define "all levels" of City employment, SDHR herein presents two sets of levels through which the City's hierarchy can be viewed: supervisory authority and hourly wages. In both cases, the City's workforce is divided into four levels (quartiles), as described in detail herein, and representation by race and gender is assessed within each level, as well as in the workforce overall, to determine where imbalances exist. With the results, the first section examines representation by race, the second examines representation by gender, and the third examines representation by race/gender groups. In assessments of race, people of color are presented both collectively and by seven-category race breakdown.

It is important to note that the City's definition of Workforce Equity and the metrics created to support it are intentionally aspirational. A previous report commissioned by the City has examined workforce representativeness for particular occupations as compared to estimates of locally available labor pools (see DCI Consulting Group, Inc. (2015), City of Seattle Workforce Pay Equity and Utilization Report). This report found that the City generally met this legal standard of non-discrimination. By contrast, the analysis herein reflects the City's ambition to go beyond this threshold and commit itself to a diverse and highly inclusive workforce where, as described in the Strategic Plan, "underrepresented groups would be equally included at each level of employment from the lowest to the highest paid and least to most tenured employees." In doing so, the City aspires to have "a workforce that better reflects and serves residents while contributing to the deconstruction of societal barriers to opportunity."

The figures below show the demographics of the City of Seattle workforce compared to those of both Seattle and King County. However, the analysis herein focuses on the county as the population of comparison. The WFE team, in preparing the analysis of this report, chose the King County population as the basis for "general population" comparisons because it encircles Seattle and thus allows for the inclusion of workers who commute into the city daily. These and many others do not live within Seattle city limits but are served by city services and are thus part of the population we wish to reflect. Further, King County represents a more stable population base for future comparison than Seattle, where affordability is driving rapid change and displacement.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In July 2016, the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR), in collaboration with the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR), released its Workforce Equity Strategic Plan. In the Plan, Workforce Equity was defined as follows:

Workforce equity is when the workforce is inclusive of people of color and other marginalized or underrepresented groups at a rate representative of the greater Seattle area at all levels of City employment; where institutional and structural barriers impacting employee attraction, selection, participation and retention have been eliminated, enabling opportunity for employment success and career growth.

For purposes of measurement, the definition of workforce equity can be viewed as two parts. The first part of the definition (before the semi-colon) envisions representation of people of color and other marginalized or underrepresented groups that is at least equal to representation in the general population at all levels of City employment. This is a primary goal.

The second part of the definition (after the semi-colon) describes specific areas of the employee experience where inequities may be found and where barriers should be eliminated: attraction, selection, participation, and retention. We have referred to these below as the four "pillars" of the employment cycle because they represent the fundamental components of an employee's experience with an employer. In general, these are secondary goals in that achieving equity in these areas is a means of realizing representation at all levels of City employment. The exception to this is participation, which will go beyond headcounts by qualitatively measuring the workplace's culture of inclusion. This, too, is a primary goal.

Figure 10. Conceptual Diagram of Workforce Equity Metrics

Below is further explanation of the Levels and Pillars analyses. Each metric is introduced separately and concludes with a note regarding its status, which addresses any current technical limitations to producing results for the metric.

Level Analysis: Representation at All Levels of the City of Seattle Workforce (Primary Goal)

While the WFE Strategic Plan did not specifically define "all levels" of City employment, this report presents two levels through which the City's hierarchy can be viewed: supervisory authority and hourly wages. In both cases, the City's workforce is divided into four sections (quartiles), and representation relative to the general population is assessed within each level by race and gender, as well as in the workforce overall, to determine where imbalances exist. This is referred to herein as the "Level Analysis."

The following tables illustrate how data is analyzed and presented using the Level Analysis.

Status of Metric: These metrics have been produced for the most recent year. Summary results are presented below and detailed results are available in Appendix D of this report. Note that data for the general population will lag employee data by one year due to the delayed release of American Community Survey (ACS) population estimates by the Census Bureau. This should not be viewed as a significant weakness of this analysis, as population shares by race and gender will likely change only marginally, if at all, from year to year.

Figure 11: Workforce Groups and Levels of City Employment

City workforce groupings to analyze:

Race

o POC/White

o Seven-category race breakdown

Gender

o Male/Female

Race/Gender

o POC Female/POC Male/White Female/White Male Scales used to create levels of City employment:

Supervisory authority

Hourly wage

Figure 12: Example Results Table: Levels of Hourly Wages by Race

Race Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC*

Fourth quartile of wages (76-100%)

POC % % %

White % % %

Third quartile of wages (51-75%)

POC % % %

White % % %

Second quartile of wages (26-50%)

POC % % %

White % % %

First quartile of wages (0-25%)

POC % % %

White % % %

*Percent difference between the % City of Seattle workforce and the % county population. Differences that are within the margin of error (not statistically significant) will be shown as "--".

Pillars Analysis: Assessing Outcomes by Race and Gender Across the Four Pillars of the Employment Cycle (Attraction, Selection, Participation, and Retention)

The four pillars of the employment cycle outlined in the workforce equity definition are attraction, selection, participation, and retention. In combination, these are the broad factors that contribute to representation in the workforce. Thus, by assessing the equity of outcomes in these four areas, attention may be drawn to where improvement is most needed and will most contribute to improvement of representation at all levels of City employment. This is referred to as the "Pillars" analysis.

Further, each of the pillars described in the subsequent pages can be assessed for the City as a whole, as well as at a given level of the workforce, using the definition of "levels" given in the metrics section of the main report (with a few exceptions, as noted in forthcoming paragraphs). For example, results could find a high turnover rate (retention) or a low application rate (attraction) for women of color at the highest level of supervisory authority. Such findings would allow for specific, tailored action.

Participation is considered exceptional among the four pillars since it is not only a means to achieving equitable representation but is also a necessary end itself. As explained below, participation involves the inclusion of every employee in the workplace in a state where they experience belonging and are valued for the uniqueness they bring. This is critical for the employee's enjoyment of their work, as well as for their productivity and the overall effectiveness of the organization.

Pillar 1: Attraction

Attraction refers to job applications submitted to the City. To assess equity within application rates, the representation of people of color and women within applicant pools will be compared to representation in the general population to answer the question, "Do applicant pools reflect the general population?"

Status of Metric: Full production of these metrics has not yet been completed. However, several data deficiencies are already evident:

1. This analysis should include only applicants who meet minimum qualifications for a position. However, the flagging of candidates within NEOGOV (the City's job applications system) as meeting minimum qualifications (or not) is not uniformly performed across departments and hiring teams.

2. Fitting job openings to the "level" of the City workforce where they belong requires being able to identify hired applicants within HRIS (to match individuals to their hiring pool). Currently, there is no easy way to do this. An ideal solution would be to have a field in HRIS for an individual's NEOGOV Applicant ID.

Pillar 2: Selection

Selection refers to job applicants selected (hired) for City jobs. To assess equity within selection rates, the representation of people of color and women within selected applicants will be compared to representation in the respective hiring pools to answer the question, "Do new hires reflect applicant pools?" (However, this analysis must use groupings of many job openings to compare representation within hires to representation within applicants. Thus, certain demographic groupings, such as individual race categories, may not have enough sample size at a given level of the workforce to support this analysis.)

Status of Metric: Full production of these metrics has not yet been completed. However, several data deficiencies are already evident:

1. See #1 under Pillar 1: Attraction above.

2. See #2 under Pillar 1: Attraction above.

Pillar 3: Retention

Retention refers to turnover (or its opposite) from employees leaving the City or their department. To assess equity within turnover, the representation of people of color and women within departing employees will be compared to representation in the workforce to answer the question, "Do women and people of color leave City departments at higher rates?"

Status of Metric: Full production of this metric has not yet been completed. As yet, no data deficiencies have been identified that would prevent the first round of production.

Pillar 4: Participation

Participation is a topic with several components. It includes the opportunities available to an employee during their tenure, such as promotions and skills training. And it also involves the more qualitative component of "inclusion," which refers to the treatment of an employee by coworkers and the institution in a way that is collaborative and fosters a sense of belonging while not requiring the employee to alter their personality to be accepted. Assessment of these concepts is challenging, but will be done as follows:

Mobility/Promotions

To assess equity within promotions, the representation of people of color and women within employees receiving promotion will be compared to representation in the workforce to answer the question, "Is the rate of advancement among employees equal across race and gender groupings?"

Status of Metric: Full production of these metrics has not yet been completed. A major challenge is how to define "promotion" in a way that is visible using existing HRIS data. Further investigation of the data is needed to determine if the current criteria will yield viable results. Those criteria would define a promotion as any employee receiving either: 1) a title change (employees who change to a job title with a higher median pay based on current employees in the two positions) or 2) a raise (employees who have a wage increase above AWI or a union-wide increase).

Inclusion

To assess inclusion, a battery of 15 questions will be integrated into the forthcoming engagement survey. Responses will be analyzed by race and gender to answer the question "Are certain groups more likely to experience inclusion in the workplace?" The questions will cover three dimensions of work (decision-making process, information networks and level of participation/involvement) and five organizational levels (work group, organization, supervisor, upper management, and social/informal). The questions were developed specifically to assess workplace inclusion by Professor Michlle Mor Barak of the University of Southern California, an expert on diversity and inclusion in the workplace and author of the book Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. Dr. Mor Barak has spoken with the team designing the engagement survey and offered her initial encouragement for the use of these questions.

Status of Metric: Full production of these metrics cannot be completed until the citywide engagement survey has been conducted. See the section of this report on the engagement survey for details on this project.

2017 WORKFORCE EQUITY METRICS BASELINE DATA: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Below are key findings from results of the Levels Analysis described above.

Overall, the City of Seattle workforce is representative of people of color collectively (39.4 percent of the City's workforce vs 37.8 percent of the county population). However, people of color are underrepresented at the top levels of City employment compared to the county population. Among the top level (fourth quartile) of supervisors, they compose 33.4 percent of employees. By pay, people of color make up 31.0 percent of the top level (fourth quartile) of wage earners and 32.1 percent of the third level (quartile).

Figure 13: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by People of color (POC) / White, December 2017

By race categories, Hispanics are the most underrepresented group across the entire City workforce (5.3 percent of the City's workforce vs 9.3 percent of the county population). In fact, this under-representation of Hispanics appears widespread as it is found at all four levels of supervisors and wage earners. Asians and those reporting multiple races are also underrepresented at the top level of supervisors compared to the county population.

Figure 14: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of color by Race Groups, December 2017

By gender, the City of Seattle workforce is very imbalanced: overall, just 38.6 percent of City employees are female as compared to 50.1 percent in the county population. This imbalance is driven by the five largest departments (in order: Police, City Light, Parks, Seattle Public Utilities, and Fire) whose collective workforce is just 30.7 percent female. Given this overall imbalance, it is not surprising that women are underrepresented at many levels of the workforce relative to the general population. Among supervisors, women are underrepresented in all but the bottom level (first quartile). In the top level, they make up 35.4 percent of supervisors. Across the pay scale, women are again underrepresented in all but the bottom level. In the top level of wage earners, they make up 33.8 percent of employees.

Figure 15: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Gender, December 2017

When examining representation at a more granular level, by race/gender cross-sections, both women of color and White women are underrepresented in the overall City workforce, as the overall gender imbalance would suggest. Women of color are most underrepresented at the top levels of City employment. This group makes up 19.0 percent of the county population but just 11.3 percent of the top level of supervisors and just 10.0 percent of the top level of wage earners.

Figure 16: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2017

2017 WORKFORCE EQUITY METRICS BASELINE DATA: TECHNICAL REPORT

Below are detailed findings from results of the Levels Analysis described above.

Key Assumptions

A. City of Seattle workforce data is a snapshot of employees at December 28, 2017.

B. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five year sample. However, the gender percentage splits (% male vs % female) of each race group are based on the 2010 ACS 5-year sample (the decennial census) as more recent data is unavailable on these splits.

C. City workforce numbers include temporaries (14.8% of 13,512 total employees).

D. City employees not reporting race (5.1% of total) have been removed from analyses involving race.

E. City employee records not containing supervisor data (3.7% of total) have been removed in the creation of supervisor levels.

F. The U.S. Census Bureau considers "Hispanic or Latino" as an ethnicity, not a race. Thus, to match City data (which contain "Hispanic or Latino" as a race), Hispanic or Latino has been re-coded as a race in Census data using all respondents who selected Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, regardless of race selection.

G. Figures for 'Percent difference between the % City Workforce and the % General Population' use a two-proportions z-test of statistical significance. All figures are statistically significant at the 90% confidence level unless otherwise noted.

Results by Race

Race: Overall Representation

In total, the City of Seattle's workforce shows only slight differences in representation for people of color (POC) collectively and white employees compared to King County's population. People of color make up 37.8% of the county population and 39.4% of City employees (4.3% greater representation), while Whites are 62.2% of the county population and 60.6% of City employees (2.6% lower representation).

a) Results for overall representation using more specific race categories show that Hispanic and those reporting multiple races are underrepresented in the City's workforce. For example, Hispanics make up 9.3% of the county population but just 5.3% of the City workforce (42.8% lower representation).

b) The table below shows the basic race composition of the largest City departments. The five largest departments, which collectively account for almost 60% of the City's workforce, are collectively representative of people of color (37.5% of total). However, individually, these departments range from 24.0% people of color in the Fire Department to 49.8% people of color in the Parks Department.

Figure 17: Overall Representation by Race (POC/White)

Overall Representation by Race (POC/White)

Race Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

POC 34.3% 37.8% 39.4% +4.3%

White 65.7% 62.2% 60.6% -2.6%

Total employees = 12,825

#Percent difference between the % City of Seattle workforce and the % county population. For example, "The share of POC in the City workforce is 4.3% greater than the share of POC in the county population."

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Figure 18: Overall Representation by Race (Seven Race Categories)

Overall Representation by Race (Seven Race Categories)

Race Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% +165.6%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 15.1% -5.1%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.4% +108.1%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 5.3% -42.8%

Nat Hawaiian/Other Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.7% +126.8%

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 3.3% -33.8%

White 65.7% 62.2% 60.6% -2.6%

Total employees = 12,825

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Figure 19: Large City Departments by Race (POC/White)

Large City Departments by Race (POC/White)

Departments (by size) % City workforce % POC % White

Police 15.1% 28.4% 71.6%

City Light 13.1% 39.0% 61.0%

Parks 11.8% 49.8% 50.2%

SPU 10.1% 45.7% 54.3%

Fire 8.0% 24.0% 76.0%

All Other 41.8% 42.0% 58.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 39.4% 60.6%

Total employees = 12,368

Race: Across Supervisor Levels

a) In the figure below, employees who are supervisors have been split evenly into four levels (quartiles) based on the number of employees they supervise, relative to the size of their department. For example, a small department that has only four employees who are supervisors would place one supervisor in each of the four levels; a department with eight supervisors would place two in each level, etc. Thus all department directors are found in the top level (fourth quartile) because, by nature, they supervise the most employees in their department. Results show that people of color, collectively, are somewhat underrepresented in the top and secondary levels of supervisors at the City relative to the county population. People of color, who make up 37.8% of the county population, represent 33.4% of the top level (11.5% lower representation). Meanwhile, this group makes up 31.3% of the secondary level of supervisors (17.1% lower representation).

Figure 20: Supervisor Levels by Race (POC/White)

Supervisor Levels by Race (POC/White)

Race Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of supervisors: 76-100% (obs. = 524 supervisors)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 33.4% -11.5%

White 65.7% 62.2% 66.6% +7.0%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 586 supervisors)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 34.6% --*

White 65.7% 62.2% 65.4% --*

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 511 supervisors)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 31.3% -17.1%

White 65.7% 62.2% 68.7% +10.4%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 343 supervisors)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 33.5% --*

White 65.7% 62.2% 66.5% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 10,861 employees)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 40.5% +7.3%

White 65.7% 62.2% 59.5% -4.4%

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

b) Using more specific race categories, results show that Hispanics are underrepresented at each supervisor level at the City relative to the county's population. In the top quartile, for example, Hispanics represent 4.0% of supervisors (compared to 9.3% of the county population). Asians and those reporting multiple races are also underrepresented in two of the four supervisor quartiles, including the top level where Asians represent 11.3% of supervisors (compared to 15.9% of the population) and multi-race people represent 2.9% of supervisors (5.1% of the population).

Figure 21: Supervisor Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories)

Supervisor Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories)

Race Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC #

Fourth quartile of supervisors: 76-100% (obs. = 524 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.7% +214.6%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 11.3% -29.2%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.6% +110.7%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 4.0% -57.1%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% --*

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 2.9% -43.3%

White 65.7% 62.2% 66.6% +7.0%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 586 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +150.0%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 14.2% --*

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 11.1% +85.6%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 4.9% -47.0%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% --*

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 1.9% -62.8%

White 65.7% 62.2% 65.4% --*

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 511 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% --*

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 11.4% -28.6%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 10.6% +76.8%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 4.9% -47.6%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% --*

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 2.3% -53.5%

White 65.7% 62.2% 68.7% +10.4%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 343 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% --*

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 13.4% --*

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 9.9% +65.8%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 4.1% -56.3%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% +52.8%

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 4.1% -19.2%

White 65.7% 62.2% 66.5% +6.8%

Non-supervisors (obs. = 10,861 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% +171.5%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 15.6% --*

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.7% +112.0%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 5.5% -41.2%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.8% +141.2%

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 3.5% -31.3%

White 65.7% 62.2% 59.5% -4.4%

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Race: Across the Pay Scale

a) In the table below, the entire City workforce has been divided into four approximately equal levels (quartiles) based on hourly wage. Employees who earn the most by hourly wage are in the top level (fourth quartile) and employees who earn the least are in the bottom level (first quartile). Results show that people of color, collectively, are underrepresented in the top two levels of hourly wages relative to the county population. In the top level, for example, people of color represent 31.0% of City employees (37.8% of the county population) and Whites represent 69.0% of employees (62.2% of the county population). By contrast, in the bottom level, people of color represent 54.6% of employees and Whites represent just 45.4% of employees.

Figure 22: Pay Scale Levels by Race (POC/White)

Pay Scale Levels by Race (POC/White)

Race Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of wages: 76-100% (obs. = 3,132 employees)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 31.0% -18.0%

White 65.7% 62.2% 69.0% +10.9%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,222 employees)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 32.1% -14.9%

White 65.7% 62.2% 67.9% +9.1%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,138 employees)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 39.1% +3.6%

White 65.7% 62.2% 60.9% -2.2%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,324 employees)

POC 34.3% 37.8% 54.6% +44.5%

White 65.7% 62.2% 45.4% -27.0%

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

b) Using more specific race categories results show, among other findings, that Hispanics and those reporting multiple race are underrepresented at all wage levels in the City relative to the county population, while Asians are underrepresented in the third and second quartiles.

Figure 23: Pay Scale Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories)

Pay Scale Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories)

Race Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of wages: 76-100% (obs. = 3,132 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% +110.5%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 14.9% --*

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 7.7% +29.3%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 4.2% -55.2%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 0.7% --*

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 2.2% -55.7%

White 65.7% 62.2% 69.0% +10.9%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,222 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +150.1%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 12.3% -22.7%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 9.0% +51.1%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 5.0% -46.5%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% --*

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 3.5% -31.2%

White 65.7% 62.2% 67.9% +9.1%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,138 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +151.0%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 13.4% -15.4%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.5% +108.5%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 6.1% -34.8%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 2.0% +163.0%

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 3.8% -25.5%

White 65.7% 62.2% 60.9% --*

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 2,967 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.9% +247.1%

Asian 14.1% 15.9% 19.5% +22.7%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 20.1% +235.7%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6% 9.3% 6.1% -34.9%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 3.2% +313.8%

Two or More Races 5.6% 5.1% 3.9% -23.2%

White 65.7% 62.2% 45.4% -27.0%

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Gender: Overall Representation

a) In total, the City of Seattle workforce is under-representative of women: just 38.6% of City employees are female (37.3% of regular employees), compared to 50.1% of the general (county) population.

Figure 24: Overall Representation by Gender

Overall Representation by Gender

Gender Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Female 49.9% 50.1% 38.6% -22.9%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 61.4% +23.0%

Total employees = 13,498

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

b) The gender imbalance is greatest among the Fire and Police Departments (12.3% and 28.1% female, respectively). However, it is prevalent among all the largest departments: among the other three departments that make up the largest five, the share female is just 36.0% (City Light: 30.3%; Parks: 41.7%; and SPU: 37.3%). Removing the top five departments, the remainder of the City reaches near gender parity (that is, while many of the smaller departments also have significant gender imbalances, these collectively offset each other).

Figure 25: Large City Departments by Gender

Large City Departments by Gender

Departments (by size) % City workforce % Female % Male

Police 14.6% 28.1% 71.9%

City Light 13.3% 30.3% 69.7%

Parks 11.4% 41.7% 58.3%

SPU 10.1% 37.3% 62.7%

Fire 7.9% 12.3% 87.7%

All Other 42.7% 49.2% 50.8%

TOTAL 100.0% 38.6% 61.4%

Total employees = 13,498

Gender: Across Supervisor Levels

a) Given the overall under-representation of women in the City's workforce, it is not surprising that women are underrepresented among supervisors when compared to the general population. The table below divides the City workforce into supervisor levels the same way shown previously for race. Results show that women are underrepresented relative to the general population in all but the lowest level of supervisors. From highest to lowest supervisory authority, the share women at each level is: 35.4% , 39.1%, 40.2% and 49.2%.

Figure 26: Supervisor Levels by Gender

Supervisor Levels by Gender

Gender % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of supervisors: 76-100% (obs. = 542 supervisors)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 35.4% -29.3%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 64.6% +29.4%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 596 supervisors)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 39.1% -22.0%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 60.9% +22.0%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 527 supervisors)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 40.2% -19.7%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 59.8% +19.8%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 360 supervisors)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 49.2% --*

Male 50.1% 49.9% 50.8% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 11,473 employees)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 38.3% -23.5%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 61.7% +23.6%

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Gender: Across the Pay Scale

b) Also not surprising, given the Citywide gender imbalance, is that women are underrepresented at most levels of the pay scale, compared to the general population. The table below divides the City workforce into levels based on hourly wage the same way shown previously for race. As shown below, women are underrepresented in the top three quartiles of hourly wages (33.8%, 32.9% and 37.8%, respectively), but have similar representation in the bottom quartile (49.4%). ,

Figure 27: Pay Scale Levels by Gender

Pay Scale Levels by Gender

Gender % Seattle Population % King County Population % City of Seattle Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of wages: 76-100% (obs. = 3,260 employees)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 33.8% -32.5%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 66.2% +32.6%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,402 employees)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 32.9% -34.3%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 67.1% +34.4%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,334 employees)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 37.8% -24.6%

Male 50.1% 49.9% 62.2% +24.7%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,492 employees)

Female 49.9% 50.1% 49.4% --*

Male 50.1% 49.9% 50.6% --*

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Results by Race and Gender

Race/Gender: Overall

a) Women of color are underrepresented at the City relative to the King County population (16.7% of employees vs 19.0% of the county population). Thus the slight over-representation of people of color, collectively, is driven by men of color being over-represented (22.7% vs 18.8%). White men are also over-represented (38.8% vs 31.0%), so the slight under-representation of Whites, collectively, is driven by the dramatic under-representation of White women (21.8% vs 31.2%). As shown in Figure 28, White women are the most underrepresented of these groupings in the City workforce overall with 30.2% lower representation at the City than in the county population. However, as the following sections show, women of color are the most underrepresented at the highest levels of City employment, by both supervisory authority and pay.

Figure 28: Overall Representation by Race and Gender (POC/White)

Overall Representation by Race and Gender (POC/White)

Race/Gender % Seattle Population % King County Population % City Workforce % Difference, WF vs KC#

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 39.4% +4.3%

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 16.7% -11.9%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 22.7% +20.6%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 60.6% -2.6%

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 21.8% -30.2%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 38.8% +25.2%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 38.6% -22.9%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 61.4% +23.0%

Total employees = 12,821

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

b) Using more specific race categories, results show that Hispanic women, white women, Asian women, and women of multiple races are all underrepresented within the City's workforce relative to the county population. Among men, only Hispanics and those of multiple races are underrepresented. In other words, only among Hispanics and multi-race people are both men and women underrepresented at the City.

Figure 29: Overall Representation by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Overall Representation by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Race/Gender Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% +165.6%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% +103.3%

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% +226.6%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 15.1% -5.1%

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 6.9% -17.9%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 8.2% +8.6%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 12.4% +108.1%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 5.0% +69.5%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 7.5% +144.5%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 5.3% -42.8%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.1% -51.8%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.2% -35.0%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.7% +126.8%

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% +57.0%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 1.1% +195.8%

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 3.3% -33.8%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 1.6% -38.1%

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 1.1% -29.9%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 60.6% -2.6%

/Female 33.1% 31.3% 21.8% -30.3%

/Male 32.8% 31.1% 38.8% +25.0%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 38.6% -22.9%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 61.4% +23.0%

Total employees = 12,821

#Percent difference between the % City Workforce and the % General Population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Race/Gender: Across Supervisor Levels

a) Examining the representation of race/gender groups across different levels of supervisors shows again that the under-representation of people of color collectively in the top quartile, relative to the county population, is driven by the under-representation of women of color who are the most underrepresented group at this level, making up 19.0% of the county population but just 11.3% of employees (40.6% lower representation). Similarly, the over-representation of Whites in this category masks the under-representation of White women (23.5% of employees vs 31.2% of the county population, 24.9% lower representation). In fact, both white women and women of color are underrepresented in all but the first (bottom) quartile of supervisors.

Figure 30: Supervisor Levels by Race and Gender (POC/White)

Supervisor Levels by Race and Gender (POC/White)

Race/Gender Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of supervisors: 76-100% (obs. = 524 supervisors)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 33.4% -11.5%

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 11.3% -40.6%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 22.1% +17.8%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 66.6% +7.0%

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 23.5% -24.9%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 43.1% +39.1%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 35.4% -29.3%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 64.6% +29.4%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 586 supervisors)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 34.6% --*

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 15.9% -16.3%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 18.8% --*

White all 65.7% 62.2% 65.4% --*

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 22.9% -26.8%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 42.5% +37.1%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 39.1% -22.0%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 60.9% +22.0%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 511 supervisors)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 31.3% -17.1%

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 12.9% -31.9%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 18.4% --*

White all 65.7% 62.2% 68.7% +10.4%

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 27.4% -12.3%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 41.3% +33.2%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 40.2% -19.7%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 59.8% +19.8%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 343 supervisors)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 33.5% --*

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 19.2% --*

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 14.3% -24.0%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 66.5% --*

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 30.6% --*

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 35.9% +15.7%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 49.2% --*

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 50.8% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 10,857 employees)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 40.5% +7.3%

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 17.1% -9.8%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 23.4% +24.4%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 59.5% -4.4%

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 21.1% -32.4%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 38.4% +23.8%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 38.3% -23.5%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 61.7% +23.6%

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

b) Using more specific race categories results show, among other findings, that under-representation of Asians and Hispanics in the top two supervisor quartiles relative to the county population is driven by under-representation of women in those groups, rather than men. This is especially true for Asian supervisors, where male representation is much stronger than female representation in the top two quartiles of managers (whereas for Hispanics, it is stronger for men, but both gender groups are underrepresented in the top levels of supervisors).

Figure 31: Supervisor Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Supervisor Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Race/Gender Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of supervisors: 76-100% (obs. = 524 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.7% +214.6%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% +110.6%

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 1.1% +317.7%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 11.3% -29.2%

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 3.6% -56.7%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 7.6% --*

Black or African Americann all 7.0% 6.0% 12.6% +110.7%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 4.2% +43.3%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 8.4% +175.6%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 4.0% -57.1%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 1.3% -69.4%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 2.7% -46.3%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% --*

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 2.9% -43.3%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 1.3% -47.7%

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 1.5% --*

White all 65.7% 62.2% 66.6% +7.0%

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 23.5% -24.9%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 43.1% +39.1%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 35.4% -29.3%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 64.6% +29.4%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 586 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +150.0%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% --*

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 1.2% +335.8%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 14.2% --*

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 5.6% -32.7%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 8.5% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 11.1% +85.6%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 5.1% +74.7%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 6.0% +96.0%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 4.9% -47.0%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.4% -45.3%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 2.6% -48.5%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.9% +123.5%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% --*

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 1.9% -62.8%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 1.7% --*

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 0.2% -93.2%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 65.4% --*

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 22.9% -26.8%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 42.5% +37.1%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 39.1% -22.0%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 60.9% +22.0%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 511 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% --*

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 1.0% +257.0%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 11.4% -28.6%

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 5.1% -39.2%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 6.3% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 10.6% +76.8%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 4.5% +53.6%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 6.1% +99.1%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 4.9% -47.6%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.0% -55.2%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 2.9% -41.0%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% --*

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 2.3% -53.5%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 0.6% -77.0%

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 1.8% --*

White all 65.7% 62.2% 68.7% +10.4%

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 27.4% -12.3%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 41.3% +33.2%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 40.2% -19.7%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 59.8% +19.8%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 343 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% --*

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 13.4% --*

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 7.9% --*

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 5.5% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 9.9% +65.8%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 6.4% +118.9%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 3.5% --*

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 4.1% -56.3%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 1.7% -59.9%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 2.3% -53.1%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.9% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% --*

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 4.1% --*

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 2.0% --*

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 2.0% --*

White all 65.7% 62.2% 66.5% --*

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 30.6% --*

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 35.9% +15.7%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 49.2% --*

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 50.8% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 10,857 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% +171.5%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% +123.6%

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% +219.2%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 15.6% --*

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 7.2% -14.5%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 8.4% +11.2%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 12.7% +112.0%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 5.0% +70.1%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 7.7% +152.4%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 5.5% -41.2%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.1% -50.8%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.3% -32.8%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.8% +141.2%

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% +54.4%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 1.3% +228.3%

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 3.5% -31.3%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 1.6% -36.5%

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 1.8% -26.2%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 59.5% -4.4%

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 21.1% -32.4%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 38.4% +23.8%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 38.3% -23.5%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 61.7% +23.6%

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

Race/Gender: Across the Pay Scale

c) Examining the representation of race/gender groups across the City's pay scale, it is evident that the under-representation of people of color relative to the general population in the top two quartiles of the pay scale is driven by the under-representation of women of color. While men of color are over-represented in all four quartiles, women of color, who represent 19.0% of the county population, represent just 10.0% of employees in the top quartile (47.1% lower representation), making them the most underrepresented group at that level. Women of color are also just 12.7% of the third quartile (33.2% lower representation). Similarly, the over-representation of whites overall in the top half of the pay scale relative to the general population masks an under-representation of white women, who are underrepresented at all four quartiles of the pay scale.

Figure 32: Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (POC/White)

Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (POC/White)

Race/Gender Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of wages: 76-100% (obs. = 3,132 employees)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 31.0% -18.0%

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 10.0% -47.1%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 20.9% +11.4%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 69.0% +10.9%

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 23.5% -24.9%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 45.6% +47.0%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 33.8% -32.5%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 66.2% +32.6%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,222 employees)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 32.1% -14.9%

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 12.7% -33.2%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 19.5% --*

White all 65.7% 62.2% 67.9% +9.1%

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 20.2% -35.2%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 47.6% +53.7%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 32.9% -34.3%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 67.1% +34.4%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,137 employees)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 39.1% --*

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 17.0% -10.6%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 22.2% +17.9%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 60.9% --*

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 20.9% -33.0%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 39.9% +28.9%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 37.8% -24.6%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 62.2% +24.7%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,321 employees)

POC all 34.3% 37.8% 54.6% +44.5%

POC/Female 17.3% 19.0% 26.7% +40.7%

POC/Male 16.9% 18.8% 27.9% +48.2%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 45.4% -27.0%

White/Female 33.0% 31.2% 22.6% -27.5%

White/Male 32.7% 31.0% 22.8% -26.4%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 49.4% --*

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 50.6% --*

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

d) Using more specific race categories results show, among other findings, that women of all race groups, except American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, are underrepresented in the top quartile of the pay scale relative to the county population. For men, all categories are over-represented in the top quartile except Hispanics, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and those reporting multiple races. In particular, over-representation among African Americans and Whites in general at the top of the pay scale masks under-representation among women of those race categories. Meanwhile, again, under-representation of Hispanics is present regardless of gender.

Figure 33: Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Race/Gender Group % Seattle Population % King County Population % City Workforce at Level % Difference, WF vs KC#

Fourth quartile of wages: 76-100% (obs. = 3,132 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% +110.5%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% --*

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% +237.8%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 14.9% --*

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 5.1% -39.3%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 9.9% +31.1%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 7.7% +29.3%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 2.2% -25.9%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 5.6% +82.3%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 4.2% -55.2%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 1.3% -69.3%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 2.8% -42.9%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 0.7% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% --*

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 2.2% -55.7%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 0.9% -63.7%

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 1.3% -47.6%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 69.0% +10.9%

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 23.5% -24.9%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 45.6% +47.0%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 33.8% -32.5%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 66.2% +32.6%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,222 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +150.1%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 1.1% +296.3%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 12.3% -22.7%

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 5.7% -31.4%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 6.5% -13.0%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 9.0% +51.1%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 3.2% --*

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 5.8% +91.5%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 5.0% -46.5%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 1.8% -58.8%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.2% -35.7%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.7% +95.2%

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 3.5% -31.2%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 1.4% -44.1%

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 2.0% --*

White all 65.7% 62.2% 67.9% +9.1%

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 20.2% -35.2%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 47.6% +53.7%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 32.9% -34.3%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 67.1% +34.4%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,137 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +151.0%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% +111.0%

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% +190.7%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 13.4% -15.4%

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 6.1% -26.8%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 7.3% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 12.5% +108.5%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 5.4% +84.9%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 7.0% +131.2%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 6.1% -34.8%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.5% -43.8%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.6% -26.9%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 2.0% +163.0%

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% +67.0%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 1.4% +259.2%

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 3.8% -25.5%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 1.8% -31.3%

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 2.0% -19.6%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 60.9% --*

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 20.9% -33.0%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 39.9% +28.9%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 37.8% -24.6%

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 62.2% +24.7%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 2,321 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.9% +247.1%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 1.1% +309.8%

/Male 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% +185.6%

Asian all 14.1% 15.9% 19.5% +22.7%

/Female 7.6% 8.4% 10.4% +24.5%

/Male 6.5% 7.5% 9.0% +20.0%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 20.1% +235.7%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 8.9% +204.2%

/Male 3.5% 3.0% 11.2% +266.6%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.6% 9.3% 6.1% -34.9%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.8% -35.8%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.3% -34.0%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 3.2% +313.8%

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 1.2% +223.4%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 1.9% +405.0%

Two or More Races all 5.6% 5.1% 3.9% -23.2%

/Female 2.9% 2.6% 2.2% --*

/Male 2.7% 2.5% 1.7% -33.7%

White all 65.7% 62.2% 45.4% -27.0%

/Female 33.0% 31.2% 22.6% -27.5%

/Male 32.7% 31.0% 22.8% -26.4%

Female all 49.9% 50.1% 49.4% --*

Male all 50.1% 49.9% 50.6% --*

#Percent difference between the % City workforce and the % county population.

*Difference is within the margin of error (i.e., no statistically significant difference between proportions).

APPENDIX E: HR CONSOLIDATION EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES LIST

All HR Staff Meetings: Hold periodic meetings for all city HR professionals to inform and engage on citywide HR matters, specifically focusing on WFE actions

Human Resources Leadership Team (HRLT): Created a leadership group of Executive and non-Executive citywide HR leaders to advise and inform on WFE, and citywide HR matters

Service Delivery Leadership Group (SDLG): Established in October 2017, SDLG is a working group of HR Leaders representing SDHR and 11 Executive Departments who collaborate to align local and citywide HR services through the Joint Accountability Agreement Memorandum (JAAM).

SDHR Leadership: Monthly meetings to involve and inform SDHR division managers in HR consolidation planning and coordination

Service Delivery Workshops: Met with HR staff within SDHR and the 11 not-fully supported HR Departments to assess all HR services and their maturity levels. Following the first engagement, met with SDHR and Departments to report on findings and collect additional input.

Department Operations Leadership Group: Established in 2017 to consult with Department Operations Leaders on HR consolidation and the JAAM.

APPENDIX F: SDHR SUPPORTED DEPARTMENTS, 2018

Ethics and Elections (EE)

City Budget Office (CBO)

Office of Intergovernmental Relations (OIR)

Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR)

Department of Education and Early Learning (DEEL)

Office of Arts and Culture (ARTS)

Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (OIRA)

Community Police Commission (CPC)

Office of Economic Development (OED)

Office of Housing (OH)

Office of Planning & Community Development (OPCD)

Department of Neighborhoods (DON)

Office of Sustainability & the Environment (OSE)

Office of Labor Standards (OLS)

APPENDIX G: LEADERSHIP EXPECTATION & ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN (LEAP)

City of Seattle

Seattle Department of Human Resources

Seattle Office for Civil Rights

Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee

Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (Draft)

Preamble:

The City of Seattle (herein referred to as the City) is committed to ending institutionalized and structural racism. Executive Order (EO) 2014-02 expanded the City's Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) by directing the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) and the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) to develop policies and practices to increase workforce equity (WFE) for all City employees. EO 2017-13 affirmed the City's commitment to RSJI by emphasizing the embedded equity work across the City, including removing internal structural and institutional barriers for City employees.

Executive Order 2015-02 and Seattle City Council Resolution 31588 mandated that SDHR, in partnership with the SOCR, develop a WFE strategic plan to include creation of a Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP), to enable progress on internal WFE and the dismantling of institutional racism in city government.

We know that our plans and initiatives are only as good as the accountability and commitments to them. We were the first city in the United States to undertake a citywide initiative that focuses explicitly on ending institutional racism. While good - and at times great - work has been done, disparate and harmful experiences in our city and workforce persist. Much work remains. We can and must do better. The City of Seattle must hold itself accountable for ensuring that our leaders view accomplishment of WFE and RSJI goals as a primary objective of their departments.

This LEAP is informed by and aligns with the following citywide expectations, values commitments, vision and expectations.

Expectations:

To better strive for a work environment and community where all people, regardless of their background or identity, feel included and equipped to realize their potential requires a certain kind of leader. This leader is humble, inspiring, visionary, fair, inclusive, equitable, and self-aware. Leaders such as this lead with race and are grounded in the experiences of their most impacted employees and constituents/service users. They grasp that excellence requires the consideration of equity in all department matters. This leader is expected to leave the department better than they found it. This leader understands that department culture and staff treatment cascades into how well and equitably we serve the people of Seattle and ultimately manifests in the outcomes we see in our workforce and City.

I. RSJI: The City of Seattle is committed to ending institutionalized racism in City government. Over a decade ago, the Race and Social Justice Initiative was established to that end. The RSJI's long-term goal is to change the underlying system that creates race-based disparities in our community and to achieve racial equity. One of the RSJI's short-term goals is:

Utilizing RETs: A citywide policy was established in 2015 requiring each department to apply a minimum of four Racial Equity Toolkits (RETs). This entails action and commitment from all levels of leadership to implement RETs with fidelity and intentionality at the front end of projects, programs and/or policies. Leaders must ensure the full and thoughtful completion of RETs.

II. WFE Vision: A workforce that is inclusive of people of color and other marginalized groups at a rate representative of the greater Seattle area at all levels of city employment; where institutional and structural barriers impacting employee attraction, selection, participation and retention have been eliminated, enabling opportunity for employment success and career growth.

Achieving this vision requires fundamental culture change that dismantles barriers, real or perceived, enables an inclusive workplace, and provides specific investments in the workforce itself. Leaders share a substantial responsibility in shaping departmental culture and environment, as well as ensuring the sustained implementation of strategies to advance workforce equity.

III. E3 Performance Management (E3): The City of Seattle has defined Equity, Inclusion, Accountability, and Action as performance competencies that all city employees are expected to demonstrate. Proficiency in these is defined as follows:

Challenges organizational practices that exclude people based on race, gender, ability, etc.; and seeks to change such practices

Initiates procedures, programs, or policies to foster racial equity, including in everyday work

Applies RETs consistently

Seeks out learning opportunities on RSJ proactively and applies learning to everyday practices

Encourages others to participate in RSJI training opportunities and acts as a department resource for the RSJI

Works to improve policies and procedures, and supports accountability with consistent communications

Encourages learning and improvement in themselves and others

Demonstrates initiative in actions and decision-making

Evaluates RSJI and WFE efforts and course corrects when necessary*

Invests in and allocates resources towards departmental equity and inclusion efforts. *

(*Not included in original E3 definition)

LEAP Plan:

The Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP) provides Department Directors with expectations, practices, and metrics in various leadership categories to demonstrate the following:

Excellence in equity leadership

Alignment with and commitment to RSJI and WFE

Proficiency in Equity and Inclusion competency

Proficiency in the E3 Accountability and Action competency

Use the following matrix to gauge your proficiency and that of your team (below).

Leadership Categories Action/Behavior

Personal Practice &

Professional Development Can you identify historical inequities in your society?

Can you identify current racial inequities in your community?

Can you identify your own racial positionality and how it intersects with other marginalized and/or privileged identities that you hold?

Can you use your awareness of your own racial and social positionality to determine how you are positioned in relation to those you work with, and to systems of power within your department, across the City and in the community?

Can you identify how institutional racism manifests in the City's workforce and the communities you serve?

Can you demonstrate knowledge of Seattle's history of discrimination?

Can you facilitate and/or participate in difficult conversations about racism while maintaining a racial equity lens, including when it causes you or others to feel uncomfortable, defensive, or otherwise resistant?

Have you completed, at minimum, the following RSJ trainings? Have you identified or taken other equity trainings that can benefit you?

1. Race the Power of an Illusion (required)

2. Racial Equity Toolkit (required)

3. Implicit Bias (required)

4. Internalized Racial Oppression or Internalized Racial Superiority

Can you identify how you have implemented practices/changes in your department because of your engagement in the above trainings?

WFE Metrics

How are you establishing baseline WFE data for your department?

How are you reviewing and assessing the following employee data by race and gender and intersection of race and gender?

- Head count

- Job title

- Tenure

- Wage/All-in pay

- Supervisory Authority

- Exits

- Out-of-class assignments

How are you supporting the development of your department's capacity to track and assess the following employee data by race and gender and intersection of race and gender?

- Promotions

- Complaints

- Step exemptions

- Merit leave

- Discipline

- Reclassifications

- Applicant pools

- Executive leave days

- Performance evaluations

- Sabbaticals

- Alternative Work Schedules, including telecommuting

How are you collecting and reviewing the department-level exit and engagement survey responses to shift department culture?

How are you using the department-level exit and engagement survey responses to achieve the WFE vision in your department?

How are you using the department-level exit and engagement survey to enhance the management practices of supervisors?

Tools The Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) is a planning tool for City employees to strengthen their racial equity analysis and disrupt status quo decision-making processes. Findings should inform the development of policies, procedures, practices, and budget decisions.

Has your department applied the minimum of four RETs?

How did your department decide when to apply an RET?

On which projects, programs, policies, services, and budget decisions did your department apply RETs?

Was the RET applied early enough to inform decision making?

Was your RET team comprised of RSJI Change Team members, project managers, and front-line staff?

Did your community engagement plan center on the voices of those most impacted?

How did the voices of those most impacted inform your process?

Do you have a plan and commitment to continue to sustain the relationships developed during your community engagement practice?

Did the direction of your program, policy, practice, budget decision, and service delivery change because of the RET?

If so, how? If not, why?

Departments are expected to submit annual RSJI workplans to SOCR.

Has your department submitted their annual RSJI work plan to SOCR?

Is your department's annual RSJI work plan viewable to the public on the RSJI Outcomes, Strategies, and Actions (ROSA) website?

Gender Justice Guidelines.

How has your department communicated and disseminated the City's Gender Justice Guidelines to staff?

Communications How have you reported to employees, and been transparent with them, on actions taken to create a department culture in alignment with the WFE vision?

How are you communicating issues of WFE within your department, such as?

- Harassment complaints

- RSJI survey results

- Change Team recommendations

- Exit survey results

- Engagement survey results

How are you communicating your RSJ/WFE successes and challenges within your department (i.e., all-staff meetings, email messages, web blogs, department newsletters, etc.)?

Collaboration How are you providing WFE lens to support to your Change Team?

Are you prepared to be challenged by the "WFE champions" in your department?

How are you empowering the Change Team to impact the work of other teams?

How are you holding other teams accountable to feedback from the Change Team?

Staff Management How are you rewarding your managers who are meeting and/or exceeding expectations regarding workplace culture and RSJI?

How many of your managers are taking the requisite classes to be better managers, specifically regarding RSJI and less biased employment decisions?

How have you acted on issues uncovered during employee/engagement surveys to improve the culture of the department?

How are you applying an WFE lens to your granting of merit leave?

How have you analyzed performance appraisals, merit leave, and salary placements for WFE?

How are you ensuring WFE in coaching, mentoring, training approvals, and promotional appointments?

How are you holding your managers accountable for RSJI and WFE activities that are either ineffective or are not happening?

Resource Allocation Have you positioned your equity team where they can be the most effective and integrated in your department org structure?

How are you reviewing and analyzing your department's procurement practices for equity?

How are you meeting the Women and Minority-Owned Business Enterprise (WMBE) utilization standards?

How are you practicing equity in your department's procurement practices? (i.e. contracting with WMBE)

What fiscal resources are you applying to WFE objectives within your department? (i.e. recruitment, trainings, 360 evaluations)

This LEAP can be used as a resource to help gauge performance towards WFE and RSJI. Department Directors are not alone in championing the work of RSJI and WFE. Department Directors must engage their staff to do this work collaboratively, intentionally, and transparently.

A variety of RSJI and WFE resources are available in the attached resource document to support department leadership.

APPENDIX H: 2018 WEPAC MEMBERSHIP

Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC) Co-Chairs:

Sue McNab, Director (Acting), Seattle Department of Human Resources

Mariko Lockhart, Director, Seattle Office for Civil Rights

WEPAC Staff Leads:

Felecia Caldwell, Workforce Equity Director, Workforce Equity Director, Seattle Department of Human Resources

Tamar Zere, Deputy Manager of Race and Social Justice Initiative, Seattle Office for Civil Rights

Members:

Manal Al-Ansi, Race & Social Justice Advisor, Seattle Department of Transportation

Evan Chinn, Department Administration Director, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections

Diana Falchuk, Manager of Arts & Racial Equity, Seattle Office for Civil Rights

Sahar Fathi, Division Director Leadership Development, Department of Neighborhoods

Darius Foster, Business Liaison, Office for Civil Rights

Bailey Hinckley, Workforce Equity Program Manager, Seattle Department of Human Resources

David Hennes, Lead, Economics & Revenue Team, Central Budget Office

Lenee Jones, Labor Relations, Seattle Department of Human Resources,

Steve Lee, Director of Equity Integration, Seattle City Light

Patricia Narvaez-Wheeler, Professional Development Learning Partner, Seattle Department of Human Resources

Kenny Pitman, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Intergovernmental Relations

Joseph Russell, Economist, Central Budget Office

Ray Sugarman, Union Representative, Local 17

Kenny Stuart, President, Local 27

APPENDIX I: USAGE AND BACK-FILL COSTS OF THE PAID PARENTAL LEAVE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT IN 2016 AND 2017

Introduction

In 2015, Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 124753 that created a four-week paid parental leave benefit for City of Seattle employees. That benefit became available to any eligible employee welcoming a new child via birth, adoption or fostering on or after May 17, 2015 and provided four weeks of fully paid leave (pro-rated for part-time employees) for bonding with the child.

Then, in February of 2017, Ordinance 125260 extended this benefit to a total of 12 possible weeks, with the final four weeks being subject to the availability of other leave balances of the employee (the employee must use any sick and/or vacation accumulations beyond two weeks and one week, respectively, to supplement some or all of the final four-week period). The extended benefit became available (retroactively) to eligible employees welcoming a child on or after January 1, 2017.

In July of 2016, the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) submitted its first Paid Parental Leave Annual Report to City Council. That report provided statistics on the usage and backfill costs of the PPL benefit for children born, adopted or fostered during the first year of the benefit (May 17, 2015 to May 17, 2016). However, because employees are eligible to use the benefit any time during the 12-month period following the welcoming of the child, that first report could not provide a complete picture of the benefit's use for this cohort of employees, many of whom remained within the 12-month window as of the publishing of the report.

This report represents the second update on the PPL benefit's usage and backfill costs. The report is divided into the following sections:

Use of Leave by Department, Tenure and Gender

Backfill Costs for Leave Takers

Use of Leave by Job Title

Within each section, results are divided by year of child arrival (2016 or 2017). However, data for these two years should not be compared because the benefit changed from one year to the next and because the data are incomplete in the second year, as described below:

2016 - Employees who welcomed a child during this year were subject to the original four-week benefit. This group has now left the 12-month window for eligible use of the benefit as of production of this report, so statistics regarding use and cost of the benefit can be stated with certainty.

2017 - Employees who welcomed a child during this year were subject to the new 12-week benefit. However, similar to the first PPL report, because many remain within the 12-month window for eligible use of the benefit as of the production of this report, statistics for this group must be viewed as preliminary.

Racial Equity Lens

An official Racial Equity Toolkit has not yet been applied to this strategy; however, an equity lens was applied to all of the strategies originally proposed in the WFE Strategic Plan. Application of this lens included stakeholder engagement through an employee survey and listening sessions in 2016. Because of these engagement efforts we learned that Paid Family Care Leave was most important to our employees and an equity enhancing strategy, and thus Paid Family Care Leave was added as a sister strategy to Paid Parental Leave.

What's ahead in 2018

Stakeholder engagement is currently under way to review and implement new state mandated family and medical leave for workers and employers, which will be effective in 2020. The program will be funded by insurance premiums, paid by both employees and employers, starting in January of 2019. The state-sponsored insurance program will allow workers to take up to 12 to 16 weeks when they welcome a new child into their family, are struck by extended illness or injury, or need to take care of an ill or ailing relative.

Learning and Successes

After the initial implementation phase, project stakeholders gathered together to recognize successes and learning. The implementation of new Paid Parental Leave and Paid Family Medical Leave benefits for employees was a great accomplishment. Project management for the project allowed for visible time lines, contingency planning, and supported inter-departmental communication.

There is a need for better data on demand for family and medical leave among employees. SDHR is addressing this through the addition or revision of pay codes that would allow employees who are taking leave to report, via their biweekly timesheets, both the leave type they wish to use as well as the option to report the reason for taking leave (for example, an employee who has taken vacation time to care for an ailing parent).

Successes Learning

Timely application of the benefit when the legislation became effective Understanding vendor and technology constraints

Training for HR, payroll, and leave coordinators Ensuring concepts and requirements were understood

Updated InWeb information, including forms, frequently asked questions, and calculation tools Short timelines for engagement with stakeholders, including employees

Figure 34: Paid Parental Leave Use by Gender and Tenure, 2016-2017

City Workforce,

Dec. 2017* PPL 2016 Events** PPL 2017 Events, to date**

Overall

Employees 11,878 323 384

Average PPL Hours Used# N/A 158 304

Average City Tenure (Yrs.) 13.2 6.5 6.2

By Gender (% Employees)

Female 37.6% 29.4% 27.3%

Male 62.4% 70.6% 72.7%

By Tenure (% Employees)

Less than 1 Year 6.8% 14.6% 18.0%

1-2 Years 14.4% 23.5% 24.5%

3-4 Years 11.2% 12.7% 16.1%

5-9 Years 12.9% 28.8% 22.1%

10-14 Years 14.6% 10.8% 12.0%

15+ Years 40.0% 9.6% 7.3%

*City workforce figures are a snapshot of all benefited City employees as of Dec. 28, 2017.

**2016 Events and 2017 Events refer to the year in which leave was first taken by the beneficiary and may not necessarily be the year that the child was born/welcomed, nor the year in which all leave under the benefit was taken. Caution is advised when comparing data in these two years: events in 2016 were subject to the 4-week PPL policy, whereas those in 2017 were subject to the 12-week policy. Furthermore, data for 2017 cannot be considered final as of the publication of this report, as the 12-month window for use the leave has not yet closed for many of beneficiaries.

#Average PPL Hours Used is calculated using full-time employees only.

Figure 35: Parental Leave Use by Department, 2016 Events (4-week policy)

Department PPL, Female PPL, Male PPL, Total % of Employees*

City Budget Office 1 1 2 5.7%

City Employees Retirement System 1 1 3.4%

City Light 10 36 46 2.6%

Dept. of Education & Early Learning 2 2 3.7%

Dept. of Finance & Administrative Services 3 8 11 1.8%

Fire Department 2 49 51 4.8%

Housing 3 3 7.7%

Human Services 7 5 12 3.9%

Law Department 3 2 5 2.7%

Legislative-City Council 2 2 2.1%

Neighborhoods Department 1 1 1.8%

Office for Civil Rights 2 2 5.0%

Office of Economic Development 1 1 2 6.1%

Parks Department 5 15 20 2.2%

Planning and Community Develop 2 2 4.9%

Police Department 14 52 66 3.4%

Seattle Center 2 1 3 1.2%

Seattle Dept. of Construction and Inspection 2 2 4 1.1%

Seattle Dept. of Human Resources 5 1 6 5.6%

Seattle Dept. of Transportation 9 20 29 3.5%

Seattle Information Technology 1 6 7 1.1%

Seattle Public Library 14 3 17 2.5%

Seattle Public Utilities 7 24 31 2.3%

All Departments 95 228 323 2.8%

*% of Employees refers to the share of all benefited employees who took PPL leave during the year, based on employee count at year-end.

Figure 36: Paid Parental Leave Use by Department, 2017 Events (12-week policy), to date*

Department PPL, Female PPL, Male PPL, Total % of Employees**

Arts & Cultural Affairs 1 1 3.0%

City Budget Office 1 2 3 8.8%

City Employees Retirement System 1 1 2 7.4%

City Light 14 49 63 3.6%

Dept. of Education & Early Learning 2 2 4 6.3%

Dept. of Finance & Administrative Services 5 7 12 2.0%

Fire Department 3 47 50 4.7%

Housing 1 1 2.4%

Human Services 5 5 10 3.1%

Immigration & Refugee Affairs 1 1 11.1%

Intergovernmental Relations 1 1 2 18.2%

Law Department 6 1 7 3.7%

Mayor's Office 2 2 5.6%

Municipal Court 4 1 5 2.3%

Neighborhoods Department 1 1 1.7%

Office of Labor Standards 3 3 13.6%

Parks Department 9 16 25 2.8%

Police Department 10 72 82 4.2%

Seattle Center 2 1 3 1.2%

Seattle Dept. of Construction and Inspection 5 6 11 3.0%

Seattle Dept. of Human Resources 2 1 3 2.9%

Seattle Dept. of Transportation 7 21 28 3.2%

Seattle Information Technology 7 9 16 2.4%

Seattle Public Library 10 10 20 3.0%

Seattle Public Utilities 9 21 30 2.3%

All Departments 105 279 384 3.3%

*Data for 2017 events cannot be considered final as of the publication of this report as, the 12-month window for use the leave has not yet closed for the majority of beneficiaries.

**% of Employees refers to the share of all benefited employees who took PPL leave during the year, based on employee count at year-end.

Backfill Costs for Leave Takers

Backfill costs are the costs associated with temporarily replacing an employee while they are on leave in order to ensure their responsibilities are covered while absent. The backfill dollars in Figures 23 and 24 represent costs associated with hours coded as paid parental leave backfill on employee timesheets, as kept by departments. However, the costs shown are likely understated. Departments that receive funding via the General Fund were directed to track backfill costs related to the paid parental leave benefit in order to request backfill dollars earmarked for paid parental leave (set aside in Finance General). These departments can request backfill dollars at year end if they do not have the funds necessary to cover these additional costs. Non-General Fund departments must absorb what they can using their existing budgets because they are not reimbursed in this manner. Consequently, these departments face less incentive to track backfill totals carefully, and thus the backfill costs below may under-estimate actual backfill costs to the City, particularly with regard to the share from Other Funds.

Figure 37: Estimated Backfill Costs for PPL by Department, 2016 Events (4-week policy)

Department* Hours Backfill Costs, Total Backfill Costs, General Fund Backfill Costs, Other Funds

Dept. of Finance & Administrative Services 160 $7,009 $700 $6,309

Fire Department 6,528 $618,676 $618,676 $0

Housing 160 $9,516 $261 $9,256

Law Department 231 $8,999 $8,999 $0

Parks Department 315 $9,966 $6,764 $3,203

Seattle Dept. of Human Resources 144 $5,016 $5,016 $0

Seattle Dept. of Transportation 176 $9,487 $1,017 $8,470

Seattle Public Library 1,090 $38,463 $30,022 $8,441

Total 9,082 $720,457 $684,630 $35,827

*Department refers to the department to which the backfilling employee charged their work hours. This may not be the same as the department of the leave-taking employee for whom the person is backfilling. In certain cases, departments may make arrangements to reimburse other departments for employees backfilling via out-of-class assignments.

Figure 38: Estimated Backfill Costs for PPL by Department, 2017 Events (12-week policy)**

Department* Hours Backfill Costs, Total Backfill Costs, General Fund Backfill Costs, Other Funds

Dept. of Finance & Administrative Services 480 $31,675 $3,163 $28,512

Fire Department 12,006 $1,148,003 $1,148,003 $0

Human Services 3,220 $121,274 $44,222 $77,052

Law Department 323 $9,879 $9,879 $0

Municipal Court 8 $254 $254 $0

Parks Department 3,345 $106,389 $72,201 $34,187

Seattle Dept. of Human Resources 72 $4,209 $4,209 $0

Seattle Dept. of Transportation 347 $25,055 $2,687 $22,368

Seattle Public Library 2,940 $88,268 $68,896 $19,372

Grand Total 22,740 $1,535,005 $1,353,514 $181,491

*Department refers to the department to which the backfilling employee charged their work hours. This may not be the same as the department of the leave-taking employee for whom the person is backfilling. In certain cases, departments may make arrangements to reimburse other departments for employees backfilling via out-of-class assignments.

**Data for 2017 events cannot be considered final as of the publication of this report, as the 12-month window for use the leave has not yet closed for the majority of beneficiaries.

Use of Leave by Job Title

The table below reflects data requested in City of Seattle Ordinance 125260 on employee use of the paid parental leave benefit by job title.

Figure 39: Paid Parental Leave Use by Job Title, 2016 Events (4-week policy)

Job Title Beneficiary Count Average Tenure (Years)

Accountant 2 2.3

Accountant,Prin 1 0.1

Actg Tech II-BU 2 3.7

Admin Spec I-BU 2 2.1

Admin Spec II-BU 4 11.5

Admin Spec III-BU 1 1.9

Admin Staff Asst 1 7.3

AMH Syst Op 1 2.7

Animal Contrl Ofcr I 1 9.1

Arboriculturist 1 8.2

Asst Mgr-Library 1 10.5

Asst Mnging Librn 1 7.9

Capital Prjts Coord,Sr 3 8.6

Cblspl-Net Area 2 10.0

City Attorney,Asst 3 2.6

Civil Engr Supv 1 2.0

Civil Engr,Assoc 3 6.8

Civil Engr,Asst II 1 2.3

Civil Engr,Sr 8 3.8

Civil Engrng Spec,Assoc 6 5.9

Civil Engrng Spec,Sr 4 11.6

Contract Anlyst,Sr 1 7.8

Coordinating Library Tech 1 15.1

Counslr 3 5.2

Crime Prev Coord 1 1.1

Cust Svc Rep 1 6.9

Cust Svc Rep,Sr 1 15.1

Dining Room Attendant 1 0.2

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Lead Wkr 1 18.6

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Wkr 1 3.3

Drainage&Wstwtr Lead Wkr CII 1 8.4

Elctn 1 10.0

Elctn-Con Aprn 1 7.4

Elecl Engr,Assoc 1 9.1

Elecl Engr,Asst I 1 1.1

Elecl Engr,Asst I * 2 1.2

Elecl Engr,Asst II 2 6.5

Elecl Engr,Asst III 1 8.1

Elecl Inspector,(J) 1 0.2

Elecl Pwr Systs Engr 2 2.4

Elecl PwrSystsEngr-Mrt 1 14.0

Elecl Svc Rep,Sr 1 0.0

Engrng Emerg Laborer 1 7.8

Envrnmtl Anlyst,Sr 1 0.7

Envrnmtl Fld Spec 1 14.0

Events Booking Rep 1 4.5

Exec Asst,Sr 1 2.7

Executive2 1 2.2

Executive3 1 2.3

Fin Anlyst Supv 1 1.5

Fin Anlyst,Sr 2 1.6

Fire Capt-90.46 Hrs 1 19.9

Fire Capt-MU-90.46 Hrs 1 19.6

Fire Lieut-90.46 Hrs 5 15.6

Fire Lieut-Dispatcher-84 Hrs 1 19.0

Fire Lieut-MU-90.46 Hrs 1 10.5

Fireftr-80 Hrs 1 0.4

Fireftr-90.46 Hrs 31 5.4

Fireftr-Ap Drvr-90.46 2 8.3

Fireftr-FIU Prev Insp I-84 Hrs 1 14.4

Fireftr-HM-80 Hrs 1 14.0

Fireftr-HM-90.46 Hrs 2 1.5

Fireftr-Paramed Tech-90.46 Hrs 3 14.8

Fireftr-TRT-90.46 Hrs 2 13.3

Gardener,Sr 1 6.0

Grants&Contracts Spec,Sr 1 0.3

Human Svcs Prgm Supv,Sr 1 2.6

Hydro Maint Wkr II-Gen 1 4.5

Info Technol Prof A,Exempt 2 7.6

Info Technol Prof B-BU 7 8.7

Info Technol Prof B-BU * 1 1.5

Info Technol Spec 1 0.4

Info Technol Systs Anlyst 2 9.7

Installation Maint Wkr 1 8.3

Jrnywkr In Chg 1 15.5

Laborer 1 2.6

Land Use Plnr IV 1 15.6

Landscape Supv 1 17.3

Latent Print Examiner 1 6.4

Library Assoc I 1 1.8

Library Assoc II 1 5.8

Library Assoc IV 3 7.9

Library Tech I 1 6.4

Library Tech II 2 15.0

Librn 5 5.8

Licenses&Standards Inspector 3 12.7

Lifeguard,Sr 2 5.5

Lnwkr 2 9.0

Lnwkr Aprn 3 1.6

Maint Laborer 9 8.2

Manager2,Engrng&Plans Rev 2 6.4

Manager2,Human Svcs 1 4.0

Manager2,Utils 1 3.6

Manager3,Engrng&Plans Rev 1 2.0

Manager3,General Govt 1 6.4

Mat Suplr,Elec-Asg Phd/Cw/D 2 9.8

Meter Elctn 1 3.0

Meter Reader 2 9.5

Mgmt Systs Anlyst 2 3.5

Ofc/Maint Aide 1 7.0

Paralegal 1 3.4

Parking Enf Ofcr 2 6.6

Permit Process Leader 1 2.6

Personnel Anlyst 1 7.8

Personnel Anlyst,Sr 1 1.3

Personnel Spec,Asst 1 2.1

Plng&Dev Spec I 1 7.8

Plng&Dev Spec II 2 2.8

Plng&Dev Spec,Sr 4 3.7

Pmp Stat Maint Wkr * 1 0.7

Pntr Aprn-Intern 1 1.6

Pol Capt 1 23.4

Pol Comms Dispatcher I 3 2.8

Pol Comms Dispatcher II 2 3.1

Pol Data Tech 2 2.1

Pol Ofcr 15 2.3

Pol Ofcr- Student 10 0.8

Pol Ofcr-Detective 4 11.1

Pol Ofcr-Hostage Neg-Patrl 2 5.2

Pol Ofcr-Patrl 21 9.5

Pol Sgt-Detective 1 9.9

Pol Sgt-Patrl 1 15.9

Pol Sgt-SWAT 1 22.5

Prgm Intake Rep 1 13.7

Prot&Cntrl Elctn II 1 0.0

Publc Relations Spec 1 0.2

Publc Relations Spec,Sr 1 2.4

Pwr Dispatcher 1 8.3

Pwr Marketer-BU 1 2.2

Radio Dispatcher 1 6.6

Real Property Agent,Sr 1 0.1

Rec Cntr Coord 1 12.3

Rec Cntr Coord,Asst 1 11.6

Rec Leader 3 6.1

Res&Eval Asst II 1 2.3

Res&Eval Asst-BU 1 13.6

Signal Elctn,Journey-Level 2 1.9

StratAdvsr1,CSPI&P 1 8.4

StratAdvsr1,Exempt 4 3.5

StratAdvsr1,General Govt 2 2.2

StratAdvsr2,Exempt 3 2.4

StratAdvsr2,General Govt 2 4.9

StratAdvsr2,General Govt-BU 1 3.1

StratAdvsr2,PC&RM 2 4.6

StratAdvsr2,Utils 2 2.4

StratAdvsr2,Utils-BU 1 2.6

StratAdvsr3,Exempt 1 0.7

StratAdvsr-Legislative 2 2.2

Strucl Iron Wkr 2 3.0

Transp Plnr,Sr 1 2.3

Tree Trimmer,Lead 1 7.4

Truck Drvr 1 9.5

Util Act Rep I 2 2.0

Util Act Rep Trne * 1 0.4

Util Constr Lead Wkr 1 1.5

Util Constr Wkr 2 7.7

Util Laborer 2 3.0

Util Systs Maint Tech,Sr 1 22.8

Victim Advocate 1 6.1

Wtr Pipe Wkr-WDM I 2 2.3

Total 323 6.5

Figure 40: Paid Parental Leave Use By Job Title, 2017 Events (12-Week Policy), To Date*

Job Title Beneficiary Count Average Tenure (Years)

Accountant,Prin 1 4.0

Accountant,Sr * 1 0.0

Actg Tech II-BU 2 8.9

Actg Tech III 1 5.7

Actg Tech III-BU 1 3.1

Actg Tech Supv-BU 1 12.5

Admin Spec I-BU 2 0.3

Admin Spec II-BU 3 1.9

Admin Spec II-BU * 1 1.7

Admin Spec III-BU 1 3.3

Admin Spec I-MC 1 0.6

Admin Staff Asst 1 3.4

Animal Contrl Ofcr I 1 0.7

Aquatic Cntr Coord 2 11.5

Asphalt Raker,Sr 1 3.7

Asst Mgr-Library 2 20.0

Asst Mnging Librn 1 8.9

Auto Mechanic 1 7.5

Auto Mechanic Aprn 1 2.2

Bldg Maint Wkr 1 1.2

Capital Prjts Coord 2 2.1

Capital Prjts Coord * 1 0.5

Capital Prjts Coord,Sr 4 2.6

Cblspl-Net Area 2 11.8

Cement Finisher,Sr 1 0.5

City Attorney,Asst 2 1.9

City Prosecutor Sr,Asst-BU 1 8.0

City Prosecutor,Asst-BU 1 5.8

Civil Engr Supv 1 0.1

Civil Engr,Assoc 3 3.3

Civil Engr,Assoc * 1 0.0

Civil Engr,Sr 2 2.5

Civil Engrng Spec Supv 2 17.7

Civil Engrng Spec,Assoc 6 8.0

Civil Engrng Spec,Asst I 2 1.2

Civil Engrng Spec,Sr 2 16.4

Code Compliance Anlyst 1 2.6

Com Dev Spec,Sr 1 5.7

Com Garden Coord 1 15.0

Contract Anlyst,Sr 1 8.8

Counslr 5 1.4

Court Clerk Supv 1 10.0

Credit Rep 1 4.6

Cust Svc Rep 2 14.7

Cust Svc Rep * 1 0.4

Cust Svc Rep,Sr 1 3.3

Custodian 1 9.4

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Lead Wkr 2 9.8

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Wkr 3 7.3

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Wkr * 1 0.8

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Wkr CI 2 8.7

Early Ed Spec,Sr 1 0.0

Ed Prgm Supv 1 14.1

Elctn-Con 3 9.3

Elctn-Con Aprn 2 1.6

Elecl Engr,Assoc 1 9.0

Elecl Engr,Asst I 3 2.0

Elecl Engrng Spec,Assoc 1 3.4

Elecl Engrng Spec,Sr 1 3.2

Elecl Insp,Sr/EleclPlnExmExp 1 12.3

Elecl Inspector,Sr(Expert) 1 12.3

Elecl Pwr Systs Engr 1 5.3

Elecl Pwr Systs Engr * 1 2.7

Elecl Svc Rep 1 4.6

Elecl Svc Rep,Sr 1 9.3

Enrgy Mgmt Anlyst 2 4.5

Enrgy Mgmt Anlyst Supv 1 9.5

Enrgy Plng Supv-BU 1 4.4

Equip Svcr 1 8.8

Executive2 2 1.9

Executive3 1 3.9

Executive4 3 2.5

Fin Anlyst Supv 1 3.0

Fire Lieut-90.46 Hrs 5 12.5

Fire Lieut-Decon-90.46 Hrs 1 24.0

Fire Lieut-Trng Div-80 Hrs 2 12.1

Fireftr-90.46 Hrs 30 4.8

Fireftr-Ap Drvr-90.46 1 5.6

Fireftr-HM Ap Drvr-90.46 Hrs 1 30.6

Fireftr-HM-90.46 Hrs 3 4.1

Fireftr-MU Ap Drvr-90.46 Hrs 1 19.3

Fireftr-Paramed Tech-90.46 Hrs 1 17.9

Fireftr-TRT Dive-90.46 Hrs 1 7.2

Fireftr-TRTDiveDriver-90.46 Hr 1 26.1

Gardener 2 3.2

Golf Course Groundskeeper II 1 0.5

Golf Course Tech 1 11.4

Human Svcs Coord,Asst 1 1.1

Human Svcs Prgm Supv,Sr 1 7.0

Hydroelec Op II 1 3.0

Info Technol Prof A * 1 2.4

Info Technol Prof A,Exempt 5 3.4

Info Technol Prof B-BU 5 6.5

Info Technol Prof C-BU 4 10.5

Info Technol Systs Anlyst 1 3.5

Installation Maint Wkr 1 33.1

Janitor-Library 1 1.7

Laborer 3 10.9

Laborer * 1 0.4

Land Use Plnr II 1 10.7

Land Use Plnr III 2 10.9

Library Assoc I 2 4.4

Library Assoc II 4 5.5

Library Tech III 1 7.7

Librn 3 9.6

Librn,Supvsng 1 9.0

Line C CC 1 7.8

Lnwkr 8 3.5

Lnwkr Aprn 1 1.7

Maint Laborer 9 8.8

Manager1,Exempt 1 0.1

Manager1,General Govt 2 6.2

Manager2,Exempt 1 2.9

Manager3,Engrng&Plans Rev 1 3.0

Manager3,Exempt 2 2.6

Manager3,Exempt-BU 1 9.3

Manager3,Fin,Bud,&Actg 1 7.5

Manager3,Utils-BU 1 4.4

Meter Elctn 1 2.8

Meter Reader * 1 1.4

Mgmt Systs Anlyst,Asst 1 17.2

Mgmt Systs Anlyst,Sr 1 2.4

Muni Court Marshal 1 3.4

Page 1 5.4

Paralegal 2 0.9

Paralegal * 1 0.7

Paralegal Asst II 1 3.0

Parking Enf Ofcr 4 4.8

Parking Enf Ofcr Supv 1 21.0

Permit Spec I 1 9.9

Permit Tech,Sr 2 8.0

Personnel Anlyst,Sr-Comp 1 0.9

Personnel Spec 1 1.7

Personnel Spec,Asst 1 2.5

Plng&Dev Spec II 2 1.0

Plng&Dev Spec II * 1 1.8

Plng&Dev Spec,Sr 2 1.5

Plng&Dev Spec,Sr * 1 0.1

Plnt Ecologist 1 2.6

Plumber CC 1 3.0

Pmp Stat Elecl Tech 1 4.2

Pol Comms Dispatcher I 3 0.9

Pol Comms Dispatcher II 3 2.9

Pol Ofcr 31 2.2

Pol Ofcr- Student 8 0.6

Pol Ofcr-Canine 2 12.4

Pol Ofcr-Detective 2 9.8

Pol Ofcr-Detective-Bomb Squad 1 17.4

Pol Ofcr-Diver 1 18.6

Pol Ofcr-Patrl 21 10.1

Pol Ofcr-SWAT 1 9.2

Pol Recruit 1 0.0

Pol Sgt-Detective 1 19.8

Pol Sgt-Patrl 5 16.3

Pool Maint Wkr 1 9.6

Prob Counslr-Asg Pers Recog 1 0.1

Prot&Cntrl Elctn I 1 8.2

Prot&Cntrl Elctn II 1 8.2

Publc/Cultural Prgms Spec,Sr 1 2.5

Pwr Anlyst,Asst * 1 0.8

Pwr Anlyst,Sr 1 1.6

Pwr Dispatcher 1 7.8

Pwr Dispatcher,Asst 1 0.4

Rec Cntr Coord 1 0.6

Rec Cntr Coord,Asst 1 0.5

Rec Leader 2 2.7

Rec Prgm Coord 1 12.9

Rights-Of-Way Maint Wkr 1 8.7

Security Ofcr-Library 2 1.6

Signal Elctn,Journey-Level 1 3.3

Site Dev Insp 1 0.0

Social Svcs Aide 1 0.1

StratAdvsr1 * 1 1.3

StratAdvsr1,CSPI&P 1 17.6

StratAdvsr1,Engrng&Plans Rev 1 3.1

StratAdvsr1,Exempt 4 1.7

StratAdvsr1,General Govt 2 1.0

StratAdvsr1,Info Technol 1 7.8

StratAdvsr1,Utils-BU 1 3.1

StratAdvsr2,Engrng&Plans Rev 1 8.4

StratAdvsr2,Exempt 8 1.6

StratAdvsr2,General Govt 1 0.6

StratAdvsr2,Utils-BU 3 3.1

StratAdvsr3,Engrng&Plans Rev 1 9.6

StratAdvsr3,Exempt 3 4.2

Strucl Plans Engr,Sr 1 2.6

Strucl Pntr 1 0.4

Traffic Sign&Marking Lead Wkr 1 9.5

Transp Plnr,Assoc 1 2.2

Tree Trimmer 2 0.3

Truck Drvr 1 8.4

Util Act Rep I 4 4.4

Util Constr Lead Wkr 2 1.2

Util Constr Wkr 2 2.3

Warehouser-BU 1 1.3

Wtr Pipe CC-WDM II 1 13.0

Wtr Pipe Wkr 2 0.8

Wtr Quality Anlyst 1 8.7

Wtrshed Inspector 1 2.1

Total 384 6.2

*Data for 2017 events cannot be considered final as of the publication of this report as the 12-month window for use the leave has not yet closed for the majority of beneficiaries.

APPENDIX J: USAGE AND BACK-FILL COSTS OF THE PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT IN 2017

Introduction

In February of 2017, Council passed Ordinance 125260 that created a four-week (160-hour) paid parental leave benefit, pro-rated for part-time employees. The benefit then became available (retroactively) starting January 1, 2017. The Ordinance made the availability of the benefit subject to the availability of other leave balances of the employee. Specifically, the employee must have sick leave accumulations at or below two weeks and vacation leave accumulations at or below one week before the benefit can be accessed.

This report represents the first update on usage and backfill costs for this benefit and uses data for all leave taken in 2017. However, because employees are eligible to use the benefit any time during a 12-month period following the granting of the leave, this report cannot provide a complete picture of the benefit's use for this cohort of employees, most of whom remain within the 12-month period as of the publishing of the report. Thus, statistics in this report must be viewed as preliminary.

This report is divided into the following sections:

Use of Leave by Department, Tenure and Gender

Backfill Costs for Leave Takers

Use of Leave by Job Title

Racial Equity Lens

An official Racial Equity Toolkit has not yet been applied to this strategy; however, an equity lens was applied to all of the strategies originally proposed in the WFE Strategic Plan. Application of this lens included stakeholder engagement through an employee survey and listening sessions in 2016. Because of these engagement efforts we learned that Paid Family Care Leave was most important to our employees and an equity enhancing strategy, and thus Paid Family Care Leave was added as a sister strategy to Paid Parental Leave.

What's ahead in 2018

Stakeholder engagement is currently under way to review and implement new state mandated family and medical leave for workers and employers, which will be effective in 2020. The program will be funded by insurance premiums, paid by both employees and employers, starting in January of 2019. The state-sponsored insurance program will allow workers to take up to 12 to 16 weeks when they welcome a new child into their family, are struck by extended illness or injury, or need to take care of an ill or ailing relative.

Additionally, SDHR is working to develop better data on demand for family and medical leave among employees. This could be achieved through the addition or revision of pay codes that would allow employees who are taking leave to report, via their biweekly timesheets, both the leave type they wish to use as well as the option to report the reason for taking leave (for example, an employee who has taken vacation time to care for an ailing parent).

Learning and Successes

After the initial implementation phase, project stakeholders gathered together to recognize successes and learning. The implementation of new Paid Parental Leave and Paid Family Medical Leave benefits for employees was a great accomplishment. Project management for the project allowed for visible time lines, contingency planning, and supported inter-departmental communication.

Successes Learning

Timely application of the benefit when the legislation became effective Understanding vendor and technology constraints

Training for HR, payroll, and leave coordinators Ensuring concepts and requirements were understood

Updated InWeb information, including forms, frequently asked questions, and calculation tools Short timelines for engagement with stakeholders, including employees

Use of Paid Family Care Leave by Gender, Tenure and Department

Figure 41: Paid Family Care Leave Use by Gender and Tenure, 2017

City Workforce,

Dec. 2017* PFCL in 2017, to date**

Overall

Employees 11,878 156

Average PFCL Hours Used# N/A 117

Average City Tenure (Yrs.) 13.2 10.1

By Gender (% Employees)

Female 37.6% 63.5%

Male 62.4% 36.5%

By Tenure (% Employees)

Less than 1 Year 6.8% 7.1%

1-2 Years 14.4% 16.0%

3-4 Years 11.2% 12.2%

5-9 Years 12.9% 19.9%

10-14 Years 14.6% 20.5%

15+ Years 40.0% 24.4%

*City workforce figures are a snapshot of all benefited City employees as of Dec. 28, 2017.

**2017 refers to the year in which leave was first taken by an employee using the benefit and not necessarily the year that such leave was granted by the City nor the year in which all leave granted under the benefit was taken. In addition, this data cannot be considered final as of the publication of this report as the 12-month window for use the leave has not yet closed for the majority of beneficiaries.

#Average PFCL Hours Used is calculated using full-time employees only.

Figure 42: Paid Family Care Leave Use by Department, 2017

Department PFCL, Female PFCL, Male PFCL, Total % of Employees*

City Light 9 10 19 1.1%

Dept. of Education & Early Learning 1 1 1.6%

Dept. of Finance & Administrative Services 9 3 12 2.0%

Fire Department 3 2 5 0.5%

Housing 2 2 4.9%

Human Services 15 4 19 5.9%

Law Department 1 1 0.5%

Municipal Court 6 1 7 3.2%

Office of Labor Standards 1 1 4.5%

Parks Department 7 4 11 1.2%

Police Department 6 6 12 0.6%

Seattle Center 2 2 0.8%

Seattle Dept. of Construction and Inspection 5 1 6 1.6%

Seattle Dept. of Human Resources 3 3 2.9%

Seattle Dept. of Transportation 8 9 17 1.9%

Seattle Information Technology 11 6 17 2.6%

Seattle Public Library 5 1 6 0.9%

Seattle Public Utilities 9 7 16 1.2%

All Departments 99 574 156 1.4%

*% of Employees refers to the share of all benefited employees who took PPL leave during the year, based on employee count at year-end.

Backfill Costs for Leave Takers

Backfill costs are the costs associated with temporarily replacing an employee while they are on leave in order to ensure their responsibilities are covered while absent. The backfill dollars in Figure 29 represent costs associated with hours coded as paid family care leave backfill on employee timesheets, as kept by departments. However, the costs shown are likely understated. Departments that receive funding via the General Fund were directed to track backfill costs related to the paid parental leave benefit in order to request backfill dollars earmarked for paid family care leave (set aside in Finance General). These departments can request backfill dollars at year end if they do not have the funds necessary to cover these additional costs. Non-General Fund departments must absorb what they can using their existing budgets because they are not reimbursed in this manner. Consequently, these departments face less incentive to track backfill totals carefully, and thus the backfill costs below may under-estimate actual backfill costs to the City, particularly with regard to the share from Other Funds.

Figure 43: Estimated Backfill Costs for PFCL by Department, 2017

Department Hours Backfill Costs, Total Backfill Costs, General Fund Backfill Costs, Other Funds

Fire Department 543 $47,456 $47,456 $0

Parks Department 71 $1,727 $1,172 $555

Seattle Public Library 100 $3,139 $2,450 $689

City Light 2 $68 $0 $68

Total 716 $52,390 $51,079 $1,311

Use of Leave by Job Title

The table below reflects data requested in City of Seattle Ordinance 125260 on employee use of the paid family care leave benefit by job title.

Figure 44: Paid Family Care Leave Use by Job Title, 2017

Job Title Beneficiary Count Average Tenure (Years)

Accountant,Prin 2 10.2

Accountant,Sr 2 3.1

Actg Tech II-BU 2 12.8

Actg Tech III-BU 1 11.4

Admin Spec I-BU 3 9.1

Admin Spec II-BU 1 30.9

Admin Spec III-BU 1 6.6

Admin Spec II-MC 3 6.8

Admin Spec I-MC 1 18.5

Admin Staff Anlyst 2 10.2

Admin Staff Asst 2 13.4

Admin Support Supv-BU 1 27.8

Arboriculturist 1 14.6

Asst Mgr-Library 1 30.0

Auto Mechanic 1 4.2

Capital Prjts Coord 1 27.9

Capital Prjts Coord,Sr 1 3.5

Carpenter * 1 1.6

Civil Engr,Assoc 2 14.7

Civil Engr,Sr 2 2.4

Civil Engrng Spec Supv 1 1.6

Civil Engrng Spec,Assoc 1 2.0

Civil Engrng Spec,Asst I 1 0.8

Civil Engrng Spec,Sr 3 8.2

Com Dev Spec 1 0.5

Complaint Investigator 1 1.9

Contracts&Concss Asst 1 24.0

Counslr 10 4.7

Counslr,Asst 2 3.1

Court Clerk 1 9.5

Cust Svc Rep 1 2.4

Cust Svc Rep,Sr 1 3.3

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll CC 1 15.6

Elctn 2 10.9

Elctn-Con 2 14.2

Elecl Engrng Spec,Sr 2 11.9

Elecl Svc Engr 1 14.6

Elecl Svc Rep,Supvsng 1 13.0

Engrng Aide 1 3.8

Enrgy Mgmt Anlyst,Sr 1 27.8

Enrgy Plng Anlyst 1 6.4

Envrnmtl Anlyst,Sr 1 25.0

Evidence Warehouser 1 2.8

Evidence Warehouser,Sr 1 2.8

Exec Asst 2 6.5

Fin Anlyst,Sr 1 3.7

Fireftr-90.46 Hrs 1 10.2

Fireftr-Ap Drvr-90.46 1 14.4

Gardener,Sr 1 7.0

Grants&Contracts Spec,Sr 1 9.1

Grounds Maint Lead Wkr 1 18.9

Housing/Zoning Inspector,Sr 1 2.9

Human Resources Spec 1 12.1

Human Svcs Coord 1 1.7

Identification Tech 1 15.8

Info Technol Prof A * 1 0.5

Info Technol Prof A,Exempt 5 11.0

Info Technol Prof B-BU 9 6.8

Info Technol Prof C-BU 1 15.7

Info Technol Systs Anlyst 2 13.2

Janitor,Lead-FAS/CL 2 8.1

Janitor-FAS/CL 1 10.1

Janitor-Library 1 1.7

Laborer 1 9.7

Library Assoc II 2 7.5

Librn 1 14.1

Lifeguard,Sr 1 11.3

Lnwkr 1 7.9

Maint Laborer 2 15.8

Manager2,General Govt 1 24.0

Meter Elctn Working CC 1 34.9

Meter Reader 2 8.7

Mgmt Systs Anlyst 1 10.0

Ofc/Maint Aide 1 17.8

Parking Enf Ofcr 2 11.4

Parking Enf Ofcr Supv 1 21.0

Payroll Supv 1 10.9

Permit Spec I 3 14.7

Permit Tech Supv 2 10.3

Personnel Anlyst,Sr 1 5.5

Personnel Anlyst,Sr-Comp 1 18.1

Personnel Spec 5 8.1

Personnel Spec,Asst 2 7.8

Personnel Spec,Sr 1 27.2

Plng&Dev Spec II 1 0.4

Pntr 2 13.4

Pol Comms Dispatcher I 1 21.9

Pol Comms Dispatcher II 1 10.1

Pol Data Tech Supv 1 16.8

Pol Ofcr-Patrl 2 9.6

Prgm Intake Rep 2 3.9

Prob Counslr I 1 2.5

Prot&Cntrl Elctn II 1 10.0

Prot&Cntrl Elctn-In chg 1 10.0

Radio Dispatcher 2 9.8

Rec Attendant 1 6.6

Registered Nurse Consultant 1 8.5

Signal Elctn V 1 9.5

Special Asst-Law 1 2.5

StratAdvsr1,General Govt 1 5.5

StratAdvsr2,Exempt 1 1.9

StratAdvsr2,Utils-BU 1 0.4

Traffic Sign&Marking CC I 1 9.3

Treasury Cashier 1 19.3

Tree Trimmer 2 1.1

Trng&Ed Coord,Sr 1 15.4

Util Act Rep II 1 24.4

Util Svc Rep 1 11.7

Total 156 10.1

APPENDIX K: EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TEAM (IDT) ADDITIONAL OUTCOMES

Outcomes

Group reviewed Council Resolution 31712 and established initial deliverables and timelines which were adapted based on Racial Equity Toolkit process.

EP IDT discussed entry-level jobs in the City, different definitions for green jobs used by organizations like Got Green and Department of Labor, and terms that had already been defined in prior bodies of work to create definitions for entry-level jobs and green jobs; used existing definitions for internships, apprenticeships, and workforce training programs.

Conducted Racial Equity Toolkit in July 2017 that showed a need to clarify the definition of workforce training program and revise deliverables. Racial equity outcomes were created for each deliverable (will be modified as data is gathered).

Collaborated with SDHR Classifications and Compensation and Information Management divisions to create an inventory of entry-level City jobs; census occupation codes were used to denote green jobs using Department of Labor standards. The report was reviewed and approved by EP IDT, Workforce Equity Advisory Planning Committee (WEPAC), SDHR Executive Leadership Team (HRLT), and the Mayor's Office.

EP IDT formed three subcommittees in September 2017 to accomplish deliverables related to Outreach, Training/Backfill, and Upskill; participation was voluntary based on area of expertise, interest, and department need.

EP IDT created 1-pager that highlights what drives the work, the deliverables, and contact information.

Different programs shared how they are promoting equitable pathway strategies including: Got Green, Philadelphia City employees, Conservation Corps., Youth Green Corp, SYEP, and Priority Hire.

The Upskill Subcommittee hired a consultant to research equitable hiring practices including competency and performance based models.

The Training/Backfill Subcommittee compiled an inventory of City-resourced training programs to see whether trainings meet occupational demand; drafted a preliminary map of training falls on career pathway.

APPENDIX L: EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TEAM (IDT) RACIAL EQUITY OUTCOMES

Needs Solutions

The RET emphasized lecture versus action. Shared feedback with SDHR and OCR.

Some deliverables were unclear and hindered creation of racial equity outcomes. EP IDT members clarified and revised deliverables based on the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan and Council Resolution 31712 and created initial racial equity outcomes which will become more specific as data is gathered.

Changed facilitation style of meetings to create space for candid discussion to address elements of white, middle-class dominant culture at play:

o Sense of urgency

o Worship of the written word

o Defensiveness

o Only one right way

o Paternalism

o Either/or thinking

o Fear of open conflict Sense of Urgency-

Ensured that timelines are realistic and promote EP IDT buy-in while considering long-term impacts of recommendations

Worship of the written word-

Look at values and standards that are on paper versus how they are playing out to evaluate City culture and need for accountability

Share information in different ways including notes, conversations, interviews, surveys

Evaluate new information and use as an opportunity to question group's direction; be ok with revising something that's been written

Defensiveness-

Emphasize process and feelings to work towards outcomes; focus on why people might feel resistant to ideas rather than trying to avoid tough conversations

Give people credit for being able to handle more than you might think

Only one right way-

Cultivate an appreciation for different perspectives to understand that there are many "right" ways to do something

Create opportunities to learn from a community rather than assuming you know what's best for a group of people

Paternalism-

Question stakeholder involvement and how and when to involve those most impacted by employment pathways

Shift facilitation style away from facilitators holding the "right" answers to promote small and large group sharing in "informal" settings

Look at definitions of success and who should help create those definitions and measures

Either/or thinking-

Take opportunities to learn from mistakes

Take time to pause before jumping in and making decisions

Look at issues from many angles; don't oversimplify things

Fear of open conflict-

Try things like a Racial Caucus to name racial inequity and have uncomfortable conversations

Need more feedback Potential EP IDT recommendations still depend on feedback from internal and external stakeholders who will experience the impacts of our recommendations.

APPENDIX M: EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TEAM (IDT) SUBCOMMITTEES' LEARNING AND SUCCESSES LIST

EP IDT:

a) Has preliminarily identified three pilot project areas around temporary workers, youth navigational support, and capital improvement projects that could equitably serve a diverse labor pool in 2019.

Outreach Subcommittee:

a) Documenting existing community involvement efforts in partnership with the Department of Neighborhoods to create consistent approach to conducting outreach.

Training/Backfill Subcommittee:

a) Identified where training resources are being spent related to Employment Pathways and where programs may not align with regular employment and advancement opportunities.

b) Preliminary map that shows training resources appear concentrated at developing skills to access entry-level (in the City or with other employers), or for upper-level occupational mobility; very few resources are available for entry level (temps and fulltime) to move up their career trajectory.

c) Connecting entry-level green jobs with next levels of green jobs to map pathways.

d) Determined that apprenticeships may be less of a focus for creating scalable, sustainable pathways to regular employment due to union standards and restrictions, the limited number of apprenticeship pockets, and competitive applicant pool for small number of apprenticeship positions.

Upskill Subcommittee:

a) Listed structural barriers to upward mobility at the City and cultural barriers to Employment Pathways.

b) Gathering data around equitable hiring practices to inform ways to promote upward mobility for people of color

Figure 45: Employment Pathways IDT Deliverables, Challenges

Deadlines EP IDT Deliverables Challenges

Q1, 2017 Inventory entry-level jobs and City-resourced training programs (COMPLETED)

Map alignment with green jobs, City, and local employment opportunities. 1. Occupational demand data isn't accurate or accessible; data disaggregation and searches are conducted mostly per-employee which is extremely time consuming.

2. Some training programs were developed to meet a business need as a stop-gap measure.

3. Very few resources appear available for entry level staff (temps and fulltime) to move up in their career trajectory.

4. Temporary workers cannot access professional development opportunities to assist their career growth.

Q2, 2018 Recommend ways to promote upward mobility and success in green jobs, City, and local employment opportunities. 1. Succession efforts are not happening based on occupational demand or in a consistent or strategic way.

2. We do not know what the City is measuring around conversion rates, if data is being gathered, or its accuracy.

3. Pockets are allocated based on a legislative process that can't address real-time business needs.

4. The Classification system uses qualifications that are outdated and do not align with current job tasks because they have not been reviewed since 1991.

Q4, 2018 Identify outreach and engagement strategies that promote the success of people of color. 1. Outreach and recruitment strategies are not driven by occupational demand.

Q4, 2018 Develop a coordinated structure for the City to partner with workforce training partners (Community Colleges, Career, and Tech Education Programs, etc.) who support diverse communities. 1. No way to share occupational demand information and talent pipelines interdepartmentally.

2. No existing way to share business needs with workforce training partners who could prepare and refer talent.

Q4, 2018 Engage with regional employers around leading workforce equity practices. 1. Regional efforts around workforce equity are happening in silos and might be duplicative or inefficient.

Out-of-Scope Challenges that Impact Employment Pathways

Create a consistent narrative about City culture from the leadership level that promotes the success of employment pathways recommendations.

Highest levels of leadership need increased accountability; one example is that certain levels of leadership are said to be exempt from trainings like the Training to Minimize Bias in Employment Decisions even though this level of leadership often highly influences or makes hiring and advancement decisions.

Train existing citywide staff in consistent recruitment and retention strategies.

Create accountability and quality assurance around process implementation in recruiting and retention. One example is training recruiters to determine education to experience equivalencies in the same way.

APPENDIX N: TARGETED RECRUITMENT 2018 ACTIONS

Increasing the diversity of the City workforce and access to opportunity within city jobs is a top priority for this administration. Below is a summary of actions planned for 2018 to advance this goal. Additional methods to strengthen targeted recruitments are regularly being developed and will be rolled out throughout the year.

1. City hiring managers and recruitment teams strategically plan how a position will be advertised to best ensure outreach efforts will generate a well-populated, diverse pool of qualified applicants (including women, racial/ethnic minorities, veterans, and persons with disabilities) and ensure those efforts are documented.

2. Send notice of vacant positions to individuals identified from ongoing networking and seek names of prospective applicants for vacant positions from those contacts.

3. Place announcements in discipline-specific journals and publications aimed specifically at underrepresented groups.

4. Send electronic announcements/request nominations from related departments in historically Black colleges and Universities; and Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian serving institutions; and women's colleges and universities.

5. Request names of prospective applicants from directories of association members.

6. Contact a minority or women's caucus within the discipline or professional association.

7. Consult with City Affinity Groups, and staff of color, and women for other suggestions about how/where to recruit.

8. Communicate City's commitment to workforce equity with potential applicants as a part of recruitment/outreach efforts.

9. Post vacant positions in strategic diversity-targeted recruitment sites.

10. Use diversity-inclusive language in job ads to communicate to prospective applicants that the City is committed to a diverse and inclusive workplace community.

APPENDIX O: SEATTLE POLICE AND FIRE HIRING EQUITY ANALYSIS ACTION PLAN

Introduction

The Mayor and City Council are committed to removing barriers to equity within the City of Seattle's workforce. The aim is to have an inclusive and diverse workforce that is best able to serve the communities of Seattle because it is representative of the people who live and work in Seattle. This vision began over ten years ago when the City of Seattle launched its Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), to end institutionalized racism and discrimination and address structural barriers to full inclusion in City government. In recent years, significant work has been done to build on the City's RSJI efforts and increase equity in the City's workforce. This includes 2015 executive orders on RSJI, the Workforce Equity Executive Order 2015-02, and the 2016 Workforce Equity Strategic Plan.

The action plan outlined here is in answer to the above steps, particularly section 1d and 1e of Executive Order 2015-02, offering a set of recommendations to remove barriers to equity in the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and the Seattle Fire Department (SFD) entry-level hiring process. It continues the City's commitment to remove institutional and structural barriers to full participation in the workplace for all City of Seattle employees. This includes the societal structures and institutions that keep people of color, and other underrepresented groups, such as women in firefighting, from accessing the same opportunities as others. Institutional and structural barriers are often referred to as barriers to equity. Barriers to equity can also include individual bias. This is in line with the City's definition of workforce equity:

Analysis Process

In response to Workforce Equity Executive Order 2015-02, the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) hired the public safety consultant, the Sawgrass Group Inc. The Sawgrass Group was tasked with identifying barriers to inclusive entry-level hiring for SPD and SFD and make recommendations for entry-level hiring, with the goal of having police officers and firefighters who are best able to perform their duties and serve the diverse communities of Seattle.

The Sawgrass Group Inc. worked with the SPD, SFD and SDHR on three types of analysis that led to this action plan:

1. Mapping of the entry-level hiring process for the SPD and SFD

2. Job Task Analysis for the role of Seattle Police Officer and Firefighter

3. Analysis of the barriers to equity in entry-level hiring for the SPD and SFE

Additionally, the City of Seattle Workforce Equity Economist provided statistical analysis of the SPD and SFD hiring processes which led to many of the findings and recommendations captured below. Stakeholder engagement, including with the Seattle Community Police Commission, was a cornerstone of the project with multiple listening sessions to identify barriers to hiring equity with SPD and SFD.

Analysis Objectives

This document outlines the SDHR's and the SFD's prioritized findings and recommendations to advance entry-level firefighter hiring equity. The work is based in three key criteria:

1. Equity - Remove barriers to equity in the SPD and SFD entry-level hiring process for people of color and other historically marginalized or underrepresented groups;

2. Compliance - Ensure the City has a fair hiring process; and

3. Transparency - Ensure the hiring process and hiring decision-making are easily understood and navigable by applicants, police officers and firefighters.

Seattle Police Department Barriers to Equity and Proposed Strategies

Although the SPD hiring of people of color has increased significantly in recent years, there are still opportunities to improve the SPD entry-level hiring process. In 2015 and 2016, Black, Native American / Alaskan Native, Hispanic, women and men of color, and white women candidates were less likely to make it through the steps of the SPD hiring process and become Seattle Police Officers.

This finding required a closer look at the hiring process which identified barriers to equity at specific steps of the hiring process. There are 8 strategies this action plan recommends, given the barriers to equity. Each strategy is tied to the barrier that it is intended to address and the impact it is proposed to affect. The actions are ordered according to implementation priority. As each action is undertaken, the aim is to remove barriers to equity through a more simplified and transparent process. This is the guiding principle for any changes made moving forward.

Figure 46: Seattle Police Department Hiring Equity Action Plan

Strategy Barrier(s) to Equity Action Steps

1. Eliminate identified barriers to applicant success

For example, women pass the medical exam at a low rate. a. Ensure participation in unbiased decision-making employment training for any civilian or uniformed staff involved in the hiring process;

b. Remove or mitigate disqualifying criteria that impacts one demographic group more than others;

c. In particular, assess each potentially disqualifying criteria of the medical exam for impacts to demographic groups and linkages to the job task analysis; and

d. Assess why the Seattle Fire Department does not have this barrier to equity in their medical exam and adopt learned practices.

2. Ensure employment decisions are equitable and transparent to the applicant

For example, men of color pass the pre-polygraph interview at a disproportionately low rate and men, especially men of color, pass the polygraph at a lower rate, but often candidates never understand if they should reapply or not.26

a. Ensure each step on the SPD side of the hiring process (after a register is sent to SPD) is administered transparently to the applicant, in a pass/fail manner, and tracked for the impact on candidate pool demographics;

b. Add yearly racial equity and implicit bias training for polygraph and backgrounding administrators specific to the impacts of the backgrounding stage of the hiring process;

c. Add preparation for applicants prior to the polygraph to demystify the process, including a discussion of how the process may affect the candidate;

d. Complete a racial equity toolkit on the backgrounding and polygraph process and implement mitigation strategies; and

e. Share with candidates the general basis for applicant disqualification during backgrounding and inform the candidate whether they should consider reapplying in the future.

3. Build a support system for each stage of the hiring process

Stages of the SPD hiring process impact some demographic groups more than others. For example, women of color, white women,26 and Native American / Alaska Native candidates pass the first physical agility test (PAT) at a low rate.

a. Develop an applicant communication, workshop, and mentorship strategy tied to targeted recruitment goals for each stage of the hiring process;

b. Particularly, expand physical agility test workshops with direct support to candidates of historically underrepresented groups starting in the outreach and recruiting phase of hiring;

c. Add an automatic offer for mentoring and retesting to all candidates who do not pass the PAT but fell within a certain threshold beyond the passing score;

d. Explore how the City-run PAT is predictive of candidate success and remove barriers to equity in it; and

e. Initiate a partnership with the State's Criminal Justice Training Academy to evaluate barriers to equity during the academy process.

4. Expand existing outreach and engagement programs

Application rates of women of color, white women, and API candidates are not representative of King County demographics. a. Continue to evolve the SPD branding strategy that is structured and funded to meet targeted outreach and recruitment goals to address applicant demographic gaps;

b. Continue to resource a strategy for SPD's targeted recruitment efforts that ensures ongoing coordination with the SPD targeted recruitment team;

c. Ensure online information about hiring and timelines is reviewed with a racial equity lens, simplified, and clarified; and

d. Collaborate with SFD targeted recruitment group.

5. Ensure exam is accessible & equitable Women of color, Black, and Native American /Alaskan Native applicants attend the written and video exam at low rates.27 a. Increase testing pre-workshops and locations leading up to the exams; and

b. Develop a strategy for the SPD recruitment group to address differences in exam attendance across applicant demographics.

6. Update PSCSC exam tools Asian Pacific Islander, Black, and women of color candidates pass the video exam at low rates.27

Men of Color pass the oral board interviews at a low rate. a. In the immediate term, confirm that the video test has been validated by the vendor and make the oral board pass fail;

b. Utilize a testing administration practice from the video testing consultant that includes scoring;

c. Apply a racial equity toolkit to the SPD exam and oral board process, continue to evaluate the impacts and benefits of exam components and adjust or eliminate as needed;

d. Annually review exam and oral board tools based on data analysis of results; and

e. Implement shifts in the oral board process from the below options that continue oral board process but remove barriers to equity by including community members on review panels, independent scoring of candidate responses, and a transparent pass/fail scoring structure.

7. Build ongoing data analysis capabilities

The SPD hiring data collection process is not resourced nor set up for continued process improvement to meet hiring equity objectives. a. Develop a process for SPD hiring data collection utilizing NeoGov software;

b. Perform ongoing data collection and analysis with process reassessment occurring every 6 months; and

c. Assess hiring data outcomes relative to hiring equity objectives and make changes when and where necessary.

8. Equitably apply preference points Military veteran's preference points do not currently impact SPD hiring, however, if they did impact SPD hiring, Hispanic and Black applicants are more likely and women29 candidates are less likely to have veteran's status. a. Preference points are not a recommended strategy to remove barriers to equity for SPD candidates, particularly as targeted recruitment will have a greater impact on candidate pool demographics and skills than preference points; and

b. If additional preference points were pursued, it is recommended that the preference points be tied to the role and duties of patrol officer and assessed for potential disparate impact.

Seattle Fire Department Barriers to Equity and Proposed Strategies

While SFD's overall hiring process is not found to have barriers to equity for any particular demographic group, steps of the hiring process do pose barriers to equity for particular demographic groups. For this reason, there are eight strategies this action plan recommends, given the barriers to equity identified by the Sawgrass Group Inc. and the City Economist's statistical analysis. Each strategy is tied to the barrier that it is intended to address and the impact it is proposed to affect. The actions are ordered according to implementation priority. As each action is undertaken, the aim is to remove barriers to equity through a more simplified and transparent process. This is the guiding principle of any changes made moving forward.

Figure 47: Seattle Fire Department Hiring Equity Analysis Action Plan

Strategy Barrier(s) to Equity Action Steps

9. Eliminate identified barriers to applicant success

For example, the hiring process is infrequent, has too many steps, and takes too long, causing loss of highly competitive candidates. Other jurisdictions hire candidates more quickly. e. Enable hiring cycles more often than once every two years;

f. Develop a strategy to reduce the number of steps in, and timeframe of, the hiring process;

g. Ensure participation in Training to Reduce Bias in Employment Decisions for any civilian or uniformed staff involved in the hiring process; and

h. Remove or mitigate disqualifying criteria that impacts one demographic group more than others.

10. Build a support system for each stage of the hiring process to include mentoring & expanding existing cadet programs Stages of the SFD hiring process impact some demographic groups more than others. For example, women were less likely to pass drill school. f. Develop an applicant to recruit communication, workshop, and mentorship strategy tied to targeted recruitment goals for each stage of the hiring process;

g. Particularly, expand existing programs including the fire cadet program and formalize drill school practice workshops with direct support to candidates and recruits of historically underrepresented groups starting in the recruiting phase of hiring;

h. Assess how drill school is predictive of firefighter recruit success and remove barriers to equity in drill school, such as ramping up the physical requirements throughout drill school with testing occurring at later stages; and

i. Standardize the criteria utilized to recommend a firefighter recruit who did not pass drill school the first time to be put on the recommended rehire list & add embedded mentoring into drill school.

11. Ensure employment decisions are equitable and transparent

For example, lack of File Review transparency makes it difficult to explain why Black, White, and API candidates are less likely to get a conditional offer. j. Ensure each step on the SFD side of the hiring process (after a register is sent to SFD) is administered transparently, in a pass/fail manner, and tracked for the impact on candidate pool demographics;

k. Particularly, eliminate the File Review phase and move components that are necessary, and tied to the job task analysis, to the Public Safety and Civil Service side of the hiring process;

l. Proactively review & refresh the hiring register to ensure continued candidate eligibility; and

m. Establish and share criteria for the Chief's interview with candidates.

12. Build outreach and engagement programs Application rates by women of color, white women, and Asian candidates are not representative of King County demographics. a. Develop a SFD branding strategy that is structured and funded to meet targeted outreach and recruitment goals to address applicant demographic gaps;

b. Design a strategy for SFD targeted recruitment that ensures ongoing coordination with the SFD targeted recruitment team;

c. Ensure online information about hiring and timelines is reviewed with a racial equity lens, simplified, and clarified; and

d. Collaborate with and learn from the SPD targeted recruitment group.

13. Ensure exam process is accessible & equitable Black applicants attend the written exam at a low rate.29

c. Increase testing pre-workshops and locations leading up to the exams;

d. Increase testing frequency and locations; and

e. Develop a strategy for the SFD recruitment group to address differences in exam attendance across applicant demographics.

14. Update PSCSC exam tools Black and Hispanic candidates pass the exam at low rates. 30

Women of color and men of color candidates are less likely to be in the top 25 percent of candidates who pass the oral board exam.29

f. Replace the written exam with a video exam;

g. Apply a Racial Equity Toolkit to the SFD exam and oral board process, continue to evaluate the impacts and benefits of exam components and adjust or eliminate as needed;

h. Annually adjust exam and oral board tools based on data analysis of results; and

i. Implement shifts in the oral board process that remove barriers to equity for community members and uniform review panels, independent scoring of candidate responses, and a transparent pass/fail scoring structure.

15. Build ongoing data analysis capabilities

The SFD hiring data collection process is not resourced nor set up for continued process improvement to meet hiring equity objectives. d. Develop a process for SFD hiring data collection utilizing NEOGOV software;

e. Perform ongoing data collection and analysis with process reassessment occurring every six months;

f. Coordinate budget and operational impact assessment for recommended changes; and

g. Assess hiring data outcomes relative to hiring equity objectives and make changes when and where necessary.

16. Equitably apply preference points Women and person of color applicants are less likely to have veteran's status. In 2015 and 2016, only male candidates benefited from veteran's preference points. a. Military targeted recruitment and community targeted recruitment are recommended strategies;

b. It is also recommended that the City update the job description of firefighter to encompass the full range of community interactions and skills required of the role and to enable the hiring process to rely on this job description; and

c. It is recommended that all hiring criteria be tied to this updated job description and assessed for potential barriers to equity.

APPENDIX P: JANUARY 5, 2018 FIREFIGHTER TESTING STAKEHOLDER GROUP

Allison King (Seattle Fire Department, Firefighter)

Chief Amy Bannister (Seattle Fire Department, Battalion Chief)

Andrea Ramirez (Seattle Department of Human Resources, Equity Training & Leadership Development Advisor)

Carl Swander (Owner, Ergometrics)

Chief Doug Windle (Seattle Fire Department, Battalion Chief and former recruiting lead)

Dori Towler (Human Resources, Seattle Fire Department)

Felecia Caldwell (Workforce Equity Director, Seattle Department of Human Resources)

Helen Fitzpatrick (Executive Director of Administration, Seattle Fire Department)

Jennifer Greenlee (Executive Director, Public Safety Civil Service Committee)

Joseph Russell (Economist, CBO)

Julie D'Alessandro (Seattle Fire Department,)

Lt. Doug Johnson (Firefighter and Race & Social Justice Lead, Seattle Fire Department,)

Lt. Roberto Jourdan (Firefighter, Black Firefighter Association, Seattle Fire Department,)

Yoshiko Grace Matsui (Seattle Department of Human Resources)

Lt. Jon Goins (Seattle Fire Department,)

Patty Navaez-Wheeler (Seattle Department Human Resources)

Rachael Schade (Seattle Department Human Resources)

Kim Dow (Seattle Department Human Resources)

Lenee Jones (Seattle Department Human Resources Labor Relations)

Kenny Stuart (Seattle Fire Department, Lieutenant/ Local 27 President)

APPENDIX Q: ITEMS PRESENTED BY SDHR TO PUBLIC SAFETY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (PSCSC) ON 2/15/18

The following items were presented to the Public Safety Civil Service Commission and SDHR will request direction from the Mayor and City Council on how to proceed.

Which languages will receive preference points.

At which level should applicants read/speak/write a language to receive preference points.

Guidance for assessing the community service experience (outside of programs like Peace Corps).

Ensuring policy complies with Federal/State law: By state law (RCW 41.12), SDHR is responsible for ensuring validity of preference points (current legislation does not accurately reflect this, legislation names the department director as the party responsible for this).

Ensuring policy complies with Federal/State law: Assess whether adding preference points for language and community service is in conflict with mandated Veteran's preference points.

Identifying resources for completing a new/updated job description and job task analysis that clearly aligns the language and community service skills with specific components of the job being performed (most likely this would be a consultant as we do not have internal resources to complete this).

Identifying resources for language preference points research and implement appropriate assessment methods.

APPENDIX R: GENDER JUSTICE STRATEGIES OVERVIEW

All-Gender Restroom Ordinance

Everybody has basic needs, including using a restroom. Despite existing protections based on gender identity, transgender and gender nonconforming people often experience a variety of obstacles, when trying to use public restrooms and other gender-specific facilities consistent with their gender identities. These experiences sometimes lead to significant health problems from having to avoid using public restrooms.

After extensive input from community, including the Seattle LGBTQ Commission, Gender Justice League, Ingersoll Gender Center, LGBTQ Allyship, and Pride Foundation, SOCR worked with the Mayor's Office to pass the All-Gender Restroom Ordinance, which helps achieve greater restroom access for transgender and gender diverse individuals. The ordinance also clarifies the rights of individuals to use gender-specific facilities that are consistent with their gender identity. The All-Gender Restroom Ordinance applies to existing and newly-built City facilities, as well as in public places in Seattle. It allows use of single-occupant restrooms by any person, regardless of sex or gender identity, and prevents those restrooms from being restricted to a specific sex or gender identity.

Gender Justice Project (GJP) staff worked with SOCR's enforcement team to lead a stakeholder process for the development of administrative rules and FAQs for the All-Gender Restroom Ordinance toward the end of 2015. This law went into effect in 2016 and has thus far been an effective tool in helping create a more accessible and welcoming built environment for people of all gender identities in Seattle.

City of Seattle LGBTQ Action Plan

In 2015, the former Mayor convened a taskforce to address issues concerning the LGBTQ community in Seattle. This taskforce worked for several months to identify priorities for the LGBTQ community and create a list of recommendations for the City to better serve the community, increase public safety, and promote understanding of LGBTQ people. GJP staff helped coordinate the work laid out in the Mayor's LGBTQ Action Plan, including centering the needs of women of color, transgender, and gender nonconforming people, and coordinating and/or assisting the work of other departments identified in the Action Plan.

Gender Identity Competency Training for Front Line Staff: Launched 2016

The City has 10,000 employees who engage daily with Seattle residents and other customers. Our goal is to support City staff in providing the best in customer service by ensuring inclusivity is a part of every interaction. To that end, the GJP developed and launched training in 2016 on gender identity for frontline City staff, titled Understanding Gender Diversity in our Communities: All Gender Restrooms. This training has since been delivered to Seattle Parks recreation and community staff throughout the department. Our aim for 2018 is to roll out the training to other departments whose work includes direct interactions with the community.

Building Awareness and Supporting Seattle's Gender Diverse Community

In 2016, GJP launched the LGBTQ Visibility Campaign, spotlighting community members who represent a variety of LGBTQ identities in Seattle, with an emphasis on the intersections of race, gender, and sexual orientation. This campaign highlighted the strength and resilience that make up LGBTQ individuals, while emphasizing the role of SOCR in upholding antidiscrimination laws and promoting race and gender justice. We also support education efforts on the All-Gender Restroom Ordinance and the Ban on the Use of Conversion Therapy for Minors, as well as all our civil rights protections to ensure our communities are aware of their rights under the law. In 2018, we will continue to seek new ways to collaborate with and support the LGBTQ community in Seattle, including engaging with local advocacy groups, our civil rights commissions, and other stakeholders.

Ban on the Use of Conversion Therapy on Minors: Passed and Implemented 2016

Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) are practices or treatments that attempt to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, based on the discredited theory that being LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) is a defect or disorder. GJP staff supported Councilmember Gonzalez's efforts to develop a ban on the use of conversion therapy on minors within Seattle city limits. This law was passed and made effective in 2016. GJP staff also led the administrative rule-making process with relevant stakeholders, and have worked with the community to carry out an outreach campaign that focuses on schools and community centers. Outreach work will continue through 2018.

Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace

In October 2016, SOCR and the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) formed an interdepartmental group to develop the Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace a rubric for departments to create a more welcoming environment for transgender and gender diverse employees, and a protocol for accommodating gender transitions in the workplace. These guidelines were developed using resources from the Transgender Law Center and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, stakeholder engagement including internal and external community members, and a racial equity analysis. The main racial equity outcome envisioned is that all transgender employees of color at the City of Seattle can transition with ease, respect, and dignity, and on the employee's terms.

This guidance was released in 2017 to all departments and will soon be accompanied by a supplementary training.

Training on Gender Identity in the Workplace: Launching 2018

The Gender Justice Project is in the final stages of developing a new training on Gender Identity in the Workplace, which will serve as a supplement to the guidance co-created with SDHR. Training of this kind is already provided on an ad hoc basis for departments seeking support with accommodating transitioning employees, or ensuring their staff have basic comprehension of gender identity and expression. This training will be made available to all City staff, and will help City employees learn appropriate language and terminology, better understand gender diversity, and foster an affirming and inclusive work environment.

REFERENCES

1. Avery, D. R, McKay, P.F,. Tonidandel, S,. Volpone, S. D., & Morris, M. A. (2012). Is there a method to the madness? Examining how racial ethnic matching influences retail store productivity. Personnel Psychology, 65, 167-199.

2. Behson, S.J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family support. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66, 487-500. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.004

3. Bloom, N. & Van Reenan, J. (2002). Management Practices, Work Life Balance and Productivity: A Review of Some Recent Evidence. Oxford review of Economic Policy, 22(4), 457-482.

4. C.B. 118356 (2015) (enacted). Paid Parental Leave Benefit. City of Seattle. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s3=&s4=&s5=paid parental leave&s1=&s2=&S6=&Sect4=AND&l=0&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=/~public/cbor1.htm&r=1&f=G

5. Caldow, J. (2009). Working Outside the Box: A Study of the Growing Momentum in Telework. Institute for Electronic Government, IBM Corporation.

6. Comfort, D., Johnson, K., & Wallace D. (2003). Part-time work and family friendly practices in Canadian workplaces. The Evolving Workplace Series. Statistics Canada (Catalogue No. 71-584-MIE No. 6). Ottawa. Ministry of Industry.

7. Czopp, A. M,. Monteith, M. & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784-803.

8. DCI Consulting Group, Inc. (2015). City of Seattle Workforce Pay Equity and Utilization Report. Retrieved May 17, 2016, from: http://murray.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/City-of-Seattle-Workforce-Pay-Equity-and-Utilization-Report-FINAL.pdf

9. Dex, F and Scheibl, F (2002) SMEs and Flexible Working Arrangements. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

10. Dex, S. & Scheibl, F. (2001) FLEXIBLE AND FAMILY-FRIENDLY WORKING ARRANGEMENTS IN UK-BASED SMES: BUSINESS CASES. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39 (3). 411-431. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grj027

11. Eaton, S. C. (2001) If You Can Use Them: Flexibility Policies, Organizational Commitment and Perceived Performance. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series. RWP01-009.

12. Gender Equity in Pay Taskforce, 2014. Gender Equity in Pay at the City of Seattle (Rep.). Retrieved April 29, 2016, from City of Seattle website: http://murray.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Gender-Equity-In-Pay-Task-Force-Report.pdf

13. Golden, H., Hinlke S., & Crosby, F. J. (2001). Reactions to affirmative action: Substance and semantics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 73-88.

14. Goldstein, I. L,. & Lundunquist, K. K. (2010). A five-year journey with Coca-cola. In Outtz, J. L. (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications of organizational staffing and high stakes selection (pp. 473-501). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

15. Governing Data (n.d.). Seattle Gentrification Maps and Data. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from http://www.governing.com/gov-data/seattle-gentrification-maps-demographic-data.html

16. Gray, M., and Tudball, J. (2002). "Family-Friendly Work Practices: Differences within and between Workplaces." Journal of Industrial Relations, 45, 269-291.

17. Greensheet 2016-155-1-A-1 (2015) (enacted). Retrieved from the City of Seattle website: http://clerk.seattle.gov/dtsearch.html

18. Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C.(2006). Affirmative action: Unintended adverse effects. In M.F. Karsten (Ed.), Gender,race,and ethnicity in the workplace (Vol. 2, pp. 1-24). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

19. Jayne, M. E., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409-424. doi:10.1002/hrm.20033

20. Kalev, A, Dobbin, F, & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589-617.

21. Kravitz, D. A.(2008) The diversity-validity dilemma: Beyond selection- the role of affirmative action. Personnel Psychology, 61,173-193.

22. Lindsey, A., King, E., McCausland, T., Jones, K.& Dunleavy, E., (2013). What we know and don't: eradicating employment discrimination 50 years after the civil rights act. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6 (2013), 391413.

23. Macleod, D. and Clarke, N., (2010). Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagment - A report to Government. Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, United Kingdom. Retrieved May 20, 2016, fromhttp://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1810/1/file52215.pdf

24. Murray, E. B. (2015). Executive Order 2015-02 (City of Seattle, Mayor's Office). Retrieved May 13, 2016, from http://murray.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-Exec- Order-3-31-15-Final.pdf

25. Nelson A , Nemec K, Solvik P & Ramsden C (2004) The evaluation of the Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund. Employment Relations Research Series No. 32. London: DTI.

26. Pendry, L. F., Driscoll, D. M., & Field, C. T. (2007). Diversity training: Putting theory into practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 227-250.

27. Perry-Smith JE, Blum TC. (2000). Work-family resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal 43(6), 11071117.

28. Prognos (2005) Work Life Balance: Engine for economic growth and social stability: analysis of macroeconomic effects. Berlin: Prognos AG.

29. Resolution 31523 (2014) (enacted). Retrieved from the City of Seattle website: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=RESF&s1=31523.resn.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/%7Epublic/resn1.htm&r=1&f=G

30. Seattle Department of Human Resources. (2016). City of Seattle Benefits. City of Seattle Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.seattle.gov/personnel/benefits/pubs/2016BenefitsAtAGlance.pdf

31. Seattle Office for Civil Rights. (2016). About RSJI. City of Seattle. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://www.seattle.gov/rsji/about

32. Smeaton, D., Ray, K., & Knight, G. (2014). Costs and Benefits to Business of Adopting Work Life Balance Working Practices: A Literature Review. United Kingdom, Department for Business Innovation & Skills, Employment Relations. Retrieved May, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323290/bis- 14-903-costs-and-benefits-to-business-of-adopting-work-life-balance-working-practices-aliterature-review.pdf

33. Sorenson, S. (2013). How Employee Engagemet Drives Growth. Retrieved May, 27, 2016 from http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/163130/employee-engagement-drives-growth.aspx

34. Stavrou, E. (2005). Flexible work bundles and organizational competitiveness: a cross-national study of the European work context. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 26(8), 923947. DOI: 10.1002/job.356.

35. Thomas, D. A. & Ely, R. Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review 74(5), 7990. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from https://hbr.org/1996/09/making-differences-matter-a-new-paradigm-for-managing-diversity/ar/1

36. U.S. Department of Labor, 2016. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved June, 2016, from https://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fmla.

37. White. M, Hill.S, McGovern.P, Mills.C & Smeaton.D (2003) High performance management practices, working hours and work life. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41 (2), 175- 195. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8543.00268

38. Wizdom P. A., Marion G., & Irene H. Y. (2010). Workplace Discrimination and Depressive Symptoms: A study of Multi-Ethic Hospital Employees. Race Soc Probl, 2 (1),: 19-30. DOI: 10.1007/s12552- 010-9024-0

39. Yasbek, P. (2004). The business case for firm-level work-life balance policies: A review of the literature. Wellington, New Zealand: Labour Market Policy Group, Department of Labour. Retrieved May 25, 2016, from http://www.dol.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB.pdf.