Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

TABLE OF FIGURES 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

INTRODUCTION 5

PLATFORM STRATEGIES 8

METRICS 8

MINIMIZE BIAS IN EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS TRAINING (MBED) 13

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (E3) 15

LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY 16

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT STRATEGIES 17

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE & PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE 17

EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS 19

TARGETED RECRUITMENT 20

INCREASED ACCESS TO TRAINING 21

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 22

INCREASED ACCESS TO ALTERNATIVE WORK ARRANGEMENTS 24

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 31588 25

EMPLOYEE EXIT & ENGAGEMENT SURVEYS 25

FIRE & POLICE HIRING EQUITY 26

WORKFORCE EQUITY PLANNING & ADVISORY COMMITTEE 28

MAYORAL DIRECTIVE 29

ANTI-HARASSMENT AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION 29

CONCLUSION 30

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY PEOPLE OF COLOR (POC) / WHITE .9

FIGURE 2: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT: PEOPLE OF COLOR BY RACE GROUPS ...10

FIGURE 3: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY GENDER ..11

FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY RACE AND GENDER CROSS-SECTIONS ..12

FIGURE 5 PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (PPL) AND PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE (PFCL) USE, 2015-2018 .18

FIGURE 6: SEATTLE FIRE DEPARTMENT HIRING TRENDS FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR AND WOMEN ..27

FIGURE 7: SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT HIRING TRENDS FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR AND WOMEN .27

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following people and teams for their time and insights in developing this report. Without their contributions, neither implementation of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan nor this report is possible. This work and report exist 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

Bobby Humes, Interim Director, Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR)

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

Ben Noble, Director, City Budget Office (CBO)

WFE Accountability Report Leadership

Felecia Caldwell, Workforce Equity Division Director, SDHR

Andrea Ramirez, Interim Workforce Equity Director, SDHR

Bailey Hinckley, Workforce Equity Project Manager, SDHR

Dave Wright, Workforce Planning and Development Advisor, SDHR

Deborah Jaquith, Communications Manager, SDHR

Debbie White, Employment Pathways Strategic Advisor, SDHR

Deena Pierrot, Equity Recruitment and Engagement Strategic Advisor, SDHR

David Hennes, Revenue Forecast Manager, CBO

Heather Weldon, Supported Employment Program Manager, SDHR

Jeanne Fulcher, Interim Employment Pathways Strategic Advisor, SDHR

Jessica Wang, Fiscal and Policy Analyst, CBO

Joseph Russell, Labor and Policy Economist, CBO

Kathryn Ewing, Economist, CBO

Laura Southard, Deputy Director of Service Delivery, SDHR

Laurra Corsello, One City HR Strategic Advisor, SDHR

Loren Othon, Gender Justice Project Advisor, SOCR

Patricia Narvaez-Wheeler, Professional Development Learning Partner, SDHR

Shauna Fitzner, City Leave Administrator, SDHR

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

Travis Taylor, City Investigator, SDHR

Patricia Narvaez-Wheeler, Professional Development Learning Partner, SDHR

Eva Belasko, E3 Performance Management Strategic Advisor, SDHR

Tina Devrin, Senior Learning Technology Partner, SDHR

Holly Krejci, City Leadership Academy Program Advisor, SDHR

Rachael Schade, Police Exams Administrator, SDHR

Yoshiko Matsui, Fire Exams Administrator, SDHR

Kim Dow, Personnel Analyst, Fire and Police Exams, SDHR

Sally Dewar, Senior Training Specialist, SDHR

Manuela Marculescu, Senior Cornerstone Administrator, SDHR

Dane Keehn, Manager, Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, SDHR

Vivien Sharples,

Sandra Wong, Workforce Development Program Coordinator

Stefanie Thornton, Workforce Equity Program Specialist, SDHR

Keith Gulley, Director of Talent Acquisition Services, SDHR

Janell Morgan Ndegwa, Senior Training Specialist, SDHR

Jeffrey Rohrback, Office Aide, SDHR

Elsa Nakahara, Office Aide, SDHR

Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC)

Mariko Lockhardt, SOCR Co-Chair

Bobby Humes, SDHR Co-Chair

Tamar Zere, OCR Lead

Felecia Caldwell, SDHR Lead

Diana Falchuk, ARTS & SOCR

Joseph Russell, CBO

Kenny Pittman, OIR

Darius Foster, OLS

Steve Sneed, SC

Linda Elwood, SDCI

Bailey Hinckley, SDHR

Jeff Miller, SDHR Labor Relations

Andrea Ramirez, SDHR

Manal Al-ansi, SDOT

Dat Nguyen, SPU

Ray Sugarman, Local 17

Kenny Stuart, Local 27

Objective

Introduction

Mayor 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 and Council Resolution 31588.

Background

This report is a review of the implementation of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan, issued by the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) and the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR) in July 2016. The strategic plan outlines a path for the City as it strives to reduce institutional and structural barriers to City of Seattle employment and support the well-being and inclusion of all employees. This will enable a workforce that reflects the people we servethe people who live and work in greater Seattle.

Currently, the City of Seattle workforce reflects the demographics of the communities we serve, but not in higher levels of pay or supervisory authority. Additionally, People of Color and women exit City employment at a disproportionate rate. Organizations with workforce demographics that match the people they aim to serve outperform those who do not. The City has an opportunity to improve service to the people of Seattle by focusing on removing barriers to employment at the City and advancing workforce equity. Each year of work brings us closer to this aim.

Vision

The definition of "workforce equity" found at the start of this document is both aspirational and operational to the City of Seattle. It describes a workplace of full representation and inclusion. Beyond representation, the purpose of workforce equity at the City of Seattle is to remove structural and institutional barriers that impede this vision and has specific investments in the workforce.

Report Outline

This report includes updates to the WFE Strategic Plan as resourced by the Mayor and City Council in 2018. It provides the City's roadmap to achieve workforce equity. The report starts with a review of the City's current employment demographics. The next section of the report shares updates on the City's has platform strategies which are fundamental to change workplace culture. After this section is an update on the workforce investment strategies which support employee career growth. Additionally, this report outlines work completed on Council Resolution 31588. An accompanying Technical Report provides additional data and information, to support each update, when needed.

Each Platform and Workforce Investment Strategy was informed by five data sources : an employee survey with over 4,000 respondents, employee listening sessions, leadership interviews, benchmarking against regional competitors, and a literature review. All the strategies undertaken have been developed using Citywide teams and tools used to analyze and address racial equity impacts of any strategy. A copy of the City's Racial Equity Toolkit is in the Technical Report for reference.

Platform Strategies

The workforce platform strategies fundamental to workplace culture change that have been implemented are:

1. Metrics: employee demographic data analysis measuring progress on the definition of WFE

2. Training to minimize bias in employment decisions

3. Employee performance management system (E3)

4. Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP)

Workforce Investment Strategies

The workforce investment strategies supporting employee career growth that have been implemented are:

5. Employment pathways

6. Paid parental leave and paid family care leave

7. Targeted recruitment

8. Increased access to training

9. Leadership development

10. Improved access to flexible scheduling

Council Resolution and Mayoral Direction

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

11. Employee exit & engagement surveys

12. Fire and police entry-level assessment changes to remove barriers to hiring equity

13. Workforce Equity Planning & Advisory Committee (WEPAC)

14. Anti-harassment and anti-discrimination initiative

Other Strategies Not Included in this Report

The below strategies are not resourced, not currently technically possible or require negotiation with the City's Labor partners prior to implementation. They are not updated in the report:

1. Employee web portal

2. Step Exception Data

3. Seniority re-starts

4. Step-wage increases for part-time employees

The following now have independent reporting or update automatically and are not updated here:

1. Consolidated human resources (City HR)

2. Gender Justice Project

3. Wage transparency- employee wages are now posted annually.

Platform Strategies

Metrics

Overview

The Workforce Equity Strategic Plan (July 2016) identified the measurement of results as a key component of accountability for the City. These metrics are designed to measure the City's progress toward workforce equity. Below is a summary of key findings. A complete presentation of methodology and results can be found in the Technical Report.

Key Accomplishments

The previous Workforce Equity Accountability Report (July 2018) introduced a framework for how the City of Seattle will measure progress towards its definition of workforce equity using employee demographics and survey responses. That report also presented baseline results for those metrics using City workforce data as of December 2017. Below are updated results for 2018.

The City's definition of workforce equity is aspirational, and change is expected to be gradual as the results represent broad trends with many societal causes. Multi-year data is needed to measure progress. An analysis of change across time will be included in future reports as we continue to collect data on this progress.

2019 Objectives

Results in this report measure only the first half of the City's workforce equity definition, pertaining to representation in the workforce. The City is committed to measuring equity outcomes at various points in the employment cycle: attraction, selection, retention and participation. In 2019, the Workforce Equity team in SDHR continues its efforts to collect data on these elements of the employment cycle to produce results in future reports, including working with Human Resources (HR) and Information Technology (IT) staff to make changes to various data collection and storage systems.

Summary Results

As of December 2018, the City of Seattle workforce remains representative of People of Color collectively (40.3 percent of the City's workforce vs 38.6 percent of the county population). Yet, People of Color are underrepresented at the top levels of City employment compared to the county population. Among the top quarter of supervisors, they compose 33.3 percent of employees. By pay, People of Color make up 30.0 percent of the top quarter of wage earners.

Figure 1: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by People of Color (POC) / White

By race categories, employees of Latinx descent are the most underrepresented group across the entire City workforce (5.4 percent of the City's workforce versus 9.5 percent of the county population). This under-representation of Latinx employees is found at all four levels of supervisors and wage earners. Employees of Asian descent and employees reporting multiple racial identities are also underrepresented within the overall workforce, as well as at the top levels of the workforce, compared to the county population.

Figure 2: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of Color by Race Groups, December 2018

Our current employee data indicates 39.2 percent of City employees are female as compared to 50.0 percent of 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 31.1 percent female. Among supervisors Citywide, women are underrepresented in all but the bottom quarter of employees. In the top quarter, they make up 35.7 percent of supervisors. Across the pay scale, women are also underrepresented in all but the bottom quarter. In the top quarter of wage earners, they make up 31.4 percent of employees.

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

When examining the intersection of race and gender, both Women of Color and white women are underrepresented in the overall City workforce. Women of Color are most underrepresented at the top levels of City employment. This group makes up 19.4 percent of the county population but just 11.5 percent of the top quarter of supervisors and just 9.4 percent of the top quarter of wage earners.

Figure 4: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2018

Minimize Bias in Employment Decisions training (MBED)

Overview

The MBED program aims to proactively minimize bias and increase equity in all employment decisions by training managers, supervisors, and employees involved in employment decisions (i.e. recruiting, hiring, promoting, and discipline processes) on how to recognize and minimize bias in their decision-making. The MBED program includes the development of a curriculum and facilitator guide, the development and implementation of a train-the-trainer program, and updating existing Citywide trainings that include topics related to employment decisions or implicit bias.

Key Accomplishments

1. Recruited and identified 36 employees from Transportation (SDOT), Parks, SDHR, SOCR, City Light (SCL), Legislative Department, Police (SPD), Fire (SFD), Human Services, Information Technology (IT), and the Budget Office, Mayor's Office, Municipal Court, Libraries, and Office of Economic Development (OED) to support a pilot and/or becoming MBED facilitators.

2. Adapted existing MBED curriculum to a two-and-a-half-hour introductory course while full curriculum is being developed.

3. Delivered Introductory MBED training to 134 panelists for the 2018 SFD entry level firefighter oral board process.

4. Delivered Introductory MBED training to seven SFD recruit school instructors for the 2018 January SFD recruit school.

5. Delivered Introductory MBED training to three SDHR executive search committees including the Chief Technology Officer for Seattle IT, the Director of SDOT and the General Manager and CEO of Seattle City Light.

6. Delivered Introductory MBED for 70 Mayor's Office staff members.

2019 Objectives

In Fall 2018, Mayor Durkan issued Executive Order 2018-04: Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination. This executive order is critical work for the City to create a safe workplace for employees to do their best work and aligns with the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan. MBED training resources in 2019 have been prioritized to support Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination efforts, such developing supervisor/manager training that includes addressing racial bias. This aligns with incorporating the MBED curriculum into the supervisor/manager training being developed in 2019.

Employee Performance Management System (E3)

Overview

The E3 Performance Management program standardizes performance evaluation tools and provides supervisors with learning opportunities to identify strategies that reduce bias in employee evaluation practices. The system uses goal setting and evaluations to recognize employees for their skills and efforts. E3 focuses on a partnership between employees and managers, building stronger communication, collaboration, and respect through understanding. When employees are more engaged in the process, they are more engaged in the outcome. This includes setting goals, regularly scheduled 1:1s, a formally documented mid-year check-in, and an annual review including a self-assessment written by the employee. Evaluation occurs in three areas: Goals and Key Responsibilities, Competencies, and Overall Performance.

Key Accomplishments

The E3 pilot started in April 2016 with four departments and 963 employees. An additional eleven departments and 1,614 staff have launched since. In 2018, the annual review was updated in response to feedback to streamline the process and provide HR business partners more control over the system. A new training for HR business partners includes guides to complete the alignment step, bias and equity considerations, and training for managers to write performance reviews.

2019 Objectives

In 2019, E3 will start in seven new departments impacting 1,800 employees (Office of Economic Development, Office of Housing, Department of Transportation, Community Police Commission, City Clerk's Office, Seattle Fire Department civilians, and some Seattle Police Department civilians) and launch with the rest of the Seattle Center and Finance and Administrative Services.

Leadership Accountability

Overview

Leadership Accountability was highlighted as a key strategy in the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan during the employee survey, literature review, interviews with City Leadership, employee listening sessions, and benchmarking against regional employers. The Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC) spent much of 2018 developing the Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP). The LEAP will be available Citywide and is targeted for use by department directors.

The LEAP includes a guide, department-level metrics on employee demographics, and a self-assessment tool. A portion of the LEAP is available for use in department director performance reviews. The LEAP is intended primarily as a learning tool with the City's value of a culture of learning. Success in Leadership Accountability will exist when Department Directors own their racial equity learning in performance reviews and act on racial disparities in their department whether it is in hiring, discipline, access to training, or employee exits.

Key Accomplishment

The LEAP piloted with the City Leadership Academy and the Race and Social Justice Sub-Cabinet in late 2018 through early 2019. A draft of the LEAP is available in the Technical Report.

2019 Objectives

1. The LEAP will launch Citywide by Summer 2019. Additional tools and updates will continue to be made available following the launch.

2. The first-year directors might expect some LEAP metrics will be discussed in their annual performance review for 2020.

Workforce Investment Strategies

Paid Parental Leave & Paid Family Care Leave

Overview

In February 2017, Ordinance 125260 expanded the City paid parental leave (PPL) to provide twelve possible weeks of fully paid leave (prorated for part-time employees) to allow employees to bond with a new child. This benefit is subject to the availability of other leave. The policy is available to eligible City employees who welcome a new child via birth, adoption, or fostering.

The ordinance also created a new paid family care leave (PFCL) for City employees to care for ill family members for up to four weeks. This benefit is subject to the availability of other leave. PFCL and the added weeks of PPL became available (retroactively) starting January 1, 2017.

Key Accomplishments

Extending paid family leave beyond traditional parental leave was one of the workforce investment strategies in the 2016 Workforce Equity Strategic Plan. This initiative acknowledges that employees have many family-care obligations which often fall to women, and this is particularly true for Women of Color. Like paid parental leave, paid family care leave is known to increase employee engagement and morale, reduce employee anxiety and stress, and increase workforce inclusion and productivity. For the full report on usage and backfill costs for these programs, see the Technical Report.

2019 Objectives

In June 2017, the Washington State legislature voted a new Paid Family Leave insurance program into law that will cover all workers in the state of Washington (Senate Bill 5975). Starting in 2020, this program will generally allow up to 12 weeks per year of partially-paid family leave to beneficiaries with qualifying events for caring and bonding with a new child, certain military-connected events, or to care for a family member experiencing an illness or medical event. Medical leave for qualifying events is also available under this program to care for oneself in relation to an illness or medical event. Additional time is available for employees in limited, special circumstances. Complying with Washington State's insurance program is the primary objective for 2019.

Figure 5 Paid Parental Leave (PPL) and Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL) Use, 2015-2018

Event Yeara

Paid Parental Leave (PPL)

2015b

(4-week policy) 2016

(4-week policy) 2017

(12-week policy) 2018c

(12-week policy)

Count of Beneficiaries 166 324 385 368

Share Female of Beneficiaries 30.7% 29.6% 27.3% 28.8%

Average Age of Beneficiaries 35.7 36.3 36.2 36.3

Average Tenure of Beneficiariesd 7.5 7.6 7.1 7.0

Average Hours Usede 158 152 340 298

Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL)

2015

(no policy) 2016

(no policy) 2017

(4-week policy) 2018c

(4-week policy)

Count of Beneficiaries N/A N/A 158 185

Share Female of Beneficiaries N/A N/A 63.3% 64.9%

Average Age of Beneficiaries N/A N/A 48.1 46.7

Average Tenure of Beneficiariesd N/A N/A 11.9 10.7

Average Hours Usede N/A N/A 123 99

aEvent year refers to the year in which leave was first taken by the beneficiary and may not necessarily be the year the event (birth, illness, etc.) occurred, nor the year in which all leave under the benefit was taken, as both benefits allow for use within 12 months of the event date (PPL) or leave approval (PFCL).

bIn 2015, PPL began mid-year (May 17).

cData for 2018 cannot be considered final as of the publication of this report, as the 12-month window for use of leave has not yet closed for many of beneficiaries. (Data are current as of February 6, 2019.)

dAverage tenure of beneficiaries is based on time since hire at the City, and not total hours worked (the former is blind to part-time vs full-time work, while the latter would weight full-time employees more heavily). This methodology differs from prior versions of this report, which used the latter.

eAverage hours used is calculated using full-time employees only.

For comparison, all benefitted City employees as of December 2018: 38.1% female, average age of 46.3 years, and average tenure of 13.0 years.

Employment Pathways

Overview

The goal of the Employment Pathways Interdepartmental Team (IDT) was to develop recommendations to create an inclusive and diverse workforce that is best able to serve Seattle communities because it is representative of the people who live and work in the greater Seattle area. The recommendations focus on an upskill-backfill model to create career pathways which is necessary since only 6% of the City's allocated positions are entry-level. The upskill-backfill model helps current employees train for higher-skill roles (upskill), creating open positions and opportunities for entry-level workers and new hires to fill (backfill). The upskill-backfill model also promotes employee engagement and retention and enhances culture through learning and development.

Key Accomplishments

Twelve recommendations were submitted to the Mayor and City Council on January 31, 2019. The recommendations promote access and advancement opportunities within the City in three areas: Workforce Planning, Training and Development, and Partnership and Alignment. Objectives in 2019 will address recommendations that align with Targeted Recruitment goals and use existing capacity.

2019 Objectives

1. Expand?the City's internship eligibility criteria, extend internship time periods, and identify how to grow community college internship opportunities with department internship coordinators.

2. Track and use outreach data to engage specific under-represented racial groups and women in pre-apprenticeship programs and connect temporary workers with career resources.

Targeted Recruitment

Overview

The aim of Targeted Recruitment is to have applicant pools and hires reflect the communities the City serves in all positions at the City. For this to occur, targeted recruitment focuses on engaging and creating diverse talent pathways to employment and interview panels. Diversity is defined as these pathways and interview panels being representative of the demographics of King County. The full Targeted Recruitment Plan is in the Technical Report.

Key Accomplishments

1. Launched the first Public Sector Diversity Career Fair, attracting over 400 diverse jobseekers.

2. Attended four diversity focused career fairs and community events.

3. The diversity of SDHR-supported hires in 2018 relative to 2017 were:

Regulars & Temporaries People of Color Women of Color Women Number

2017: 57.5% 35.6% 61.2% women (n=152)

2018: 63.2% 39.9% 65.2% (n=204)

Regulars Only

2017: 57.1% 27.3% 54.4% (n=79)

2018: 54.8% 43.1% 81.3% (n=77)

2019 Objectives

1. Begin to address the need to increase the number of People of Color and Women of Color in Official & Administrator positions; and

2. Develop a plan to recruit more Women of Color into the Skilled Crafts with a potential focus on recruiting from pre-apprenticeship programs that serve diverse populations.

"This is one of the best, and most diverse career fairs I've attended in a very long time. The career advice and networking were amazing." City of Seattle Public Sector Diversity Career Fair attendee

Increased Access to Training

Overview

Increased access to training is intended to ensure that all employees have access to training and career growth opportunities. Career mobility is an important measure of workforce equity. This strategy relies on similar resources to the Leadership Development Strategy and is the current focus as Leadership Development provides more targeted career mobility to smaller numbers of employees.

Strategy Status

The number of Citywide training sessions offered to City employees decreased in 2018 from 118 sessions in 2017 to 96 sessions in 2018. This was due to allocation of resources to increasing the number of Emerging Leaders Trainings by 57percent and staff turnover. Emerging Leaders requires 32 hours of training per session which led to an increase in hours of training offered overall (715.5 hours in 2017 versus 755.5 in 2018). In 2017, there were 2,094 training participants and in 2018 there was a capacity decrease of 23percent to 1,610 participants.

2019 Objectives

In Fall 2018, Mayor Durkan issued Executive Order 2018-04: Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination. This executive order is critical work for the City to have a safe workplace for employees and aligns with the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan. A significant portion of SDHR's Learning, Development, & Organizational Effectiveness (LDOE) resources in 2019 are prioritized to support Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Initiative efforts, such as the development of a supervisor/manager training that includes racial bias training. Fewer employees will have access to training in 2019 while this work is underway.

LDOE will also pilot training sessions offered outside the downtown core. To start, there are seven Citywide trainings scheduled in alternate locations (North Seattle and Southwest Seattle) in January and February of 2019. This will be evaluated at the end of 2019 as a means of increasing access to training.

Leadership Development Programs

There are currently two components of Leadership Development at the City of Seattle, Emerging Leaders and the City Leadership Academy. These programs are designed to help support career mobility as well as racial equity and social justice foundations for the City's future leaders.

Emerging Leaders

Overview

Emerging Leaders is a four-day, hands-on, experiential course for non-supervisory City employees who want to build leadership skills. Each session consists of 32 hours of facilitation.

Key Accomplishments

1. There were 11 Emerging Leaders sessions offered in 2018 which represents an increase of 57 percent over the 7 sessions offered in 2017. In 2017, there were 144 participants that completed the program, which increased to 225 participants in 2018 with the added sessions.

2. Two sessions were facilitated outside of downtown to increase access to crew employees.

3. An Emerging Leaders alumni survey on outcomes was conducted in March 2017 and 55 of 232 for 24% of alumni responded. Eighteen (or 45%) of respondents listed out-of-class opportunities, 11 (or 27%) listed promotions, and 9 (or 22%) listed increased responsibility.

2019 Objectives

1. In 2019, SDHR will hold 4 Emerging Leaders programs with 24 employees each. One session will be held outside the downtown core, to increase access for community-located employees.

2. We will continue to collaborate with department learning partners to encourage People of Color and community-located employees to participate in the program.

City Leadership Academy

Overview

The City Leadership Academy (CLA) is a nine-month program for supervisors and strategic advisors who aspire to expand their leadership skills, create change, champion equity and social justice, and cultivate employee talent. Participants engage directly with City leaders, explore leadership as a process, work in small groups to address key City issues, and learn from other City leaders. CLA plays a role in workforce equity by developing leadership at the City that can advance a culture of inclusion, challenge the status quo, and disrupt systems of inequity.

Key Accomplishments

CLA applications increased by 53 percent this year, from 32 in 2017 to 49 in 2018. In addition, the size of the cohort grew by 43 percent from 16 to 23, and represents 14 departments.

2019 Objectives

1. Develop an equitable application process that is consistent across departments.

2. Strive to select a cohort that helps the City to have representation of People of Color and women in City Leadership (the top quarter of employees by supervisory authority and pay) that is reflective of the demographics of King County.

3. Establish a curriculum development advisory committee of past-CLA cohort participants.

Increased Access to Alternative Work Arrangements

Overview

Alternative work arrangements (AWAs) was identified in the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan by employees and through benchmarking as an important tool to advance workforce equity. It is a signal from the City to the workforce that the City recognizes employees are people with many obligations to family and community, in addition to the workplace. Access to AWAs allows employees to be well-rounded, bring their full-selves to the workplace, and better serve the people who live and work in Seattle. This strategy will be defined as successful when:

1. Versions of alternative work arrangements are available to employees across the City workforce;

2. Racial disparities in the roles with flexible scheduling cannot be found;

3. Racial disparities in alternative work arrangements approvals cannot be found; and

4. There are pathways from roles without alternative work arrangement opportunities to those that do.

Key Accomplishments

1. In 2018, the Mayor's Office announced an AWA pilot for early 2019.

2. WEPAC, the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, and the Seattle Department of Human Resources reviewed the AWA pilot protocol and identified ways to reduce barriers to participation in the pilot for employees. This included making the denial of AWA requests transparent to employees.

2019 Objective

1. The Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) plans to partner with the Mayor's Office, WEPAC, SDHR's Race and Social Justice Change Team, and other stakeholders to move from a pilot to a sustainable AWA program.

2. SDHR will help to analyze the results of the AWA pilot for racial disparities in participation and develop strategies to increase access to AWAs if needed.

Council Resolution 31588

Employee Exit & Engagement Surveys

Overview

Employees of Color and women leave employment at the City at a disproportionate rate. Exit and engagement surveys will help the City and departments understand why this is the case and how to shift department workplace cultures to improve inclusion of all employees. We anticipate the data will also help us gauge how to increase satisfaction as well as career opportunities for all employees. The aim of collecting this information is to improve retention rates at the City and employee satisfaction. The outcomes of this are expected to advance employee service to the people who live and work in Seattle. This effort is aligned with Mayor Durkan's inclusive workplace priorities by including anti-harassment data.

Key Accomplishments

In 2018, the exit survey was piloted successfully in 17 departments which represent about 30 percent of the City workforce. The departments with the best response rates had close to a 60 percent response on the exit survey so the City's benchmark goal during 2019 is to reach a 60 percent response rate among all employees departing City employment in 2019.

The exit survey launched Citywide on January 2, 2019. Results for the entire City, not broken down by department, will be shared with City Labor Union partners and the public the first quarter of each year without identifying individual names or employee numbers to protect existing and departing employees.

2019 Objectives

The next step is to understand why employees stay at the City and how to improve their experience. This will be done with an engagement survey which will be launched after the completion of the Racial Equity Toolkit and with an action plan training and template for managers and supervisors.

Fire & Police Hiring Equity

Overview

Council Resolution 31588 directed the Seattle Police (SPD) and Seattle Fire (SFD) Departments to assess policies, practices, and potential barriers to inclusion for women and People of Color in these departments. Success will be reached when each department has a workforce reflective of the people who live and work in Seattle by race and gender, where each member is included and belongs. A key change underway is removing barriers to equity in the hiring practices at each department based on the hiring equity action plans developed in 2017. Detailed updates are in the Technical Report.

Key Accomplishments

Fire Exams

1. One-hundred-and-thirty-four oral board panelists (84 Uniformed SFD personnel and 50 non-uniformed City employees from 16 departments) completed minimizing bias training.

2. Changes in the exam lead to a 55 percent attendance rate at the video exam (8 percent increase over 2015). Higher show rates occurred across all applicant demographics.

3. In 2017, the Hiring Equity Analysis completed for SFD identified large swings from step to step in the exam process. Changes made to the 2018 process resulted in less variability.

4. No adverse impact was found at any stage of the testing process.

Police Exams

1. SDHR updated the exam scoring method. This contributed to a greater number of applicants successfully passing the video portion of the test (64 percent in 2017 to 81 percent in 2018).

2. SDHR developed an implementation plan to test and apply language skills preference points for entry-level police applicants. This plan can be found in the Technical Report.

3. SDHR is in preliminary conversations with the Mayor's Office Innovation and Policy team to explore if updates to email and other communications will impact exam attendance.

Hiring Trends for the Police and Fire Departments

Figure 6: Seattle Fire Department Hiring Trends for People of Color and Women

YEAR Percent of Women Hires Percent of Person of Color Hires

2013: 8% women 19% POC

2015: 10% women 24% POC

2018: (Hiring to-date from the 2018 roster of candidates) 7% women 24% POC

Figure 7: Seattle Police Department Hiring Trends for People of Color and Women

YEAR Percent of Women Hires Percent of Person of Color Hires

2014: 11% women 22% POC

2015: 11% women 30% POC

2016: 8% women 30% POC

2017: 17% women 35% POC

2018: 17% women 45% POC

2019 Objectives

In 2019, SDHR, SPD, and SFD will continue to implement the Hiring Equity Action Plans for each department as well as the process improvements identified in 2018. These are outlined in the Technical Report.

Workforce Equity Planning & Advisory Committee

Overview

The Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC) guides and supports leaders at the City of Seattle to be fully inclusive of People of Color and other marginalized or under-represented groups. It is tasked to dismantle institutional and structural barriers to racial equity. WEPAC develops policies, systems, and accountability structures that attract, select and retain a workforce that reflects the demographics of the greater Seattle area. WEPAC will reach success when the City of Seattle workforce is an equitable and profoundly inclusive workforce where all employees belong and are heard, valued, and able to reach their full career potential and contribute to the well-being of the City of Seattle.

Key Accomplishments

1. The Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP) was drafted and piloted.

2. Racial Equity Toolkits (RETs) on the Employee Exit & Engagement Surveys and the LEAP have been started.

3. The Flexible Scheduling pilot was analyzed for potential barriers to equity.

4. WEPAC advised on the City Values and Expectations developed by the Mayor's Office, SDHR, and SOCR in the Fall of 2018.

2019 Objectives

1. Launch the LEAP self-assessment, guidelines, and metrics citywide.

2. Complete the RETs on the Employee Exit & Engagement Surveys and the LEAP with a plan for continuing to check back on the racial equity impacts of these tools over time.

3. WEPAC's work will become transparent to employees via a SharePoint site and open employee forums.

Mayoral Directive

Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination

Anti-Harassment IDT Strategy

In early 2018, Mayor Durkan and Councilmember Mosqueda co-convened an Anti-Harassment Interdepartmental Team (IDT) to review the City of Seattle's harassment and discrimination policies and practices and create more accountability, transparency, consistency, and equity. The work resulted in a report with 35 recommendations and 125 strategies focused on making our City a safe, welcoming, and inclusive workplace. From these recommendation's Mayor Durkan issued Executive Order 2018-04: Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination, outlining six sections to be implemented.

Key Accomplishments

1. Employee experience data collected via the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) Employee Survey and focus groups.

2. IDT shared their work and progress via targeted SharePoint site for employees.

3. IDT delivered 35 recommendations and 125 strategies within a condensed 12-week timeframe.

4. IDT conducted employee feedback sessions following the delivery of the recommendations.

2019 Objectives

The work has now moved into the implementation phase and has been turned over to an Anti-Harassment Implementation Core team, charged to implement strategies named in Executive Order 2018-04.

Conclusion

The Workforce Equity Team is grateful to have the ongoing support of Mayor Jenny Durkan's office, City Council, and Seattle's dedicated public servants. With all of us behind workforce equity strategies and incremental progress, the culture shift necessary to a more inclusive workplace is within reach. An inclusive workplace where employees can bring their most curious and growth-oriented selves, will best serve the people who live and work in Seattle. This report provides both annual monitoring on incremental progress and accountability to City employees and the people they serve. Please continue to give the Workforce Equity Team your feedback and help us create the most inclusive, human-centered workplace possible. Feedback can be directed to Bailey.Hinckley@Seattle.Gov.

f

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

TABLE OF FIGURES 3

INTRODUCTION 5

MEASURING WORKFORCE EQUITY: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESULTS 6

LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN 54

PAID PARENTAL LEAVE & PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE 73

EMPLOYMENT PATHWAYS 84

TARGETED RECRUITMENT PLAN 88

FIRE AND POLICE HIRING EQUITY 105

ANTI-HARASSMENT AND ANTI-DISCRIMINATION 125

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF WORKFORCE EQUITY METRICS 8

FIGURE 2: WORKFORCE GROUPS AND LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT 9

FIGURE 3: EXAMPLE RESULTS TABLE: LEVELS OF HOURLY WAGES BY RACE 10

FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY PEOPLE OF COLOR (POC) / WHITE 15

FIGURE 5: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT: PEOPLE OF COLOR BY RACE GROUPS, DECEMBER 2017 16

FIGURE 6: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT: PEOPLE OF COLOR BY RACE GROUPS, DECEMBER 2018 17

FIGURE 7: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY GENDER 18

FIGURE 8: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY RACE (PEOPLE OF COLOR/WHITE) AND GENDER CROSS-SECTIONS, DECEMBER 2017 19

FIGURE 9: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY RACE (PEOPLE OF COLOR/WHITE) AND GENDER CROSS-SECTIONS, DECEMBER 2018 20

FIGURE 10: OVERALL REPRESENTATION BY RACE (POC/WHITE) 22

FIGURE 11: OVERALL REPRESENTATION BY RACE (SEVEN RACE CATEGORIES) 23

FIGURE 12: LARGE CITY DEPARTMENTS BY RACE (POC/WHITE) 24

FIGURE 13: SUPERVISOR LEVELS BY RACE (POC/WHITE) 25

FIGURE 14: SUPERVISOR LEVELS BY RACE (SEVEN RACE CATEGORIES) 28

FIGURE 15: PAY SCALE LEVELS BY RACE (POC/WHITE) 30

FIGURE 16: PAY SCALE LEVELS BY RACE (SEVEN RACE CATEGORIES) 32

FIGURE 17: OVERALL REPRESENTATION BY GENDER 33

FIGURE 18: LARGE CITY DEPARTMENTS BY GENDER 34

FIGURE 19: SUPERVISOR LEVELS BY GENDER 35

FIGURE 20: PAY SCALE LEVELS BY GENDER 36

FIGURE 21: OVERALL REPRESENTATION BY RACE AND GENDER (POC/WHITE) 37

FIGURE 22: OVERALL REPRESENTATION BY RACE AND GENDER (SEVEN RACE CATEGORIES) 39

FIGURE 23: SUPERVISOR LEVELS BY RACE AND GENDER (SEVEN RACE CATEGORIES) 46

FIGURE 24: PAY SCALE LEVELS BY RACE AND GENDER (POC/WHITE) 49

FIGURE 25: PAY SCALE LEVELS BY RACE AND GENDER (SEVEN RACE CATEGORIES) 52

FIGURE 26: SUMMARY OF USAGE FOR PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (PPL) AND PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE (PFCL), 2015-2018 75

FIGURE 27: PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (PPL) AND PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE (PFCL) BENEFICIARIES BY DEPARTMENT, 2015-2018 77

FIGURE 28: ESTIMATED BACKFILL COSTS FOR PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (PPL) BY DEPARTMENT, 2018 EVENTS 78

FIGURE 29: ESTIMATED BACKFILL COSTS FOR PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE (PFCL) BY DEPARTMENT, 2018 EVENTS 79

FIGURE 30: PAID PARENTAL LEAVE (PPL) AND PAID FAMILY CARE LEAVE (PFCL) USE BY JOB TITLE, 2018 EVENTS 79

FIGURE 31 REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT: PEOPLE OF COLOR BY RACE GROUPS, DECEMBER 2018 90

FIGURE 32: REPRESENTATION AT TOP LEVELS OF CITY EMPLOYMENT BY RACE (PEOPLE OF COLOR/WHITE) AND GENDER CROSS-SECTIONS, DECEMBER 2018 91

FIGURE 33: CITY EMPLOYEE RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE JOB CATEGORY OFFICIALS & ADMINISTRATORS 93

FIGURE 34: CITY EMPLOYEE RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE JOB CATEGORY SKILLED CRAFTS 94

FIGURE 35: EMPLOYEE DEMOGRAPHICS BY OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY. 100

FIGURE 36: CITY TRADES CLASSIFICATIONS AND DEMOGRAPHICS (AS OF OCTOBER 2018) 102

FIGURE 37: DEMOGRAPHICS OF CITY CRAFTS EMPLOYMENT 103

FIGURE 38: DEMOGRAPHICS OF PLACED PRE-APPRENTICESHIP GRADUATES (JANUARY 2016-DECEMBER 2017) 104

Introduction

This is the technical report that accompanies the Annual City of Seattle Workforce Equity Update Report. This report has more detailed information and data analysis than the Update Report. Not all strategies require more detail. For this reason, not every strategy in the Update Report is found here in the Technical Report. Please use this as reference for greater detail while reading the Update Report.

Measuring Workforce Equity: Conceptual Framework and Results

Introduction

The July 2018 Workforce Equity Accountability Report introduced a framework for how the City of Seattle will measure progress on its definition of workforce equity. The data identified for this measurement include employee demographic data from the City's Human Resources Information System and employee survey responses . This report summarizes the methodology and update on metrics as of December 2018. Change to these metrics is expected to be gradual. They track the outcomes of the City's commitment to make broad cultural shifts that are slow to change but is committed to seeing shift over time. For this reason, a more comprehensive change summary across time will be presented in the next Accountability Report when results across three years will be available.

Results shown here are only half for the first half of the definition of workforce equity: the representation of people of color (POC) and other marginalized or underrepresented groups at all levels of City employment. Results for the second half will be available in the next update report. Results are presented by supervisory authority and hourly wages. In both cases, the City's workforce is divided into four levels (quartiles) and representation by race and gender is assessed within each level, and in the workforce overall, to determine where disparities exist. 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 demographic 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 the 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 focuses on the county population because this accounts for gentrification and displacement as the lived realities of employees of color. King County surrounds Seattle and 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 part of the population we wish to reflect. King County is also likely a more stable population for future comparison than Seattle. The affordability of Seattle has driven rapid change and displacement.

Conceptual Framework

The July 2016 Workforce Equity Strategic Plan defined workforce equity 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, this 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 1. 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.

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

As introduced in the July 2018 Workforce Equity Accountability Report 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 "Levels Analysis."

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

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 2: Workforce Groups and Levels of City Employment

Figure 3: 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 "--".

Status of Metric: Baseline results for these metrics were produced in the previous annual report using December 2017 workforce data. Updated results are shown herein using December 2018 data. Summary results are presented below with detailed results available in Appendix D. 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.

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 can be assessed for the City as a whole, as well as at a given level of the workforce, using the definition of "levels" outlined above (with a few exceptions, as noted in following 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 in 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. However, an inter-departmental team.

3. of City staff from SDHR, Finance and Administrative Services (FAS) and Seattle Information Technology have met in December 2018 and January 2019 to implement a solution to this issue: the addition of a data field in HRIS to capture an employee's NEOGOV Applicant ID. This will require not only a technical implementation, but also changes to Citywide onboarding procedures to ensure the accurate and timely population of this field.

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 is an aggregate analysis and 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: As yet, no data deficiencies have been identified that would prevent the first round of production. However, full production of this metric has not yet been completed as it would be preferable to present these results in combination with results for the Citywide Exit Survey (which launched in January 2019) in order to add context about why employees are leaving the City.

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 assimilate or drastically alter themselves 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 the summary report on the engagement survey for details on this project.

Results: Summary of Key Findings

Below are key findings from the Levels Analysis

As of December 2018, the City of Seattle workforce remains representative of people of color collectively (40.3 percent of the City's workforce vs 38.6 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 33.3 percent of employees. By pay, people of color make up 30.0 percent of the top level (fourth quartile) of wage earners. Note: The figure presents results as of December 2017 and December 2018. The results for 2017 vary slightly from those presented in the previous version of this report (July 2018) due to the population of previously missing race and gender selections in the City's Human Resources database (HRIS), an initiative undertaken during 2018.

Figure 4: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by People of color (POC) / White

By race categories, Latinx employees are the most underrepresented group across the entire City workforce (5.4 percent of the City's workforce vs 9.5 percent of the county population). In fact, this under-representation of Latinx is widespread as it is found at all four levels of supervisors and wage earners. Asians and those reporting multiple races are also underrepresented within the overall workforce, as well as at the top levels of the workforce, compared to the county population. Results for 2017 and 2018 are shown on separate charts below.

Figure 5: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of Color by Race Groups, December 2017

Figure 6: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of color by Race Groups, December 2018

By gender, the City of Seattle workforce is very imbalanced: overall, just 39.2 percent of City employees are female as compared to 50.0 percent of 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 31.1 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 35.7 percent of supervisors. Across the pay scale, women are also underrepresented in all but the bottom level. In the top level of wage earners, they make up 31.4 percent of employees.

Figure 7: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Gender

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 19.4 percent of the county population but just 11.5 percent of the top level of supervisors and just 9.4 percent of the top level of wage earners. Results for 2017 and 2018 are shown on separate charts below.

Figure 8: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2017

Figure 9: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2018

Results: Complete 2018 Workforce Equity Metrics

Below are detailed findings from results of the Levels Analysis for 2018.

Key Assumptions

A. There are limitations to how inclusive this data analysis can be due to both how the City and the U.S. Census Bureau collects data. The Seattle Department of Human Resources recognizes that there are opportunities to advance workforce equity in how we collect and report on employee demographic data and will continue to develop more inclusive practices whenever possible.

B. City of Seattle workforce data is a snapshot of employees at December 20, 2018.

C. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 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.

D. City workforce numbers include temporaries (14.3% of 13,600 total employees).

E. City employees not reporting race (2.1% of total) have been removed from analyses involving race.

F. City employee records not containing supervisor data (2.7% of total) have been removed in the creation of supervisor levels.

G. 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", herein referred to as "Latinx", 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.

H. 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.

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 38.6% of the county population and 40.3% of City employees (4.5% greater representation), while Whites are 61.4% of the county population and 59.7% of City employees (2.8% lower representation).

Results for overall representation using more specific race categories show that Latinx and those reporting multiple races are underrepresented in the City's workforce. For example, Latinx employees make up 9.5% of the county population but just 5.4% of the City workforce (43.0% lower representation).

Figure 10: 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 34.7% 38.6% 40.3% +4.5%

White 65.3% 61.4% 59.7% -2.8%

Total employees = 13,314

#Percent difference between the % City of Seattle workforce and the % county population. For example, "The share of POC in the City workforce is 4.5% 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 11: 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% 1.4% +166.8%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 15.6% -5.1%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.6% +109.2%

Latinx 6.5% 9.5% 5.4% -43.0%

Nat Hawaiian/Other Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.8% +138.3%

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 3.6% -31.2%

White 65.3% 61.4% 59.7% -2.8%

Total employees = 13,314

#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).

The table below shows the basic race composition of the largest City departments. The five largest departments, which collectively account for 57.3% of the City's workforce, are collectively representative of people of color (38.1% of total). However, individually, these departments range from 23.3% people of color in the Fire Department to 51.9% people of color in the Parks Department.

Figure 12: Large City Departments by Race (POC/White)

Large City Departments by Race (POC/White)

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

Police 14.5% 29.0% 71.0%

City Light 13.1% 39.4% 60.6%

Parks 11.4% 51.9% 48.1%

SPU 10.3% 45.5% 54.5%

Fire 8.0% 23.3% 76.7%

All Other 42.7% 43.3% 56.7%

TOTAL 100.0% 40.3% 59.7%

Total employees = 13,314

Race: Across Supervisor Levels

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 33.3% of the top level (13.8% lower representation). Meanwhile, this group makes up 32.8% of the tertiary level of supervisors (15.0% lower representation).

Figure 13: 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. = 547 supervisors)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 33.3% -13.8%

White 65.3% 61.4% 66.7% +8.7%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 558 supervisors)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 32.8% -15.0%

White 65.3% 61.4% 67.2% +9.4%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 649 supervisors)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 35.9% --*

White 65.3% 61.4% 64.1% --*

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 373 supervisors)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 33.8% -12.5%

White 65.3% 61.4% 66.2% +7.8%

Non-supervisors (obs. = 11,187 employees)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 41.5% +7.6%

White 65.3% 61.4% 58.5% -4.8%

#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).

Using more specific race categories, results show that Latinx are underrepresented at each supervisor level at the City relative to the county's population. In the top quartile, for example, Latinx represent 3.5% of supervisors compared to 9.5% of the county population (63.3% lower representation). Asians are also underrepresented at every level of supervisors, though to less extent than Latinx. Those reporting multiples races are also under-represented in the top two levels.

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. = 547 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% +179.3%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 11.7% -28.9%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.6% +110.1%

Latinx 6.5% 9.5% 3.5% -63.3%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.3% --*

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 2.7% -46.9%

White 65.3% 61.4% 66.7% +8.7%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 558 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% +105.4%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 13.4% -18.3%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 10.2% +70.1%

Latinx 6.5% 9.5% 4.8% -48.9%

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

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 2.5% -51.4%

White 65.3% 61.4% 67.2% +9.4%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 649 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% +106.0%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 12.8% -22.3%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 10.5% +74.5%

Latinx 6.5% 9.5% 6.2% -34.9%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.5% +102.0%

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 3.9% --*

White 65.3% 61.4% 64.1% --*

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 373 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.3% +156.0%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 12.3% -25.1%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 11.5% +92.0%

Latinx 6.5% 9.5% 4.0% -57.5%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.1% +40.6%

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 3.5% --*

White 65.3% 61.4% 66.2% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 11,187 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +173.1%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 16.2% --*

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.8% +113.6%

Latinx 6.5% 9.5% 5.5% -41.7%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 1.9% +154.3%

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 3.6% -29.7%

White 65.3% 61.4% 58.5% -4.8%

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Figure 14: Supervisor Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories)

Race: Across the Pay Scale

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 30.0% of City employees (38.6% of the county population) and Whites represent 70.0% of employees (61.4% of the county population). By contrast, in the bottom

level, people of color represent 56.3% of employees and Whites represent just 43.7% of employees.

Figure 15: 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. = 3,209 employees)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 30.0% -22.2%

White 65.3% 61.4% 70.0% +14.0%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,419 employees)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 33.5% -13.1%

White 65.3% 61.4% 66.5% +8.2%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,230 employees)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 40.7% +5.5%

White 65.3% 61.4% 59.3% -3.5%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,451 employees)

POC 34.7% 38.6% 56.3% +45.9%

White 65.3% 61.4% 43.7% -28.8%

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Using more specific race categories results show, among other findings, that Latinx, Asians and those reporting multiple race are underrepresented in the top two levels (top half) of the City's pay scale relative to the county population. This difference is largest for Latinx, who make up 9.5% of the county's population but just 4.2% of employees at the top pay level (55.6% lower representation).

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. = 3,209 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% +126.1%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 14.2% -13.5%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 7.4% +22.5%

Hispanic or Latino 6.5% 9.5% 4.2% -55.6%

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

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 2.2% -56.6%

White 65.3% 61.4% 70.0% +14.0%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,419 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% +123.4%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 13.0% -20.8%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 9.2% +53.0%

Hispanic or Latino 6.5% 9.5% 5.2% -45.0%

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

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 3.9% -23.5%

White 65.3% 61.4% 66.5% +8.2%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,230 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +172.0%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 14.5% -11.8%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 12.9% +115.5%

Hispanic or Latino 6.5% 9.5% 5.8% -38.5%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 2.1% +180.1%

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 3.9% -25.1%

White 65.3% 61.4% 59.3% -3.5%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,451 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5% 0.5% 1.8% +243.1%

Asian 14.4% 16.5% 20.5% +24.5%

Black or African American 7.0% 6.0% 20.3% +238.8%

Hispanic or Latino 6.5% 9.5% 6.3% -33.6%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.4% 0.8% 3.3% +333.1%

Two or More Races 5.8% 5.2% 4.1% -20.9%

White 65.3% 61.4% 43.7% -28.8%

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Figure 16: Pay Scale Levels by Race (Seven Race Categories)

By Gender

Gender: Overall Representation

In total, the City of Seattle workforce is under-representative of women: just 39.2% of City employees are female (37.7% of regular employees), compared to 50.0% of the general (county) population.

Figure 17: 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 49.8% 50.0% 39.2% -21.7%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 60.8% +21.7%

Total employees = 13,594

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

The gender imbalance is greatest among the Fire and Police Departments (12.0% and 29.1% female, respectively). However, it is found in all the largest City departments: among the other three departments that make up the largest five, the share female is just 36.3% (City Light: 30.5%; Parks: 41.2%; and SPU: 38.2%). 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 18: Large City Departments by Gender

Large City Departments by Race (POC/White) Total employees = 13,594

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

Police 14.5% 29.1% 70.9%

City Light 13.2% 30.5% 69.5%

Parks 11.4% 41.2% 58.8%

SPU 10.3% 38.2% 61.8%

Fire 8.0% 12.0% 88.0%

All Other 42.6% 50.0% 50.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 39.2% 60.8%

Gender: Across Supervisor Levels

Given the overall underrepresentation 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: 35.7% , 39.3%, 39.3% and 50.5%.

Figure 19: 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. = 557 supervisors)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 35.7% -28.6%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 64.3% +28.6%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 563 supervisors)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 39.3% -21.5%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 60.7% +21.5%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 657 supervisors)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 39.3% -21.5%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 60.7% +21.5%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 384 supervisors)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 50.5% --*

Male 50.2% 50.0% 49.5% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 11,433 employees)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 38.9% -22.2%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 61.1% +22.2%

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Gender: Across the Pay Scale

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

31.4%, 33.8% and 40.5%, respectively), but have similar representation in the bottom quartile (50.4%). ,

Figure 20: 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. = 3,263 employees)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 31.4% -37.1%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 68.6% +37.2%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,495 employees)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 33.8% -32.5%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 66.2% +32.5%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,299 employees)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 40.5% -19.1%

Male 50.2% 50.0% 59.5% +19.1%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,531 employees)

Female 49.8% 50.0% 50.4% --*

Male 50.2% 50.0% 49.6% --*

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

By Race/Gender

Race/Gender: Overall

Women of color are slightly underrepresented at the City relative to the King County population (17.5% of employees vs 17.6% of the county population). Thus, the slight overrepresentation of people of color, collectively, is driven by men of color being over-represented (22.9% vs 19.2%). white men are also over-represented (37.9% vs 30.6%), so the slight underrepresentation of whites, collectively, is driven by the dramatic underrepresentation of white women (21.8% vs 30.8%). As shown below, white women are the most underrepresented of these groupings in the City workforce overall with 29.2% lower representation at the City than in the county population. However, women of color are the most underrepresented at the highest levels of City employment, by both supervisory authority and pay.

Figure 21: 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 34.7% 38.6% 40.3% +4.5%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 17.5% -9.9%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 22.9% +19.0%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 59.7% -2.8%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 21.8% -29.2%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 37.9% +23.8%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 39.2% -21.7%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 60.8% +21.7%

Total employees = 13,310

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

City of Seattle workforce data is from December 20, 2018."General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey five-year sample. Data source information is on page 21.

Using individual race categories, results show that Latinx 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 Latinx and those of multiple races are underrepresented. In other words, only among Latinx and multi-race people are both men and women underrepresented at the City.

Figure 22: 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% 1.4% +166.8%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% +95.5%

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% +236.5%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 15.6% -5.1%

/Female 7.8% 8.7% 7.4% -15.1%

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 8.2% +5.4%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 12.6% +109.2%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 5.2% +77.8%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 7.3% +138.6%

Latinx all 6.5% 9.5% 5.4% -43.0%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.0% -54.4%

/Male 3.6% 5.1% 3.4% -33.2%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.8% +138.3%

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% +65.1%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 1.2% +210.7%

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 3.6% -31.2%

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 1.7% -35.4%

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 1.9% -27.5%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 59.7% -2.8%

/Female 32.9% 30.9% 21.8% -29.4%

/Male 32.6% 30.6% 37.9% +23.5%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 39.2% -21.7%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 60.8% +21.7%

Total employees = 13,310

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

* City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Race/Gender: Across Supervisor Levels

Examining the representation of race/gender groups across different levels of supervisors shows again that the underrepresentation of people of color collectively in the top quartile, relative to the county population, is driven by the underrepresentation of women of color who are the most underrepresented group at this level, making up 19.4% of the county population but just 11.5% of employees (40.6% lower representation). Similarly, the overrepresentation of white in this category masks the underrepresentation of white women (24.3% of employees vs 30.8% of the county population, 21.1% lower representation). In fact, both white women and women of color are underrepresented in all but the first (bottom) quartile of supervisors.

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. = 547 supervisors)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 33.3% -13.8%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 11.5% -40.6%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 21.8% --*

White all 65.3% 61.4% 66.7% +8.7%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 24.3% -21.1%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 42.4% +38.7%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 35.7% -28.6%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 64.3% +28.6%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 558 supervisors)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 32.8% -15.0%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 15.1% -22.4%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 17.7% --*

White all 65.3% 61.4% 67.2% +9.4%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 24.0% -22.1%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 43.2% +41.2%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 39.3% -21.5%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 60.7% +21.5%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 648 supervisors)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 35.9% --*

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 15.0% -22.8%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 20.8% --*

White all 65.3% 61.4% 64.1% --*

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 24.4% -20.9%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 39.8% +30.2%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 39.3% -21.5%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 60.7% +21.5%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 373 supervisors)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 33.8% -12.5%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 19.0% --*

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 14.7% -23.2%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 66.2% +7.8%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 32.2% --*

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 34.0% --*

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 50.5% --*

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 49.5% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 11,184 employees)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 41.5% +7.6%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 18.0% -7.3%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 23.6% +22.7%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 58.5% -4.8%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 21.1% -31.6%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 37.4% +22.3%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 38.9% -22.2%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 61.1% +22.2%

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

* City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Using more specific race categories results show, among other findings, that underrepresentation of Asians at all supervisor levels (relative to the county population) is driven by underrepresentation of women in this group, rather than men. By contrast, the underrepresentation of Latinx employees is relatively even across men and women.

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. = 547 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.5% +179.3%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 1.1% +317.3%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 11.7% -28.9%

/Female 7.7% 8.7% 3.7% -57.8%

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 8.0% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 12.6% +110.1%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 4.8% +61.5%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 7.9% +156.8%

Latinx all 6.5% 9.5% 3.5% -63.3%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 1.3% -71.1%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 2.2% -56.5%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.3% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.7% --*

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 2.7% -46.9%

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 0.9% -65.0%

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 1.8% --*

White all 65.3% 61.4% 66.7% +8.7%

/Female 32.8% 30.8% 24.3% -21.1%

/Male 32.5% 30.6% 42.4% +38.7%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 35.7% -28.6%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 64.3% +28.6%

Third quartile of supervisors: 51-75% (obs. = 558 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% +105.4%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% +240.9%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 13.4% -18.3%

/Female 7.7% 8.7% 5.9% -31.7%

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 7.5% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 10.2% +70.1%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 4.7% +58.3%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 5.6% +81.5%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.5% 9.5% 4.8% -48.9%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.0% -55.5%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 2.9% -43.1%

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

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% --*

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 2.5% -51.4%

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 2.0% --*

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 0.5% -79.0%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 67.2% +9.4%

/Female 32.8% 30.8% 24.0% -22.1%

/Male 32.5% 30.6% 43.2% +41.2%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 39.3% -21.5%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 60.7% +21.5%

Second quartile of supervisors: 26-50% (obs. = 648 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.1% +106.0%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% +193.5%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 12.8% -22.3%

/Female 7.7% 8.7% 5.6% -35.9%

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 7.3% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 10.5% +74.5%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 4.5% +52.0%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 6.0% +96.6%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.5% 9.5% 6.2% -34.9%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.6% -40.7%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.5% -29.6%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.5% +102.0%

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.9% +142.7%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% --*

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 3.9% --*

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 1.1% -58.6%

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 2.6% --*

White all 65.3% 61.4% 64.1% --*

/Female 32.8% 30.8% 24.4% -20.9%

/Male 32.5% 30.6% 39.8% +30.2%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 39.3% -21.5%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 60.7% +21.5%

First quartile of supervisors: 0-25% (obs. = 373 supervisors)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.3% +156.0%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 1.1% +307.9%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 12.3% -25.1%

/Female 7.7% 8.7% 6.7% --*

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 5.6% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 11.5% +92.0%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 6.4% +118.6%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 5.1% +66.4%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.5% 9.5% 4.0% -57.5%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.4% -45.5%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 1.6% -68.1%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.1% --*

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% --*

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 3.5% --*

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 2.4% --*

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 1.1% -58.0%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 66.2% +7.8%

/Female 32.8% 30.8% 32.2% --*

/Male 32.5% 30.6% 34.0% --*

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 50.5% --*

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 49.5% --*

Non-supervisors (obs. = 11,184 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +173.1%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% +112.6%

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% +233.3%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 16.2% --*

/Female 7.7% 8.7% 7.8% -10.5%

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 8.4% +8.0%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 12.8% +113.6%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 5.3% +80.1%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 7.5% +146.0%

Hispanic or Latino all 6.5% 9.5% 5.5% -41.7%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.0% -54.5%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.5% -30.5%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 1.9% +154.3%

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% +64.1%

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 1.3% +244.7%

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 3.6% -29.7%

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 1.7% -33.9%

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 1.9% -25.4%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 58.5% -4.8%

/Female 32.8% 30.8% 21.1% -31.6%

/Male 32.5% 30.6% 37.4% +22.3%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 38.9% -22.2%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 61.1% +22.2%

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Figure 23: Supervisor Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Race/Gender: Across the Pay Scale

Examining the representation of race/gender groups across the City's pay scale, it is evident that the underrepresentation of people of color relative to the general population in the top two quartiles of the pay scale is driven by the underrepresentation of women of color. While men of color are over-represented in all but the third quartile, women of color, who represent 19.4% of the county population, represent just 9.4% of employees in the top quartile (51.5% lower representation), making them the most underrepresented group at that level. Women of color are also just 13.9% of the third quartile (28.5% lower representation). Similarly, the over-representation of white employees overall in the top half of the pay scale relative to the general population masks an underrepresentation of white women, who are underrepresented in all four quartiles of the pay scale.

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. = 3,209 employees)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 30.0% -22.2%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 9.4% -51.5%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 20.6% +7.3%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 70.0% +14.0%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 22.2% -28.0%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 47.8% +56.3%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 31.4% -37.1%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 68.6% +37.2%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,419 employees)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 33.5% -13.1%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 13.9% -28.5%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 19.7% --*

White all 65.3% 61.4% 66.5% +8.2%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 20.1% -34.7%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 46.3% +51.5%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 33.8% -32.5%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 66.2% +32.5%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,228 employees)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 40.7% +5.5%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 18.1% -6.5%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 22.6% +17.5%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 59.3% -3.5%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 22.6% -26.6%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 36.7% +20.0%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 40.5% -19.1%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 59.5% +19.1%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,449 employees)

POC all 34.7% 38.6% 56.3% +45.9%

POC/Female 17.6% 19.4% 27.9% +44.0%

POC/Male 17.2% 19.2% 28.4% +47.7%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 43.7% -28.8%

White/Female 32.8% 30.8% 22.4% -27.3%

White/Male 32.5% 30.6% 21.3% -30.3%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 50.4% --*

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 49.6% --*

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Figure 24: Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (POC/White)

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 overrepresented in the top quartile except Latinx, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and those reporting multiple races. Overrepresentation among African Americans and whites in general at the top of the pay scale masks underrepresentation among women of those race categories. Meanwhile, again, underrepresentation of Latinx is present regardless of gender.

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. = 3,209 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% +126.1%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 1.0% +279.3%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 14.2% -13.5%

/Female 7.7% 8.7% 5.0% -42.8%

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 9.3% +19.1%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 7.4% +22.5%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 2.0% -33.3%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 5.4% +76.1%

Latinx all 6.5% 9.5% 4.2% -55.6%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 1.1% -75.4%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.1% -38.2%

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

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% --*

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 2.2% -56.6%

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 0.9% -65.4%

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 1.3% -47.5%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 70.0% +14.0%

/Female 32.8% 30.8% 22.2% -28.0%

/Male 32.5% 30.6% 47.8% +56.3%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 31.4% -37.1%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 68.6% +37.2%

Third quartile of wages: 51-75% (obs. = 3,419 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% +123.4%

/Female 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% +233.8%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 13.0% -20.8%

/Female 7.7% 8.7% 6.3% -27.8%

/Male 6.6% 7.8% 6.8% -13.0%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 9.2% +53.0%

/Female 3.5% 2.9% 3.5% +18.3%

/Male 3.5% 3.1% 5.7% +86.3%

Latinx all 6.5% 9.5% 5.2% -45.0%

/Female 2.9% 4.4% 2.0% -54.4%

/Male 3.6% 5.0% 3.2% -36.8%

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

/Female 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% --*

/Male 0.2% 0.4% 0.7% +84.1%

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 3.9% -23.5%

/Female 3.0% 2.6% 1.5% -41.7%

/Male 2.9% 2.6% 2.4% --*

White all 65.3% 61.4% 66.5% +8.2%

/Female 32.8% 30.8% 20.1% -34.7%

/Male 32.5% 30.6% 46.3% +51.5%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 33.8% -32.5%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 66.2% +32.5%

Second quartile of wages: 26-50% (obs. = 3,228 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% +172.0%

/Female 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% +102.0%

/Male 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% +241.8%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 14.5% -11.8%

/Female 3.3% 8.7% 7.1% -18.1%

/Male 2.8% 7.8% 7.4% --*

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 12.9% +115.5%

/Female 1.5% 2.9% 5.9% +98.9%

/Male 1.5% 3.1% 7.1% +131.8%

Latinx all 6.5% 9.5% 5.8% -38.5%

/Female 1.2% 4.4% 2.3% -48.2%

/Male 1.5% 5.0% 3.5% -30.0%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 2.1% +180.1%

/Female 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% --*

/Male 0.1% 0.4% 1.7% +355.0%

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 3.9% -25.1%

/Female 1.3% 2.6% 2.0% -25.2%

/Male 1.2% 2.6% 1.9% -26.0%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 59.3% -3.5%

/Female 14.0% 30.8% 22.6% -26.6%

/Male 13.9% 30.6% 36.7% +20.0%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 40.5% -19.1%

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 59.5% +19.1%

First quartile of wages: 0-25% (obs. = 3,449 employees)

American Indian/Alaska Native all 0.5% 0.5% 1.8% +243.1%

/Female 0.1% 0.3% 1.0% +289.2%

/Male 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% +197.8%

Asian all 14.4% 16.5% 20.5% +24.5%

/Female 2.5% 8.7% 11.0% +26.8%

/Male 2.2% 7.8% 9.5% +21.2%

Black or African American all 7.0% 6.0% 20.3% +238.8%

/Female 1.1% 2.9% 9.5% +221.1%

/Male 1.1% 3.1% 10.9% +256.2%

Latinx all 6.5% 9.5% 6.3% -33.6%

/Female 0.9% 4.4% 2.6% -40.4%

/Male 1.2% 5.0% 3.7% -27.5%

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander all 0.4% 0.8% 3.3% +333.1%

/Female 0.1% 0.4% 1.5% +287.6%

/Male 0.1% 0.4% 1.8% +379.1%

Two or More Races all 5.8% 5.2% 4.1% -20.9%

/Female 1.0% 2.6% 2.3% --*

/Male 0.9% 2.6% 1.7% -31.9%

White all 65.3% 61.4% 43.7% -28.8%

/Female 10.7% 30.8% 22.4% -27.3%

/Male 10.6% 30.6% 21.3% -30.3%

Female all 49.8% 50.0% 50.4% --*

Male all 50.2% 50.0% 49.6% --*

#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).

City of Seattle workforce data was pulled December 20, 2018 from the City's Human Resources Information System. "General population" figures for Seattle and King County are from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year sample. Detailed data source information is on page 21.

Figure 25: Pay Scale Levels by Race and Gender (Seven Race Categories)

Additional metrics work ahead

As the Workforce Equity unit continues to develop ways to measure equity in the workplace, the following are identified as necessary steps to make that work possible.

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

2. 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;

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

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

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

6. Expand the E3 employee performance data capture from a three-point scale to a 5-point scale.

Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan

Below is the language from the City's DRAFT Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan. It is intended to be used with additional tools that support City Leaders and others in dismantling institutional racism in City government. These tools along with the final draft will be available by the end of 2019.

Please note this tool is a working draft that is being further developed by the Workforce Equity Action and Planning Committee (WEPAC) in collaboration with the Seattle Department of Human Resources and the Office for Civil Rights. If you have any suggestions or comments, please contact WEPAC via Bailey Hinckley at bailey.hinckley@seattle.gov.

History of Accountability and Commitment

To further the work of the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) and the Workforce Equity (WFE) Strategic Plan, the City of Seattle charged the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) to develop accountability measures for Citywide leadership. The Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP) was developed to measure progress on workforce equity and the dismantling of institutional racism in City government.

As a City, we know that our plans and initiatives are only as good as the accountability and commitments to them. 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 their primary role and at the center of their department's work. We can only best serve the people who live and work in Seattle if we have a workforce that reflects the demographics of the people we serve. We must actively challenge institutional and structural racism to do this.

The Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP) has been developed by the Workforce Equity Planning and Advisory Committee (WEPAC). It includes two parts: accountability metrics and learning tools. Both emphasize the foundational expectations the City holds for our leadership and supports them in their growth and continued learning.

Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan Foundations

This Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP) is informed by and aligns the citywide vision, commitments, values and expectations that follow:

Race & Social Justice Initiative (RSJI)

The City of Seattle's commitment to ending institutionalized racism in City government was formally implemented with creation Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) in 2004. The initiative'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 initiative's short-term goals asks each department to apply a minimum of four (4) Racial Equity Toolkits (RETs) annually. 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. Leadership must ensure the full and thoughtful completion of RETs.

Workforce Equity (WFE)

In 2014 the City developed a strategic plan to advance workforce equity. The vision is to obtain "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 workforce equity requires fundamental culture change that dismantles barriers, real or perceived, and enables an inclusive workplace, as well as specific investments in the workforce itself. Leadership shares a substantial responsibility in shaping departmental culture and environment, as well as ensuring the sustained implementation of strategies to advance workforce equity.

E3 Performance Management (E3)

As part of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan, the E3 Performance Management system was implemented to move towards an equitable and consistent process for employee development. The City of Seattle defines 'equity and inclusion' as well as 'accountability and action' as performance competencies that all city employees are expected to demonstrate.

Proficiency in these is defined as a person who:

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

Initiates procedures, programs, or policies to foster racial equity and address harmful practices, including everyday work

Consistently applies Racial Equity Toolkits (RETs)

Proactively seeks out learning opportunities on Race & Social Justice (RSJ) and applies learning to everyday practices

Actively participates, and encourage others to participate, in Race & Social Justice (RSJ) training opportunities and acts as a department resource for the RSJI

Works to improve policies, procedures, and support for accountability measures with consistent and accessible communication strategies

Encourages learning and improvement in themselves and others

Demonstrates initiative in actions and decision-making

Consistently evaluates RSJI, WFE, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment efforts, and course corrects when necessary*

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

*Not included in original E3 definition

Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment

During the summer of 2018, an Anti-Harassment Interdepartmental Team (IDT) developed Citywide recommendations for Addressing and Preventing Workplace Harassment and Discrimination. These recommendations identified multiple strategies to enhance the commitment from and accountability of leadership and departments. To compliment and highlight the work of the Anti-Harassment IDT, specific expectations have been identified with the LEAP.

A commitment to improve the work environment of employees and specific accountability measures to transform a workplace culture to one that promotes a safe harassment-free and discrimination free workplace for all.

Leadership Expectations & Accountability Plan (LEAP)

The needs of the City of Seattle are constantly changing and to respond to this change equitability, we as a City need a workforce that reflects the people who live and work in Seattle, the people we serve. We know that organizations with employees who reflect the people they serve outperform organizations that do not. Institutional and structural racism, along with individual bias, are often the reason organizations do not have workforces that reflect the people they serve. The City currently reflects the greater institutional and structural racism in society, affecting our organizational effectiveness and interfering with our voiced values of RSJ and WFE.

Organizations that have leadership that interrupt the institutional and structural racism that permeate their workplace improve organizational effectiveness. Accountable leadership is at the start of all organizations that work to undo institutional and structural racism. This LEAP includes competencies that are discussed in the next section. Metrics and Learning Tools are attached to empower our City Leaders to strive for greater accountability to employees, workforce equity, and the people who live and work in Seattle in two ways:

1. Metrics:

a. Department-Level metrics that will be reported annually as part of the WFE Update Report to the Mayor, City Council, and the people who live and work in Seattle.

b. Director-Level metrics that will be shared with the Deputy Mayor(s) as part of department director performance reviews.

2. Learning Tools:

a. A self-assessment kit for directors to grow in and develop their RSJ and WFE skills. This acts as a guide that gives users refection questions to help consider their role in supporting and engaging with the Race & Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), Workforce Equity, and to addressing and preventing workplace discrimination and harassment.

b. A facilitation kit for directors to work with their direct reports to do the self-assessment kit and develop their RSJ and WFE skills themselves.

LEAP Competencies

To better strive for a work environment and community where all people, regardless of their background or identity, are included and equipped to realize their potential, a certain kind of leadership is needed. This leadership is humble, inspiring, visionary, fair, inclusive, equitable, collaborative, and self-aware. This leadership leads with race and is grounded in the experiences of those most impacted employees and constituents/service users. This leadership knows excellence needs equity be rooted in all department matters. This leadership must ensure that they leave a department better than they found

it. This leadership understands that department culture and staff treatment cascades into how well and equitably we serve the people of Seattle and ultimately is revealed in workforce and City outcomes.

This Leadership Expectations and Accountability Plan (LEAP) provides Department Directors with expectations, practices, and metrics in various equity leadership domains to practice the following:

Excellence in leadership

Alignment with and commitment to RSJI and Workforce Equity

Proficiency in Equity and Inclusion competency

Proficiency in the E3 'accountability and action' competency

Alignment and commitment to addressing and preventing discrimination and harassment

The LEAP domains name competency areas which City of Seattle leadership use to assess their knowledge, skills, and application across foundational, moderate, and advance expectations.

? Personal Practice & Professional Development- As a leader it is vital to practice self-awareness, understanding, and responding to the impacts of inequity, racial justice, social justice, social identities, power, oppression, privilege, making assumptions, and bias. Training is one part of development and should be supplemented to further educate and learn how create a more humane community.

? Workforce Equity Metrics- The tracking of workforce equity metrics and data allows leaders and departments to measure to hold themselves and their work accountable to making improvements to strategies supporting workforce equity, addressing and preventing discrimination & harassment, and advancing the Race & Social Justice Initiative.

? Tools- The City has outlined helpful resources and tools to aid departments and leaders to identify and analyze the manifestation of racism and inequity. This needs targeted assessment, evaluation, to improve daily practices. Tools are identified in multiple areas that support workforce equity and RSJI.

? Communication- To be accountable to communities, leaders are expected to be transparent and communicate authentically. This means actively communicate opening and in diverse ways.

? Collaboration- To address systemic injustice, center those most impacted, and foster change leaders must collaborate. Leaders at the City are expected to actively take part and connect with a variety of stakeholders to foster collective change.

? Resource Allocation- Leaders within the City of Seattle are expected to prioritize resources inclusive of time and funding to support workforce equity and RSJI. This requires identifying how current procurement practices, budgetary support each RSJI Change Team, Contracting, etc.

? Staff Management- City employees are the heart of our organization and as so, should be prioritized in supplying the necessary resources, support, education, training, and development.

Use the following matrix to support your work in the self-assessment. Review this section before reflecting on the self-assessment kit. You may also use this section to inspire interview questions when hiring.

Personal Practice & Professional Development

As a leader it is vital to practice self-awareness, understanding, and responsiveness to the impacts of inequity, racial justice, social justice, social identities, power, oppression, privilege, assumptions-making, and bias. Training is one part of development that should be supplemented with individual reflection and learning on how create a more humane community.

Foundational Learning Humble Distributor of Power Humble Teacher

Name historical inequities in society.

Share knowledge of Seattle's history of discrimination.

Name current racial inequities in your communities.

Share one's own racial positionality and how it intersects with additional minoritized identities

Articulate one's own identities and intersectionality

Name how institutional racism manifests in the City's workforce and the communities we serve.

Explain how practices/changes have been implemented in the department because of your engagement in RSJI.

Explain a foundational understanding of racial justice, social justice and inclusion within the context of city government.

Understand and articulate the business case for working actively to create racial equity.

Understand how one's social identities can affect how one does one's work (i.e. recognizes leadership, develops budgets, interviews, employees conduct, performance development and work with communities).

Understand and articulate the City and Department's history with discrimination and harassment.

Name how race and gender impact discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Name unacceptable conduct beyond legal protections.

Read and understand the personnel rule.

Proactively discuss current local, national, and global events that are likely impact the workplace.

Actively remind the workforce of the types of conduct that are unacceptable in the workplace.

Name how social identities, social group status, power, privilege, oppression, strengths, limitations, assumptions, attitudes, values, beliefs, and biases affect the workplace.

Understand how discrimination, inequity, and harassment can influence the systems which organize departments and City's work.

Understand an advanced level of RSJI terminology.

Discuss one's participation in systems of oppression, privilege and power.

Advocate for social justice values in City goals and programs

Understand and articulate your responsibility for your department's role in perpetuating discrimination, harassment and oppression

Demonstrate self-awareness of how one's social identities can affect how one does one's work (i.e. recognizes leadership, develops budgets, interviews, employees conduct, performance development and work with communities)

Name strategies to address social, environmental, and structural dimensions of racial injustice and social injustice.

Practice strategies of distributive leadership that counter White Supremacy Culture.

Know the racial undertones of terms such as "respect" and "intimidation."

Articulate one's own identities and intersectionality

Supply consultation to other units, divisions, institutions, on strategies to dismantle systems of oppression privilege and power and government.

Integrate knowledge of racial justice social justice and inclusion oppression privilege and power into one's daily practice

Understand culture is dynamic and created constantly by people

Facilitate training and development opportunities on RSJI and WFE to departments, units, Citywide, local and national levels.

Practice and educate on community engagement and organizing skills based on anti-racist principles.

Facilitate and support conversation concerning racial equity and social justice.

Communicates the meaning of advanced RSJ terminology.

Trainings

Taking advantage of training and learning opportunities create a groundwork to develop personal practice and professional development around equity, race, and social justice. The following list includes some general trainings City leaders should take part.

Foundational Learning in Practice Active Teaching and Learning

Completed the following RSJ trainings, including but not limited to:

? Race the Power of an Illusion

? Racial Equity Toolkit

? Implicit Bias 1.0

? Gender Diversity in the Workplace

? Anti-Harassment & Anti- Discrimination Internalized Racial Inferiority or Internalized Racial Superiority

? Minimizing Bias in Employment Decisions

Completed the following RSJ trainings, including but not limited to:

? Implicit Bias 2.0

? Restorative Practices

? Bystander Intervention

? Trauma Informed Care Practices

? Conducting Race-Based Facilitation & Training

? Participated in related RSJI & WFE trainings (additional 20 hours per year or 2 trainings annually) ? Attended refresher RSJI & WFE trainings and courses regularly.

? Presented on RSJI & WFE trainings in the department, Citywide, locally and/or nationally.

? Attended ongoing RSJI & WFE focused training and development. (Additional 40+ hours or 4 trainings annually)

Workforce Equity Metrics

Tracking of workforce equity metrics and data allows leaders and departments to hold themselves and their work accountable to making improvements to workforce equity, addressing and preventing anti-discrimination & anti-harassment, and advancing RSJI.

Foundational Learning Humble Distributor of Power Humble Teacher

Establish baseline WFE data (quantitative and qualitative) for department.

Review and assess employee data by race, gender, and the intersection of race and gender. This includes:

- Head count, Gender, Job title, Tenure, Wage/All in pay, Supervisory Authority, Exits, Out-of-class assignments

Track and assess employee data by race, gender, and the intersection of race and gender by the following categories:

- Promotions, Complaints, Step exemptions, Merit leave, Discipline, Reclassifications, Applicant pools, Executive leave days, Performance evaluations, Sabbaticals, Alternative Work Schedules including telecommuting, FMLA Approval, Sick Days

Collect and review department level exit and engagement survey responses to shift department culture.

Ensure department level exit and engagement survey responses are used to achieve the vision of WFE.

Discuss how 360 evaluations and employee feedback is being integrated into performance evaluations of department supervisors and managers.

Conduct regular department climate surveys to assess extent to which discrimination and harassment is experienced as a problem in the workplace.

Name how related metrics for discrimination and harassment response and prevention is incorporated in to employees' performance reviews.

Collect department data on employee discipline practices and address inequities.

Ensure data on intakes and investigations are collected, posted, addressed and incorporated in department action plans. Assess department effectiveness and removing barriers to address issues of social justice and racial equity

Ensure resources are distributed equitably and adequately to meet the needs of all communities

Expand employee data collection to understand how intersections of identity in addition to race and gender, further impact populations.

Develop strategies to address disparities and inequities as soon as they are identified.

Analyze data collection practices, for bias and inequity.

Update data collection practices on a regular basis.

Disseminate data and findings transparently to department employees and Citywide.

Discuss how outside data, research, and community informed practices are utilized to enhance department work.

Ensure department level exit and engagement survey data is used to enhance the management practices of supervisors.

Demonstrate a critical understanding of how white supremacy manifests in data collection, evaluation, and metrics.

Explain how equity metrics are connected to resource development and allocation.

Utilize measurable community outcomes to inform decision making at the City of Seattle while making visible the experiences of minoritized populations,

Understand and articulate the nuance and complexities of maintaining and adhering data collection best practices.

Partner with researchers and institutions to evaluate holistic workplace discrimination and harassment prevention efforts.

Participate in developing strategies for dealing with resistance to change in an organization or community.

Support the development and creation of data collection process to support workforce equity and RSJI.

Participate in and conduct outside research that connects to local, state, and national levels.

Seek out and participate in collective impact strategies for RSJ across sectors, municipalities and systems.

Advocate for and allocate resources supporting continued Citywide data collection and strategies supporting WFE metrics.

Validate and invest in qualitative data assessment and integrate stories and the human experience into decision-making. Demonstrate a critical understanding of how white supremacy manifest in data collection, evaluation, and metrics.

Tools

The City has resources and tools to help departments and leaders identify racism and inequity, analyze where it comes from, and lead work against it. Targeted. This needs targeted assessment and evaluation to improve make daily practices more equitable. Tools such as the City's Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace, Racial Equity Toolkit (RET) and Race & Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) Workplan are good places to start work in support of workforce equity and the RSJI.

Foundational Learning Humble Distributor of Power Humble Teacher

Name how the department regularly communicates and gives the City's Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace to staff.

Name how the department is implementing practices outlined in the City's Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace.

List current strategies for incorporating the City's Guidance on Gender Identity in the Workplace.

Utilize EEOC guidance and risk assessment as a foundation to address workplace discrimination & harassment.

Describe how your department is assessing discrimination and harassment risk factors and what steps are being taken to minimize those risks.

List and discuss the department's, and each unit's, annual plan and strategies for addressing and preventing discrimination and harassment.

Describe how the plan and strategy will be assessed for progress.

Implement measures to assess the departments climate and workplace culture for employees.

Indicate how you are addressing bias incidents affecting employees

Outline department accountability strategies for managers and supervisors to prevent and respond to workplace discrimination and harassment.

Outline prevention efforts that specifically support education and reporting mechanisms for interns and youth employees.

Describe how employee workplans will be reviewed, approved, and audited.

Name current steps in place to address and change department culture.

List the current RETs your department has conducted in the past year.

Discuss the point in the process the RET was applied to each item listed.

Describe how your department decided when to apply a RET to each of the identified projects, programs, policies, services, or budget decisions.

Discuss the membership of each RET team and whom was represented (i.e. Change Team members, project managers, front-line staff, etc.)

Describe the RET's community engagement plan and how it centered the voices of those most impacted.

Discuss how voices of those most impacted informed the RET process and outcome.

Describe the plan and commitment to continue to sustain the relationships developed during each RET's community engagement practice.

Document and share how and why each program, policy, practice, budget decision, or service changed following the RET.

Document and discuss the department's annual RSJI Workplan and name when it was submitted.

Confirm the department's RSJI Workplan is posted and is viewable on the RSJI Outcomes, Strategies, and Actions (ROSA) website.

Describe how workplans will be reviewed, approved, and audited. Regularly find new strategies to support and expand the impact of gender justice within the department and in department work.

Advocate, develop, and fund new tools and resources to support the work of gender justice in the department.

Able to conduct a social power analysis on processes, systems, and structure to increase equity.

Build department effectiveness in addressing critical incidence of discrimination and harassment that affect employees and people

Advocate, develop, and fund new tools and resources to support the work of preventing and addressing discrimination and harassment in the department.

Discuss how action plans incorporate racial equity, workplace equity, restorative justice, and trauma informed care.

Facilitate RET processes (average 1+ per year)

Support and take part in RET processes across departments.

Document and share how power, privilege and white supremist practices influenced the RET process.

List how these practices affect the finding of the RET and identify how each can be addressed.

Create ongoing strategic plan for continued development of inclusive initiatives and practices throughout the department.

Conduct a power analysis on related processes, systems, and structures which affect the RSJI in the workplace. Indicate the changes that will come from this power analysis. Advocate and take part in Citywide, local, and national work to expand the impact of gender justice.

Advocate and develop tools and resources to support the work of gender justice across sectors, municipalities, and systems

Advocate and participate in Citywide, local, and national work to expand the impact of addressing and preventing workplace harassment and discrimination.

Advocate and develop tools and resources to support the work of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment across sectors, municipalities, and systems

Support your department in integrating racial equity, workplace equity, restorative justice, and trauma informed care into action plans.

Coach and train staff on facilitating RET processes.

Participate RET processes across sectors, municipalities, local, state, national forums.

Communication

To be accountable to communities, leaders are expected to be transparent and communicate authentically. This means actively communicate opening and in diverse ways.

Foundational Learning Humble Distributor of Power Humber Teacher

Advocate for racial equity as part of the department's work

Share the benefits of promoting racial equity in the workplace for oneself and the organization

List and describe the actions you have taken to create a department culture in alignment with the WFE vision.

Discuss what steps have been taken to be transparent and communicate this message with employees.

List departmental strategies for communicating matters and progress on WFE, such as:

- Discrimination complaints, Harassment complaints, RSJI Citywide and Department survey results, RSJI Dept. Change Team, recommendations and progress, Employee Exit survey results, Employee Engagement survey results

Work with other members of the management team and or union leadership to implement the equity commitments of the organization

List how the department is ensuring and incorporating inclusive and accessible communication strategies. (i.e. Plain language, translation, interpretation, caption, audio, etc.)

Explain how contractors, consultants, volunteers, and those performing work on behalf of the City are applying and being held accountable for RSJI and WFE priorities.

Explain how you are communicating department expectations concerning anti- discrimination, anti-harassment, and inappropriate behavior.

Discuss the department's online tools and resources for employees communicating accountability expectations, reporting processes, and related resources.

List strategies providing consistent education and support and understanding of department and Citywide expectations and requirements of mandatory reporters.

Regularly update employees on department efforts for addressing and preventing workplace discrimination and harassment.

Explain how contractors, consultants, volunteers, and those performing work on behalf of the City use the same workplace expectations on preventing and addressing harassment and discrimination Dialogue about issues of racial justice, social justice, inclusion, power, privilege, and oppression in your department

Assess materials (public and internal) for bias and revise as necessary

Understand the cultural and racial factors that influence communication

Ensure communications inclusive of text and illustrations reflect the indigenous and racially diverse communities

Makes the connections between different forms of discrimination and how they affect members of indigenous and racialized communities

Model a learning culture

Communicate in normative storytelling of successes, failures, and lessons learned in leading anti-racist and equity enhancing initiatives. Share community and those accountable.

Advocate on issues of racial justice social justice oppression privilege and power that impact people based on local Country and global interconnections

Actively participate in discussions about racial equity with staff and clients, without prompting

Recognizes the complexity and diversity within each indigenous and racialized Community

Collaboration

To address systemic injustice, center those most impacted, and foster change leaders must collaborate. Leaders at the City are expected to actively take part and connect with a variety of stakeholders to foster collective change.

Foundational Learning Humble Distributor of Power Humble Teacher

Name how you are providing WFE lens support to the departments RSJI Change Team

Discuss how you are prepared to be challenged by employees, to grow in your current knowledge on equity, race and social justice.

List the strategies the department has implemented to empower the department RSJI Change Team to affect the work of units and teams

Document and discuss how teams and units are being held accountable to feedback from the Change Team.

List the department's mechanisms for obtaining community participation

Discuss how the department has adjusted RSJI Change Team members' workload to account for their reallocated time and commitment to the work.

Outline how the department engages with department and Citywide affinity groups.

Discuss how the department collaborates with the RSJI Change Team on assessing strategies and plans for addressing and preventing workplace discrimination and harassment.

Outline how the department is engaging with department employee groups in addressing and preventing workplace discrimination and harassment. Advocate for the development of a more inclusive and socially conscious department

Review policies and plans to ensure they are consistent with the racial equity in the mission of WFE

Assess department of effectiveness in removing barriers to address issues of racial justice social justice and inclusion

Ensure department employees at all levels know where to find information concerning WFE and RSJI, when the department's programs cannot meet their needs

Work with multiple departments and sectors (i.e. community leaders, public organization, private organization, etc.) on collective problems and share/develop inclusive practices

Participate and support collective impact strategies across departments and share/develop strategies and practices addressing workplace harassment and discrimination.

Ensure department policies practices facilities structures systems and technologies respect and represent the needs of all people.

Participate in and support collective impact strategies with community leaders across sectors and share/develop inclusive practices.

Participate in collective impact strategies with community leaders across sectors and share/develop strategies and practices addressing workplace harassment and discrimination

Resource Allocation

Leaders within the City of Seattle are expected to prioritize resources inclusive of time and funding to support workforce equity and RSJI. This requires identifying how current procurement practices, budgetary support each RSJI Change Team, Contracting, etc.

Foundational Learning Humble Distributor of Power Humble Teacher

List how the department's procurement practices are reviewed and analyzed for equity.

Describe how the department's procurement practices apply equity? (i.e. contracting with WMBE)

Describe how Women and Minority-Owned Business Enterprise (WMBE) use standards are applied in the department.

Document and discuss the fiscal resources you are using for WFE objectives within your department. (i.e. recruitment, trainings, 360 evaluations)

Outline how consultants and contractors, are held accountable for applying racial equity and workforce equity.

Name staffing dedicated to RSJI and WFE focused work.

List current discrimination and harassment prevention efforts and identify how they are resourced (i.e. time, funding, etc.)

Name how staff time is used to support discrimination & harassment prevention efforts. Name the resources used toward data collection procedures supporting RSJI and WFE accountability measures.

Ensure discrimination and harassment prevention efforts are adequately resourced in the department. Bring those most impacted into budgeting practices and be accountable to them and the time they invest in the process

Advocate and ensure discrimination and harassment prevention efforts are adequately resourced across the City.

Staff Management

City employees are the heart of our organization and as so, should be prioritized in supplying the necessary resources, support, education, training, and development.

Foundational Learning Humble Distributor of Power Humble Teacher

List strategies you are using so hiring and promotion practices are nondiscriminatory and how the department is working towards building inclusive teams.

Report how managers and employees who are meeting and/or exceeding expectations on workplace culture and RSJI are rewarded.

Report progress of number of department managers taking the requisite classes to be better managers, specifically regarding RSJI and minimizing bias in employment decisions.

Explain how department employee/engagement survey findings are uncovered and acted upon to improve the culture.

Explain how performance appraisals, merit leave, and salary placements are evaluated for equity.

Describe how you are ensuring WFE in coaching, mentoring, training approvals, and promotional appointment.

Report how are you holding your managers accountable for RSJI and WFE activities that either are or are not happening.

Describe how individual staff and departmental performance indicators are linked with a demonstrated commitment to racial equity social justice and workforce equity

List when and how the department conducts compliance training for employees, managers, supervisors, etc.

Describe specific strategies that support the education and development of interns and youth working with the department.

Name added training and education provided to department staff concerning addressing and preventing harassment and discrimination. Ensure there is a link between job responsibilities and the racial equity goals of the organization

Grant added merit leave to managers and supervisors based on reviews from their employees and commitment to RSJ principles

Grant merit leave to employees based on their demonstrated investment in RSJ principles including requesting access to training, attending training, participation in RSJ Change Teams, completing RETs on projects, and being a voice for RSJ principles in the workplace.

Provide departmental training and education to department staff concerning addressing and preventing harassment and discrimination.

Provide opportunities for all employees to engage in social justice educational professional development.

Include individuals from the community whenever possible in hiring decisions

Use 360-degree reviews, including community feedback, when completing employee performance reviews

Create channels for communication from entry-level employees through to directors and the Mayor's office.

Remove managers from their roles who have low retention rates of employees and/or poor exiting employee feedback

Potential additions and tools

Facilitation Toolkit

Resources

o Links, books, readings, articles, etc.

References

o Protocol for Culturally Responsive Organizations, Center to Advance Racial Equity

o Tool for organizational Self-Assessment Related to Racial Equity

Paid Parental Leave & Paid Family Care Leave: Full Report on Usage and Backfill Costs for 2015-2018

In 2015, Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 124753 that created a four-week paid parental leave (PPL) 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 ordinance also created, for the first time, additional leave for City employees to care for a seriously ill family member for up to four weeks, known as paid family care leave (PFCL). This benefit was also subject to the availability of other leave (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). PFCL and the added weeks of PPL became available, retroactively, starting January 1, 2017.

Extending paid family leave beyond traditional parental leave was one of the workforce investment strategies in the 2016 Work Force Equity Strategic Plan. This initiative acknowledges that employees have many family-care obligations which often fall to women, and this is particularly true for 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.

In June 2017, the Washington State legislature voted a new Paid Family Leave insurance program into law that will cover all workers in the state of Washington (Senate Bill 5975). Starting in 2020, this program will generally allow up to 12 weeks per year of partially-paid family leave to beneficiaries with qualifying events for caring and bonding with a new child, certain military-connected events, or to care for a family member experiencing an illness or medical event. Medical leave for qualifying events is also available under this program to care for oneself in relation to an illness or medical event. Additional time is available for employees in limited, special circumstances.

This report represents the third update on usage and backfill costs for PPL and the second such update for PFCL. The report is divided into the following sections:

1. Use of Leave by Department, Tenure and Gender

2. Backfill Costs for Leave Takers

3. Use of Leave by Job Title

Use of Leave by Department, Tenure and Gender

Figure 26: Summary of Usage for Paid Parental Leave (PPL) and Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL), 2015-2018

Event Yeara

Paid Parental Leave (PPL)

2015b

(4-week policy) 2016

(4-week policy) 2017

(12-week policy) 2018c

(12-week policy)

Count of Beneficiaries 166 324 385 368

Share of Female Beneficiaries 30.7% 29.6% 27.3% 28.8%

Average Age of Beneficiaries 35.7 36.3 36.2 36.3

Average Tenure of Beneficiariesd 7.5 7.6 7.1 7.0

Average Hours Usede 158 152 340 298

Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL)

2015

(no policy) 2016

(no policy) 2017

(4-week policy) 2018c

(4-week policy)

Count of Beneficiaries N/A N/A 158 185

Share of Female Beneficiaries N/A N/A 63.3% 64.9%

Average Age of Beneficiaries N/A N/A 48.1 46.7

Average Tenure of Beneficiariesd N/A N/A 11.9 10.7

Average Hours Usede N/A N/A 123 99

aEvent year refers to the year in which leave was first taken by the beneficiary and may not necessarily be the year the event (birth, illness, etc.) occurred, nor the year in which all leave under the benefit was taken, as both benefits allow for use within 12 months of the event date (PPL) or leave approval (PFCL).

bIn 2015, PPL began mid-year (May 17).

cData for 2018 cannot be considered final as of the publication of this report, as the 12-month window for use of leave has not yet closed for many of beneficiaries. (Data are current as of February 6, 2019.)

dAverage tenure of beneficiaries is based on time since hire at the City, and not total hours worked (the former is blind to part-time vs full-time work, while the latter would weight full-time employees more heavily). This methodology differs from prior versions of this report, which used the latter.

eAverage hours used is calculated using full-time employees only.

For comparison, all benefitted City employees as of December 2018: 38.1% female, average age of 46.3 years, and average tenure of 13.0 years.

Paid Parental Leave (PPL) Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL)

Department 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018

Arts and Cultural Affairs 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

City Auditor 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

City Budget Office 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 1

City Employees Retirement Syst 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

City Light 25 46 64 69 0 0 20 42

Community Police Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Dept of Education & Early Lrng 2 2 4 2 0 0 1 3

Dept of Finance & Admn Svc 8 11 11 14 0 0 11 8

Fire Department 23 51 50 44 0 0 5 6

Housing 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 1

Human Services 2 11 11 12 0 0 19 13

Immigrant & Refugee Affairs 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Intergovernmental Relations 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

Law Department 4 5 7 8 0 0 1 3

Legislative-City Council 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0

Mayor's Office 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Municipal Court 1 0 5 6 0 0 7 7

Neighborhoods Department 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 2

Office for Civil Rights 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0

Office of Economic Development 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Office of Labor Standards 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 1

Office of Sustainability & Env 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

Parks Department 9 20 25 29 0 0 11 17

Planning and Community Dev. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1

Police Department 35 66 81 70 0 0 12 18

Seattle Center 2 3 3 6 0 0 2 6

Seattle Dept of Const and Insp 2 5 10 5 0 0 7 7

Seattle Dept of Human Res. 0 6 3 3 0 0 3 5

Seattle Dept of Transportation 16 29 28 27 0 0 17 13

Seattle Information Technology 2 6 16 9 0 0 17 5

Seattle Public Library 8 17 20 14 0 0 6 7

Seattle Public Utilities 22 31 30 25 0 0 16 16

TOTAL 166 324 385 368 0 0 158 185

Year refers to the year leave was first taken by the beneficiary and may not necessarily be the year the event (birth, illness, etc.) occurred, nor the year in which all leave under the benefit was taken, as both benefits allow for use within 12 months of the event date (PPL) or leave approval (PFCL).

Department refers to where the beneficiary worked at time of leave approval. In some cases, a beneficiary may have transferred departments during the window of eligibility for leave use.

City of Seattle workforce data is from December 20, 2018.

Figure 27: Paid Parental Leave (PPL) and Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL) Beneficiaries by Department, 2015-2018

Backfill Costs for Employees Taking Leave

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 the figures below represent costs associated with hours coded as PPL backfill or PFCL 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 regarding the portion from "Other Funds."

Figure 28: Estimated Backfill Costs for Paid Parental Leave (PPL) by Department, 2018 Events

Department Backfill Hours Est. Backfill Costs, Total Est. Backfill Costs, General Fund Est. Backfill Costs, Other Funds

City Budget Office 88 $4,920 $4,920 $0

City Light 18 $596 $0 $596

Dept of Finance & Admn Svc 704 $33,384 $6,810 $26,573

Fire Department* 11,352 $733,805 $733,805 $0

Human Services 2,756 $113,713 $45,118 $68,595

Immigrant & Refugee Affairs 8 $387 $387 $0

Intergovernmental Relations 80 $5,424 $5,424 $0

Law Department 514 $22,320 $22,320 $0

Neighborhoods Department 612 $30,021 $30,021 $0

Office for Civil Rights 618 $30,421 $30,421 $0

Parks Department 3,508 $126,368 $82,708 $43,660

Seattle Center 336 $10,010 $3,369 $6,640

Seattle Dept of Const and Insp 416 $18,029 $1,583 $16,447

Seattle Dept of Human Res. 942 $40,236 $40,236 $0

Seattle Dept of Transportation 976 $60,150 $6,461 $53,689

Seattle Public Library 2,399 $66,097 $50,799 $15,298

Seattle Public Utilities 635 $34,863 $557 $34,306

Total 25,961 $1,330,744 $1,064,940 $265,805

Data pertain to leave events beginning in 2018 and are current as of February 6, 2019. However, 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 most beneficiaries.

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 plan to reimburse other departments for employees backfilling via out-of-class assignments.

*Backfill for the Fire Department is not tracked via payroll records as with other departments due to the department's mandatory staffing levels. Rather, all beneficiaries are assumed to be backfilled in full, with backfilling employees receiving a 50% overtime wage premium.

City of Seattle workforce data is from December 20, 2018.

Figure 29: Estimated Backfill Costs for Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL) by Department, 2018 Events

Department Backfill Hours Est. Backfill Costs, Total Est. Backfill Costs, General Fund Est. Backfill Costs, Other Funds

Fire Department* 588 $35,148 $35,148 $0

Parks Department 157 $5,828 $3,815 $2,014

Seattle Public Library 22 $891 $685 $206

TOTAL 766 $41,867 $39,647 $2,220

Data pertain to leave events beginning in 2018 and are current as of February 6, 2019. However, 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 many beneficiaries.

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 plan to reimburse other departments for employees backfilling via out-of-class assignments.

*Backfill for the Fire Department is not tracked via payroll records as with other departments due to the department's mandatory staffing levels. Rather, all beneficiaries are assumed to be backfilled in full, with backfilling employees receiving a 50% overtime wage premium.

City of Seattle workforce data is from December 20, 2018.

Use of Leave by Job Title

The table below reflects data requested in City of Seattle Ordinance 125260 on employee use of leave benefit by job title.

Figure 30: Paid Parental Leave (PPL) and Paid Family Care Leave (PFCL) Use by Job Title, 2018 Events

2018 Events PPL PFCL

Job Title Beneficiaries Avg. Tenure Beneficiaries Avg. Tenure

Accountant 4 4.9 2 14.6

Act Exec 1 6.3 0 0.0

Actg Tech II 3 1.6 5 7.4

Actg Tech III 0 0.0 2 16.5

Admin Spec I 2 10.2 3 11.9

Admin Spec II 8 7.7 7 12.3

Admin Spec III 2 1.2 3 10.8

Admin Staff Anlyst 2 7.9 0 0.0

Admin Staff Asst 0 0.0 2 10.5

AMH Syst Op 1 5.4 0 0.0

Animal Contrl Ofcr I 1 11.6 1 11.3

Aquatic Cntr Coord 1 20.0 0 0.0

Arboriculturist 1 8.7 0 0.0

Arts Prgm Spec 0 0.0 1 1.9

Asphalt Raker 2 8.7 0 0.0

Asst Mnging Librn 1 11.7 0 0.0

Auto Mechanic 3 1.3 2 2.4

Bldg Inspector 1 0.5 0 0.0

Bldg/Facilities Opns Supv 0 0.0 1 6.9

Capital Prjts Coord 2 2.6 1 3.1

Cblspl 3 20.3 0 0.0

Cblspl Aprn 1 1.0 0 0.0

Cement Finisher 1 1.8 1 1.2

City Attorney 1 1.7 0 0.0

City Prosecutor 3 2.1 0 0.0

Civil Engr 11 7.9 2 12.0

Civil Engr Supv 1 1.4 1 24.4

Civil Engrng Spec 5 3.6 4 13.1

Civil Rights Anlyst 2 4.0 0 0.0

Code Compliance Anlyst 1 10.0 0 0.0

Com Garden Coord 1 17.4 0 0.0

Complaint Investigator 1 17.7 1 18.3

Coordinating Library Tech 1 21.9 0 0.0

Counslr 6 4.2 4 2.9

Court Clerk 0 0.0 1 1.3

Credit Rep 0 0.0 1 22.2

Crime Prev Coord 0 0.0 1 3.5

Cust Svc Rep 0 0.0 2 13.6

Dining Room Attendant 0 0.0 2 2.5

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Wkr 2 7.0 0 0.0

Drainage&Wstwtr Coll Wkr CI 1 6.3 1 8.5

Early Ed Spec 1 0.8 1 0.8

Economist 1 5.7 0 0.0

Elctn 4 5.5 2 12.3

Elecl Engr 7 6.9 1 4.9

Elecl Engrng Spec 0 0.0 1 19.4

Elecl Hlpr 0 0.0 1 27.9

Elecl Insp 0 0.0 2 12.5

Elecl Inspector 0 0.0 1 2.4

Elecl PwrSystsEngr 0 0.0 1 3.6

Elecl Svc Engr 0 0.0 1 19.9

Elecl Svc Rep 1 7.4 1 7.4

Electric Util Exec 3 1 0.6 0 0.0

Enrgy Mgmt Anlyst 1 1.5 0 0.0

Enrgy Res&Eval Anlyst 0 0.0 1 4.1

Envrnmtl Anlyst 3 4.3 0 0.0

Events Svc Rep 1 19.7 0 0.0

Evidence Warehouser 0 0.0 1 5.0

Exec Asst 6 7.4 3 9.9

Executive1 0 0.0 1 0.9

Executive2 1 0.5 0 0.0

Executive3 2 7.6 0 0.0

Executive4 1 17.8 0 0.0

Fin Anlyst 3 2.0 1 5.0

Fin Anlyst Supv 0 0.0 1 3.5

Fire Battalion Chief 1 20.4 0 0.0

Fire Capt 2 22.2 0 0.0

Fire Lieut 6 13.3 0 0.0

Fireftr 33 7.5 1 22.6

Gardener 1 2.5 1 17.0

Golf Course Tech 1 1.5 0 0.0

Grants&Contracts Supv 0 0.0 1 1.3

Info Technol Prof A 3 1.6 3 14.9

Info Technol Prof B 4 6.2 0 0.0

Info Technol Prof C 1 5.1 1 17.2

Info Technol Systs Anlyst 0 0.0 2 4.4

Installation Maint Wkr 2 6.1 0 0.0

Jrnywkr In Chg 1 17.8 0 0.0

Laborer 3 6.6 2 5.7

Land Use Plnr II 1 1.0 1 16.5

Land Use Plnr III 0 0.0 1 13.6

Land Use Plnr IV 1 18.3 0 0.0

Legal Asst 0 0.0 1 3.1

Legislative Asst 1 4.2 0 0.0

Library Assoc I 3 4.6 0 0.0

Library Assoc II 1 6.3 2 21.0

Library Assoc IV 1 13.9 0 0.0

Library Tech I 0 0.0 1 11.4

Library Tech II 1 8.4 0 0.0

Librn 3 14.9 3 15.2

Licenses&Standards Inspector 1 3.1 0 0.0

Lifeguard 2 7.5 0 0.0

Line C CC 4 12.3 1 6.4

Lnwkr 10 8.0 5 7.8

Lnwkr Aprn 2 8.8 0 0.0

Maint Laborer 9 5.8 9 12.1

Manager2 4 7.1 4 9.4

Manager3 5 5.5 0 0.0

Marketing Dev Coord 0 0.0 2 11.8

Mat Suplr 2 12.6 0 0.0

MatSup 4 7.9 2 10.7

Meter Elctn 0 0.0 2 4.1

Meter Reader 1 11.8 2 15.4

Meter Reader Supv 1 13.8 0 0.0

Mgmt Systs Anlyst 5 6.6 3 10.9

Mgmt Systs Anlyst Supv 2 9.2 0 0.0

Mnging Libr I 1 12.4 0 0.0

Page 1 11.9 0 0.0

Paralegal 3 5.8 1 0.8

Parking Attendant 1 3.9 0 0.0

Parking Enf Ofcr 1 0.5 2 13.3

Parking Meter Collector 1 2.2 0 0.0

Parks Special Events Schdlr 1 16.3 0 0.0

Payroll Supv 0 0.0 1 12.2

Permit Spec I 1 5.1 1 27.6

Permit Tech Supv 0 0.0 1 5.0

Personnel Anlyst 1 2.7 3 11.5

Personnel Spec 0 0.0 3 10.2

Plng&Dev Spec 1 11.4 5 11.8

Plng&Dev Spec I 1 2.8 1 1.5

Plng&Dev Spec II 1 0.6 2 6.3

Plumber CC 1 2.6 0 0.0

Pntr 0 0.0 2 15.0

Pol Capt 1 25.4 0 0.0

Pol Comms Anlyst 0 0.0 1 28.1

Pol Comms Dispatcher I 2 3.0 4 12.0

Pol Comms Dispatcher II 0 0.0 1 1.0

Pol Comms Dispatcher III 0 0.0 1 10.4

Pol Data Tech 0 0.0 1 10.3

Pol Ofcr 58 5.8 3 16.0

Pol Sgt 3 16.4 0 0.0

Pool Maint Wkr 1 3.5 0 0.0

Prgm Intake Rep 1 14.4 1 17.0

Prjt Fund&Agreemts Coord 1 2.7 1 12.0

Prob Counslr I 0 0.0 2 3.6

Prob Counslr II 1 21.6 0 0.0

Prot&Cntrl Elctn II 1 9.4 0 0.0

Publc Relations Spec 2 7.7 0 0.0

Pwr Dispatcher 4 4.7 0 0.0

Pwr Marketer 1 1.6 0 0.0

Pwr Structs Mechanic 0 0.0 1 30.0

Radio Dispatcher 0 0.0 1 20.2

Real Property Agent 1 9.6 0 0.0

Rec Attendant 2 3.9 2 13.6

Rec Cntr Coord 2 15.1 0 0.0

Rec Leader 1 17.8 0 0.0

Registered Nurse Consultant 0 0.0 1 10.5

Res&Eval Asst 1 1.3 0 0.0

Risk Mgmt Anlyst 0 0.0 1 23.4

Security Ofcr 0 0.0 1 6.5

Sfty&Hlth Spec 0 0.0 1 19.7

Sfty/Ocuptnl Hlth Coord 0 0.0 1 2.3

Signal Elctn 1 4.7 0 0.0

Special Asst 0 0.0 1 3.8

Stage Tech 1 35.0 0 0.0

Store Clerk 0 0.0 1 9.7

StratAdvsr 2 1.9 0 0.0

StratAdvsr1 9 2.1 2 3.0

StratAdvsr2 14 6.2 2 3.6

StratAdvsr3 2 5.5 1 1.3

Strucl Iron Wkr 1 3.8 0 0.0

Strucl Plans Engr 0 0.0 1 3.7

Strucl Pntr 0 0.0 1 9.6

Tax Auditor 0 0.0 1 31.0

Technicial Writer 0 0.0 1 1.6

Tree Trimmer 1 3.9 0 0.0

Truck Drvr 1 1.1 0 0.0

Util Act Rep I 0 0.0 1 5.3

Util Act Rep Trne 1 1.3 1 0.8

Util Laborer 1 4.8 0 0.0

Util Svc Rep 0 0.0 1 23.2

Volunteer Prgms Coord 1 6.6 1 31.2

Warehouser 1 3.3 0 0.0

Workers' Comp Anlyst 0 0.0 1 16.1

Wtr Laboratory Tech 0 0.0 1 5.7

Wtr Pipe Wkr 2 9.3 0 0.0

Wtr Pipe Wkr Sr 1 18.1 0 0.0

Wtr Treatment Op 0 0.0 1 8.1

TOTAL 368 7.0 185 10.7

Data pertain to all leave events beginning in 2018.

Job Title refers to that where the beneficiary worked at time of leave approval. However, in some cases, a beneficiary may have changed Job Titles during the window of eligibility for leave use.

For brevity, Job Title categories have been combined from their original by removing suffixes indicating details such as temporary status, bargaining unit, rank ("Asst", "Sr", "Supvsr", etc.), or type ("Utils", "General Gvot", etc.).

Employment Pathways

The Employment Pathways Interdepartmental Team (IDT) was formed in March 2017 to move towards workforce equity and develop recommendations to create an inclusive and diverse workforce that is best able to serve Seattle communities because it is representative of the people who live and work there. This ask came from the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan and Council Resolution 31712.

Employment Pathways Recommendations

Twelve recommendations were submitted by the IDT to the Mayor and City Council on January 31, 2019 that promote access and advancement opportunities within the City in three areas: Workforce Planning, Training and Development, and Partnership and Alignment. The recommendations focus on an upskill-backfill model because it helps current employees train for higher-skill roles (upskill), creating open positions and opportunities for entry-level workers and new hires to fill (backfill). The recent Workforce Equity Accountability Report shows that people of color and women are under-represented at top levels of City employment. By removing barriers to upward mobility, the Employment Pathways IDT's recommendations helps to advance the vision of an equitable workforce, one that is representative of those it serves at all levels. Recommendations support and expand upon current SDHR goals related to the AH/AD Executive Order, One City HR, and Workforce Equity and Race and Social Justice efforts.

Key findings that informed the recommendations:

A. Workforce Planning- As of October 2018, 26% of City employees were eligible to retire, yet there are limited data and no capacity to analyze future workforce needs and no cohesive succession plan of what skills existing employees need to fill this demand.

B. Training and Development- There is a need to promote and support career development for current City employees, to create job openings at the entry-level. Only 6% of the City's allocated positions are entry-level budgeted positions and only 0.5% are vacant (n=11,847).

There is considerable City-funded training capacity already underway, without collective or strategic alignment to job demand. There is a need for more training at multiple, different levels- 56% of trainings target potential City employees at the pre-employment level, 21% of trainings are for entry-level employees,

14% of trainings support mid-career employees, and 8% of training is targeted for managers and senior leadership.

Approximately 19% of the City's workforce are temporary workers, of which 42% are people of color and 47% are women. Temporary workers have valuable skills to meet job needs and the City can connect temporary workers with career resources to compete for opportunities.

C. Partnership and Alignment- City career outreach and recruitment efforts are department-specific, uncoordinated, and do not target specific audiences. Only 16% of events that departments attended were specifically designed to recruit people of color and women who are underrepresented at higher levels of employment (n=114).

Recommendations

These recommendations will be integrated into 2019 and 2020 project planning to further efforts in a way that strategically considers succession planning and training needs.

Category Recommendation Summary

Workforce Planning Workforce Demand Data

Conduct effective workforce planning that uses data to connect its strategic direction to its workforce needs. Provide external stakeholder groups such as community training partners and post-secondary schools with the information they need to better prepare their participants for City careers. Workforce planning will promote racial equity and minimize unintended impacts for people of color and marginalized groups.

Training and Development

Community Intern Pipeline Expand the City's internship eligibility criteria by allowing departments to create competitive internship opportunities for individuals in community training programs.

Internship Extension Extend the City internship program timeline; allowing interns from community training programs to work up-to three calendar months after the completion of their educational program.

Internship Navigation Help departments create meaningful learning experiences for student interns from higher education institutions and community training organizations to meet future workforce needs. Communicate City business needs to colleges, and assist students in accessing internships at the City, especially Black and African-American students who are under-represented in City internships.

Internship with Green Impacts Fund green internship programs across City departments that build skills to prepare interns for in-demand environmental jobs.

Temporary Worker Career Access Provide managers with training to support temporary workers in their roles and connect temporary worker with career opportunities once their assignment ends.

Manager Training Expand manager training around equity and compliance components, with added career development modules so that managers have the tools to develop their employees, particularly women and women of color who are under-represented in upper supervisory levels.

Stretch Projects Pilot a new employee development tool that helps employees work on specific projects that support the unit, while also developing skills that prepare them for higher level positions within the City. This will promote advancement opportunities for people of color and women who under-represented in upper supervisory roles.

Workplace Mentorship Establish a Citywide policy for employees to participate in skill development and mentorship opportunities. Create a structured Citywide career mentorship program to help new and entry-level City employees, especially Black and African-American employees, Hispanic or Latinx populations, and women navigate career development resources and opportunities.

Partnership & Alignment Career Outreach Map & Team Coordinate City Career Outreach efforts using workforce demand data to target specific under-represented racial groups, currently Hispanic or Latinx populations who are under-represented at all levels of City employment.

Pre-Apprenticeship Conduct specific outreach to women and other pre-apprenticeship graduates to ensure that they are aware of and know how to apply to work opportunities (like temporary labor pools) while waiting to enter apprenticeship programs.

Training Coordination Bring department training managers together to look at departmental workforce needs, align training needs to workforce demand data, and address training gaps through Seattle Colleges, community-based organizations, or other partnerships.

2019 efforts will focus on implementing the following internship, outreach, and training recommendations:

1. Expand?the City's internship eligibility criteria and extend internship completion time, as well as convene department internship coordinators to identify strategies to promote community college internship opportunities.

2. Outreach- Track and use outreach data to reach specific under-represented racial groups and women in pre-apprenticeship programs and connect temporary workers with career resources.

3. Training-Inventory Citywide training information and convene training coordinators to discuss training challenges and solutions to implement in 2020.

Other recommendations will be integrated into 2019 and 2020 planning to strategically consider succession planning and training needs. This work continues the City's commitment to remove institutional and structural barriers to full participation in the workplace for all City employees. As a major public sector employer, the City has a responsibility to be a model employer. The City and local industry could benefit from sharing their strategies to address talent shortages in a way that centers equity through a coordinated, responsive, and comprehensive workforce system. Together, Seattle employers can begin to address societal structures and institutions that keep People of Color, and underrepresented groups, such as women, from accessing the same opportunities as others.

Targeted Recruitment Plan

Purpose

The purpose of this Targeted Recruitment Plan is to present the City of Seattle's recruitment goals, desired outcomes, and strategic plan for 2019. The City of Seattle seeks to hire talented individuals across all fields of practice and lines of business. To do so, we must implement internal and external recruitment strategies in a way that demonstrates the City's commitment to workforce equity and its values. We must address barriers to equity in the City's recruitment and hiring practices to realize a City workforce that reflects our community and can best serve the people who live and work in Seattle.

Background

The Targeted Recruitment plan is a strategy in the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan. 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. Targeted Recruitment is a key strategy in the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan.

Another strategy in the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan was Employment Pathways. This strategy creates connections from internship, apprenticeship, temporary, and entry-level roles with career opportunities at the City. An IDT submitted recommendations in January 2019 that brought together 20 departments to make recommendations to address challenges around workforce planning, partnerships, and alignment. The work of this IDT supports much of the data analysis and many of the strategies outlined in this Targeted Recruitment Plan.

Objective

Recruitment influences the entire employee experience, attracting the best talent who will grow their career at the City. At the same time, the City and targeted recruitment efforts operate within a society of structural racism, which actively prevents the City from accessing the best talent as it creates barriers to participating in the City workforce. These structural and societal inequities also create barriers to

employee growth and advancement. In response, the City uses a strategy to remove barriers and promote equity so that people and groups most impacted by these barriers can access work at the City of Seattle. Research indicates strategies aimed at reducing barriers and promoting equity for the most impacted demographics of a population reduce barriers to participation for all members of a population. The City of Seattle has identified that People of Color and Women of Color are the most impacted by barriers to equity in the hiring process. For this reason, removing barriers to applying and interviewing for jobs at the City for Women of Color and People of Color is the basis of Targeted Recruitment at the City of Seattle. This strategy works with the overall workforce equity efforts to interrupt the forms of structural racism that prevents the best talent from serving the people who live and work in Seattle.

Data-Driven Strategy

As of 2018 employee data, the City of Seattle workforce is 40.3 percent People of Color while King County is 38.6 percent People of Color. For Women of Color, the City workforce is 17.5 percent Women of Color while King County is 19.4 percent Women of Color. For women, they are 38.6 of the City workforce compared to 50.1 percent of the county population. While the data seems promising for representation of People of Color in the City workforce, disparities in representation for People of Color, but particularly for Women of Color, increase in upper levels of authority and pay at the City relative to the King County population. All data is from the City's Human Resources Information System, as of December 20, 2018.

Figure 31 Representation at Top Levels of City Employment: People of color by Race Groups, December 2018

Figure 32: Representation at Top Levels of City Employment by Race (People of Color/white) and Gender Cross-Sections, December 2018

Retirements provide one of the bigger opportunities for the City to address the disparities for People of Color in upper levels of pay and authority. As of October 2018, 26% of City employees were eligible to retire, yet there is limited data, no capacity to analyze workforce needs, and currently no cohesive citywide succession planning in place. Additionally, City career outreach and recruitment efforts are department-specific and do not target specific audiences. As of 2017, 16% of events that departments attended were specifically designed to recruit people of color and women who are underrepresented at higher levels of employment (n=114). Though not a substitute for a succession plan, this Targeted Recruitment Plan can play a role in preparing the City for retirements and focusing internal and external outreach events to reduce barriers to participation in the City's workforce for People of Color and Women of Color.

At the end of this document is an analysis of the job categories where under-representation of People of Color and Women of Color is greatest. The analysis focuses on seven job categories at the City and identifies those with greatest racial disparities compared to the demographics of King County. Of the job categories with the greatest disparities, the average employee age and tenure highlights potential for greater turnover in the near future, due to retirements. The Talent Acquisition Team in the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR) utilized age and relative tenure data to narrow the focus in 2019 to occupational categories that have both under-representation and a higher likelihood of turnover. Using this framework, SDHR identified two job categories to focus on in this Targeted Recruitment Plan. The focus is: Officials & Administrators and Skilled Crafts. These roles are defined as follows:

Officials & Administrators- jobs that have Strategic Advisor, Manager, and Director in their titles

Skilled Crafts- jobs like Cement Finisher, Electrician, Line worker and Maintenance Laborer

Figure 33: City Employee racial demographics for the job category Officials & Administrators

Figure 34: City Employee racial demographics for the job category Skilled Crafts

Officials & Administrators and Skilled Crafts are often highly paid positions at the City and focusing here will impact the under-representation of People of Color in higher-paid roles at the City. Officials and Administrators and Skilled Crafts at the City are also only 17.2 percent and 2.3 percent Women of Color respectively. This is a disparity relative to King County, which is 19 percent Women of Color in 2018. Though Technicians also have under-representation of People of Color and an increased likelihood of retirements in the next few years, SDHR is prioritizing just Officials & Administrator and Skilled Crafts roles in the early stages of this plan. This decision was based on the analysis that Skilled Crafts has the lowest percentage of Women of Color of all the job categories. Skilled Crafts require more immediate focus than Technicians.

Targeted Recruitment Strategy

Currently, SDHR oversees recruiting for 17 departments. In these departments, Officials & Administrators are more common than Skilled Crafts allowing faster implementation of strategies for Officials & Administrators. For this reason, this Targeted Recruitment Plan will take a strategic focus on Officials & Administrators in 2019 while developing the relationships and pipelines to begin a wholistic targeted recruitment approach for Skilled Crafts in 2020. The Targeted Recruitment Plan will:

1. Market the City as one employer, with many career opportunities;

2. Look at recruitment on a Citywide level, identify Citywide recruitment challenges, and develop priorities and processes for 2020;

3. Provide data-driven Citywide outreach and recruitment efforts; and

4. Recruit internally and externally in a way that centers the opinions, experiences, and identities of those we serve.

Desired Outcomes

The above strategies are all aimed at achieving the below desired outcomes. The action plan to realize these outcomes follows.

1. Increase the number of People of Color and women of color in Official & Administrator positions; and

2. Recruit more women of color into the Skilled Crafts with a potential focus on recruiting from pre-apprenticeship programs that serve diverse populations.

It is important to note that these desired outcomes will take time. After one year of implementing this Action Plan, SDHR will be able to attach benchmarks and targets to these goals for 2020 through 2024.

Targeted Recruitment Action Plan

Challenge Goal Outcome Outcome Indicators

1. The City lacks a cohesive and consistent brand. Establish a Citywide brand.

Market the City as one employer, with many career opportunities. a. Create branding materials that target Women of Color.

b. SDHR's homepage is updated to include testimonials and pictures geared around employment with the City.

c. Testing of the branding with targeted talent leads to more applications from targeted talent.

2. Talent Acquisition happens inconsistently across departments Create processes and plan to deliver consistent Talent Acquisition services. Look at recruitment on a Citywide level, identify Citywide recruitment challenges, develop priorities and processes for 2020. a. Institutionalize equitable processes for women and people of color competing for Official & Administrative and skilled trade positions.

b. SDHR will release "Interview Process Best Practices" for departments to adopt.

c. Priorities, processes, and plan will be submitted by departments for 2020 implementation.

3. Outreach and recruitment could be coordinated to better align with business needs and equity goals. Map outreach and recruitment efforts and use data to determine which outreach and recruitment events to attend. Data driven Citywide outreach and recruitment efforts. a. Establish outreach and recruitment event baseline data.

b. Increase participation at career events that target People of Color and Women of Color for Official and Administrative positions and Skilled Trades roles.

c. Analyze data regarding Official & Administrative roles and skilled trade positions. The disparity gap will have decreased by the end of 2020.

d. Job postings (drafting and location) are decided with intentional strategies used to target Women of Color and People of Color

e. Partner with community-based organizations to foster a talent pipeline that reflects the people we serve not limited to Rainier Scholars, Young Executives of Color's, SYEP high school program, university organizations and/or unions led by people of color.

f. SDHR will continue to foster relationships with organizations like El Centro de la Raza/Seattle Urban League and host 2019 workshops on successful interviewing and resume drafting for people in the Latinx and African American community. Exit surveys will be used as assessments measuring effectiveness and learning at the workshops.

g. Create new metrics and benchmarks for 2020.

4. Institutionalize new employment pipelines for women and people of color in Officials & Administrators and skilled trade positions.

Create an internal and external outreach plan to present to the interdepartmental Human Resources Leadership Team (HRLT) for input, investment, and co-development to present to departments for adoption.

Recruit internally and externally in a way that centers the opinions, experiences, and identities of those we serve. a. Hold a forum inviting all City employee resource groups and/or affinity groups to both recognize their contributions to the City's cultural climate and co-create strategies and goals to reach our desired outcome.

b. Create a networking event targeting Women of Color and People of Color employed at the City and within Community. This will serve as both an opportunity to celebrate various cultures, identities, and differences, and a chance to connect with and celebrate the diversity among the Community we serve.

c. By Q4, 2019, SDHR will have achieved: (1) sponsoring, partnering on, and/or hosting two or more events with organizations led by people of color and/or women for targeted recruitment.

d. A survey in Q4 will be given to the HR Leadership Team assessing departmental interest in adopting the framework for our internal and external outreach plan. Two or more departments indicating interest in adopting the framework for 2020-2021 signifies progress towards our objective.

e. Host an internal recruiting event in the Q3 where regular and temporary employees can meet with city departments to learn about employment opportunities, ask questions, and connect with external resources like Work Source and the Center for Working Adults about career assistance and educational options and resources.

f. Develop partnerships with pre-apprenticeships programs through the Regional Pre-Apprenticeship Collaborative (RPAC) that serve People of Color and Women of Color to promote skilled trades jobs at the City.

Conclusion

The City of Seattle strives to maintain a reputation of being the employer of choice. We work to attract the most talented individuals for our workforce, and center equity when we do. This Targeted Recruitment Plan will help us expand our applicant pools equitably and create systems that will attract outstanding talent, particularly for women and People of Color interested in Officials & Administrators and Skilled Crafts positions. Our desired outcomes and 2019 action plan will put us on a trajectory for success.

Additional Data Analysis

This is an analysis of the specific job categories where under-representation of People of Color is greatest. The shares by category, column (%), shows representation of each race within the given occupation. For shares by category (%), shaded numbers represent under-representation relative to King County demographics, from yellow (less) to red (more) under-representation. Average employee age and tenure highlights potential for greater turnover in the near future. Where under-representation is highlighted, the age and tenure columns are also shaded, with darker shading representing relatively older or more tenured groups on average who may be more likely to retire in the next five years.

Figure 35: Employee Demographics by Occupational Category.

Job Category % Count Avg Age Avg City Tenure (yrs)

Admin Support 11.3% 1,288 44.1 11.8

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.3% 17 52.2 18.0

Asian 26.4% 340 43.7 13.1

Black or African American 16.8% 216 45.5 12.7

Hispanic or Latinx 5.7% 74 39.0 9.3

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 2.3% 30 38.8 9.6

Two or More Races 5.7% 74 38.5 8.9

White 41.7% 537 45.2 11.3

POC 58.3% 751 43.2 12.2

POC/Female 29.5% 379 45.8 11.6

Official/Adm 5.8% 657 51.2 14.4

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.6% 4 57.5 19.5

Asian 12.9% 85 49.5 15.3

Black or African American 12.8% 84 51.3 15.2

Hispanic or Latinx 4.1% 27 48.9 14.3

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.9% 6 49.3 10.9

Two or More Races 3.3% 22 49.3 10.1

White 65.3% 429 51.8 14.3

POC 34.7% 228 50.2 14.6

POC/Female 17.2% 113 49.6 13.2

Para-Prof 3.5% 405 45.8 14.0

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.5% 6 46.0 17.4

Asian 17.5% 71 43.0 15.8

Black or African American 16.5% 67 48.1 15.3

Hispanic or Latinx 5.2% 21 45.1 13.4

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 1.7% 7 39.0 13.0

Two or More Races 4.7% 19 39.6 11.8

White 52.8% 214 46.9 13.2

POC 47.2% 191 44.6 14.9

POC/Female 28.4% 115 44.6 15.0

Professionals 34.1% 3,889 47.2 12.4

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.0% 38 48.4 16.6

Asian 19.4% 753 45.7 12.9

Black or African American 9.6% 375 47.5 14.0

Hispanic or Latinx 5.2% 201 44.6 10.7

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 0.5% 19 45.0 14.3

Two or More Races 3.1% 120 42.5 9.7

White 61.3% 2,383 48.1 12.1

POC 38.7% 1,506 45.8 12.7

POC/Female 21.9% 851 45.4 12.7

Protect/Srvcs 16.3% 1,863 42.4 13.9

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.6% 30 45.1 16.2

Asian 5.9% 109 44.7 17.1

Black or African American 7.2% 134 46.5 17.7

Hispanic or Latinx 5.9% 109 40.0 11.3

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 1.2% 23 43.9 14.5

Two or More Races 4.4% 82 36.1 7.2

White 73.9% 1,376 42.3 13.8

POC 26.1% 487 42.7 14.1

POC/Female 3.0% 55 37.9 10.3

Serv/Maint 10.5% 1,204 47.1 13.3

American Indian/Alaska Native 2.9% 35 52.8 18.2

Asian 14.8% 178 47.9 14.4

Black or African American 18.9% 227 47.7 14.0

Hispanic or Latinx 6.2% 75 47.0 15.5

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 5.7% 69 41.5 10.1

Two or More Races 3.2% 39 44.1 10.5

White 48.3% 581 47.1 12.7

POC 51.7% 623 47.0 13.9

POC/Female 9.1% 109 47.8 14.5

Skilled Craft 8.8% 1,007 48.8 14.5

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.8% 18 52.6 16.9

Asian 10.2% 103 50.5 17.1

Black or African American 11.1% 112 49.7 18.7

Hispanic or Latinx 6.2% 62 49.3 15.4

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 3.3% 33 48.5 13.7

Two or More Races 3.2% 32 46.3 11.6

White 64.3% 647 48.3 13.3

POC 35.7% 360 49.6 16.5

POC/Female 2.3% 23 51.2 19.0

Technicians 9.7% 1,104 49.0 16.3

American Indian/Alaska Native 1.2% 13 55.4 20.3

Asian 9.8% 108 48.3 18.8

Black or African American 10.1% 111 47.7 16.7

Hispanic or Latinx 4.2% 46 47.1 16.5

Nat Hawaiian/Oth Pac Islander 1.9% 21 46.0 15.1

Two or More Races 3.0% 33 47.4 13.9

White 69.9% 772 49.5 15.9

POC 30.1% 332 48.0 17.1

POC/Female 7.1% 78 48.7 18.4

Skilled Crafts Data

The following data analysis will help inform the Skilled Crafts targeted recruitment strategy that is to be developed in 2019 for implementation in 2020. Gender and racial disparities exist among the City's 21 trades classifications, of which 11 have apprenticeship programs or similar entry-level positions. These 11 trades employ 73% of City trades workers (n=652). People of color are less represented in City trades with apprenticeship or entry-level positions when compared to the general population and employees in trades without apprenticeship or entry-level positions. Women are far less represented in all City skilled trades employment when compared with the general population but are similarly under-represented across all trades.

Figure 36: City Trades Classifications and Demographics (as of October 2018)

Apprentices/

Entry-Level Journey Workers Total Women Total People of Color

Trades with Active Apprenticeship or Entry-Level Positions

Lineworker 24 113 4% 29%

Electrician Constructor2 32 66 6% 33%

Auto Mechanic 2 53 5% 20%

Water Pipe Worker 0 35 9% 40%

Cablesplicer 22 25 13% 21%

Drainage & Wastewater Collection 0 25 8% 80%

Carpenter 1 22 0% 17%

Painter 1 16 18% 65%

Plumber 1 16 0% 24%

Tree Trimmer3 9 5 0% 13%

Hydro Maintenance3 5 2 0% 14%

SUBTOTAL 97

378

6% 31%

Trades with No Apprenticeship or Entry-Level Positions

Material Supplier 0 39 3% 49%

Signal Electrician 0 26 0% 31%

Meter Electrician 0 22 9% 41%

Communications Electrician 0 18 6% 17%

Hydroelectric Operator 0 16 0% 6%

Power Dispatcher 0 14 14% 21%

Protection & Control Electrician 0 14 7% 21%

Structural Ironworker 0 13 8% 23%

SCL Journey in Charge 0 11 9% 27%

Powerline Tree Trimmer 0 4 0% 0%

SUBTOTAL 0 177 6% 29%

TOTAL 97 555 6% 31%

Source: HRIS, April 2018.

1Only classifications that have a series are included in dataset. It excludes standalone trades classifications such as laborer jobs.

2This series currently has 4 entry-level employees and 28 apprentices.

3This series includes entry-level, non-apprenticeship positions that do not specify apprentice to journey ratios.

Pre-apprenticeship programs can be leveraged to recruit Women and People of Color who are prepared and qualified for apprenticeships and skilled trades roles: women made up 41% of pre-apprentices trained and placed with City funds in 2016 and 2017, and people of color 60%. Additionally, Pre-apprenticeship students are served holistically and receive wraparound services from the pre-apprenticeship program and partner organizations. These services may include driver's re-licensing, housing, transportation and childcare assistance, and are offered until graduates are placed in employment and obtain financial security, typically a year or two post-graduation.

Figure 37: Demographics of City Crafts Employment

City Employees in Trades with Apprenticeship/Entry Level Positions

(n=476) City Employees in Trades without Apprenticeship/Entry Level Positions

(n=177) All Active Construction Apprentices in King County (2011-2015) King County General Population

Women 6% 7% 3% 50%

People of Color 31% 42% 38% 37%

Sources: HRIS, 2018; 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year sample; Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 2016; Community Attributes Inc., 2016.

Figure 38: Demographics of Placed Pre-Apprenticeship Graduates (January 2016-December 2017)

Contract Placements1 Women People of Color

ANEW 159 57% 53%

Ironworkers 17 6% 88%

PACE 21 19% 43%

SVI -PACT 34 12% 88%

YouthBuild 12 8% 67%

TOTAL 243

41% 60%

1Individuals who enter construction apprenticeship and/or employment are considered placed.

Source: City of Seattle, 2018.

Fire and Police Hiring Equity

Introduction

In 2017, the Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR), the Seattle Police Department (SPD), and the Seattle Fire Department (SFD) partnered on a hiring equity analysis of the entry-level police officer and firefighter hiring processes. This was in response to Council Resolution 31588 and Executive Order 2015-02. The result was the below action plans for hiring equity.

While neither SPD's nor SFD's overall hiring process was found to have barriers to equity for any demographic group, steps of the hiring process do pose barriers to equity for particular demographic groups. For this reason, each action plan recommends strategies to remove identified barriers to equity in the hiring process. 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 the implementation priority at the time the plans were written. 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.

After one year of implementation in 2018, updates on progress and notes on efficacy of the action plan recommendations can be found in the right-hand column. More information on the action plans can be found in the 2018 Workforce Equity Update Report. Additionally, updates on the testing component of the hiring process for SPD and SFD can be found below.

Fire Hiring Equity Action Plan Update

Strategy Barrier(s) to Equity Action Steps Status

1. 1. 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. a. Enable hiring cycles more often than once every two years;

b. Develop a strategy to reduce the number of steps in, and timeframe of, the hiring process;

c. Ensure participation in unbiased decision-making employment training for any civilian or uniformed staff involved in the hiring process; and

d. Remove or mitigate disqualifying criteria that impacts one demographic group more than others. a. SDHR will maintain the current bi-annual entry-level fire testing schedule occurring on odd numbered years (beginning again in Fall 2019). This decision was made because annual hiring cycles are not financially feasible given the high-cost of administering oral boards and current staffing resources.

b. This work was begun with the current hiring process and will be assessed at the completion of this hiring process in 2019.

c. 134 oral board panelists (84 Uniformed SFD personnel and 50 non-uniformed City employees from 16 departments) completed minimizing bias training. This will be repeated in future hiring cycles.

d. This work is ongoing. A full review of the current hiring process will be completed at the end of this hiring process in 2019.

2. 2. 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. a. Develop a program for applicant to recruit communications, workshops, and a mentorship strategy tied to targeted recruitment goals for each stage of the hiring process;

b. 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;

c. 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

d. 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. a. 333 applicants signed up for department contact. Contacts representing the following interest groups were given 7 prepared updates to share with their assigned applicants throughout the hiring process. Department contacts represented the following interest groups: Asian/Pacific Island/Hawaiian Native, Seattle Black Firefighters Association, Hispanic/Latino, LGBT, Local 27 (Seattle Firefighters Union), Military/Reservist, Women, Other Recruitment Team Member.

b. 6 physical preparation sessions were provided to candidates with conditional offers, prior to Recruit School 110 (January 30, 2019). Existing peer fitness trainers led these sessions. Additionally, a pilot preparation program (SeaPrep) for applicants who do not hold a conditional offer, but who are eligible for future hire from the current Firefighter hiring register was launched in January 2019. SeaPrep is an expansion of the existing Cadet program, providing ongoing bi-monthly sessions. The SeaPrep program includes physical fitness, mental and emotional fitness, self-assessment, and development targets specific to recruit school preparation.

c. The Seattle Fire Department RSJI Core Team performed an RSJ toolkit in 2018 on women's pass rates in drill school. The finding was that pass rates were identical, upon rehire (second time through recruit school).

d. Training Division and Human Resources worked to standardize the rehire recommendation process. Additionally, Department contacts have been made available throughout recruit school via voluntary practice sessions scheduled Saturdays during the recruit school program.

3. 3. 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. a. 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;

b. 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;

c. Proactively review & refresh the hiring register to ensure continued candidate eligibility; and

d. Establish and share criteria for the Chief's interview with candidates. a. Each step in the pre-employment screening phase of hiring is now pass/fail. Demographic assessment will be performed on each selection step in 2019.

b. File review was eliminated.

c. Proactive review of candidate eligibility is being performed.

d. Fire Chief interview includes structured question set for use in final selection of candidates by the Fire Chief.

4. 4. 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. Approval for a Strategic Advisor I was in the 2019 budget. This recruitment and outreach work will be managed by the new position along with management of professional development programs within the Department. Steps a through d will be addressed by this position starting in 2019.

5. 5. Ensure exam process is accessible & equitable Black applicants attend the written exam at a low rate.41

a. Increase testing pre-workshops and locations leading up to the exams;

b. Increase testing frequency and locations; and

c. Develop a strategy for the SFD recruitment group to address differences in exam attendance across applicant demographics. a. SDHR, in partnership with SFD, hosted 17 pre-testing workshops prior to and during the exam window.

b. Extended the window applicants can test from one-weekend to 8-weeks. Expanded video exam locations from 1 to 8 locations across Washington State.

c. This work will be completed by the SFD Strategic Advisor appropriated in the 2019 budget.

6. 6. Update PSCSC exam tools Black and Hispanic candidates pass the exam at low rates. 42

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.41

a. Replace the written exam with a video exam;

b. 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;

c. Annually adjust exam and oral board tools based on data analysis of results; and

d. Implement shifts in the oral board process from the below options that continue oral board process but remove barriers to equity by including 50% community member and 50% uniform review panels, independent scoring of candidate responses, and a transparent pass/fail scoring structure.

a. SDHR replaced the written exam with a video exam.

b. SDHR, in partnership with RSJ trained stakeholders, applied an equity lens to the process with stakeholders during two meetings (Jan 2018 and Oct 2018); however, did not have capacity or time to apply a full racial equity toolkit. The chair of the oral board committee is also the lead of the SFD RSJ Change Team.

c. SDHR held two stakeholder meetings with members of SFD, SDHR, CBO, and Local 27 to discuss the changes, their impact, and identify opportunities for improvement. Based on this stakeholder feedback, budget, and staffing resources, SDHR will be making changes to the entry fire exam for the 2019 process.

d. SDHR added one non-uniformed City employee to the oral boards in lieu of a uniformed panelist (2 uniformed panelists, 1 non-uniformed city employee). Mechanical, math, and reading components of the video exam were scored as pass/fail; rank was based on combined Human Relations (50%), Work Attitudes (35%), and Oral Board (15%) scores.

7. 7. 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. a. Develop a process for SFD hiring data collection utilizing NEOGOV software;

b. Perform ongoing data collection and analysis with process reassessment occurring every six months;

c. Coordinate budget and operational impact assessment for recommended changes; and

d. Assess hiring data outcomes relative to hiring equity objectives and make changes when and where necessary. a. SDHR provided City exam stakeholders weekly updates during the exam process that included the number of applicants and demographic information and the flow of candidates through the process.

b. A Strategic Advisor I was approved in the 2019 budget. This additional staff will provide the Fire Department with the capacity to perform data collection and assessment on the Fire Department's screening phase of the hiring process. Demographic data and analysis, pending hire of new position, and completion of Firefighter hiring process.

c. This will occur at the end of this hiring cycle and prior to the next one.

d. This will occur at the end of this hiring cycle and prior to the next one.

8. 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. Preference points are not a recommended strategy to remove barriers to equity for SFD applicants;

b. Military targeted recruitment and community targeted recruitment are recommended strategies to balance the impact of veteran's preference in SFD hiring; and

c. If additional preference points were pursued, it is recommended that the preference points be tied to the role and duties of firefighter and assessed for potential disparate impact. a. SDHR found veterans preference application did not significantly change the demographic makeup of the top 25% of the register.

b. No action has been taken at this time.

c. No action has been taken at this time.

Fire Testing Detailed Update

Background

The Seattle Department of Human Resources (SDHR), under the guidance and oversight of the Public Safety Civil Service Commission (PSCSC), administers all entry and promotional exams for uniformed personnel in the Seattle Police and Fire Departments. SDHR strives to have a testing process that is:

equitable and focused on minimizing barriers in the SFD entry-level hiring process for people of color and other historically marginalized or underrepresented groups;

compliant with all applicable laws and policies, and

transparent and easily navigable by applicants and firefighters.

What happened in 2018

SDHR facilitated a new video and oral exam for firefighter applicants. Some of the major changes included:

Exam locations: Expanded video exam locations to 8 locations across Washington State

Exam format: Changed written exams to a video format

Exam timeframe: Extended the window applicants can test from one-weekend to 8-weeks

Exam scoring: Scored mechanical, math, and reading as pass/fail; rank was based on combined Human Relations (50%), Work Attitudes (35%), and Oral Board (15%) scores.

Oral board composition: Added one non-uniformed civilian to the oral boards in lieu of a uniformed panelist (2 uniformed panelists, 1 non-uniformed city employee)

Minimizing Bias Training: All oral board panelists completed training on minimizing bias.

Why did this happen?

In November 2016 the Mayor's Office and the Seattle City Council requested that SDHR review the entry level hiring process for SPD and SFD with the goal of understanding barriers to equity in the entry-level hiring processes for SPD and SFD. The analysis led to a series of recommended changes, including several specific to the exam process many of which were implemented in 2018.

What was the outcome?

55% show rate to the video exam (8% increase over 2015). Higher show rates across all groups.

One of the major findings of the Sawgrass report identified large swings from step to step in the 2015 exam process. The 2018 process resulted in less variability across all steps of the exam process.

No adverse impact at any stage of the testing process.

Systematically increased measurement of critical job-related dimensions such as teamwork, customer services, and integrity.

Who were the stakeholders?

The following individuals were invited to a Jan 2018 planning meeting, October 2018 process improvement meeting, and were provided weekly updates during the exam administration period: Lenee Jones (SDHR Labor Relations), Lt. Doug Johnson (SFD FF / SFD RSJ Lead), Lt. Roberto Jourdan (SFD FF / Black Firefighter Association), Patty Navarez-Wheeler (SDHR), Rachael Schade (SDHR), Yoshiko Grace Matsui (SDHR), Lt. Jon Goins (SFD), Chief Harold Scoggins (SFD), Jessica Wang (CBO), Sue Scaggs (SFD), Lynn Altmann (SFD FF), Angela Rae (SFD), Helen Fitzpatrick (SFD), Jennifer Greenlee (PSCSC), Joseph Russell (CBO), Julie D'Alessandro (SFD), Kenny Stuart (SFD Lieutenant/ Local 27 President), Kim Dow (SDHR), Chief Amy Bannister (SFD Battalion Chief), Julie George (SFD / SFD RSJ Lead), Carl Swander (Ergometrics), Chief Doug Windle (SFD Battalion Chief and former recruiting lead), Dori Towler (SFD), Felecia Caldwell (SDHR), Allison King (SFD FF).

2018 Entry Fire Dashboard

Police Hiring Equity Action Plan Update

Strategy Barrier(s) to Equity Entry Police Hiring Action Steps Update

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. a. This was completed for all 2018 hires.

b. Recruiting attends more than 100 different events throughout the year. Many of the events are specifically geared towards demographic groups such as the Chinatown Festival, Pista sa Nayon, and Northwest Women's Show.

c. This is yet to be completed.

d. This is yet to be completed.

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.45

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. a. In each step of the testing process, written/video, PAT and oral boards the candidate is notified of their results either in person or in writing.

b. SPD has not had access to training in this area.

c. The polygraph exam is covered in detail during the workshop and background investigators are part of the workshop cadre to cover the PHI and subsequent polygraph parameters.

d. This has not been completed at this time.

e. Candidates are notified of their results during each step of the process. A formal letter is sent if found "not competitive". They are given the Background Sergeant's name and phone number if they have any questions regarding the letter.

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,45 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. a. SPD recruiters respond to all calls or emails as soon as possible and are the candidates' main point of contact until the testing. More than 23 workshops are offered free of charge each year.

b. In 2017, we offered candidates an opportunity to take the PAT prior to applying for the test so they might be better prepared. We had a very poor turnout for this option. Each year we have also offered women in law enforcement career fairs where we demo and offer suggestions for PAT preparation and success and provide PAT preparation materials at each workshop.

c. This does not currently occur. SPD could potentially offer PAT prep courses if we can successfully advertise this option beyond the current marketing and advertising.

d. The city run PAT is the same requirement as the State Academy PAT and is required under WAC rules for admittance to the academy.

e. The internal partnership between Human Resources and Training at SPD has significantly improved the barrier to equity on strategy 3 because of the pre-hiring process hosted at the Academy. This process provides extra training for recruits who are already hired and are going to be taking the PAT. The benefits are being subject to a boot camp like environment that provides an all-out physical exercise before testing for the PAT with opportunity to engage in extra practice for each subject area of the PAT hosted by SPD sworn personnel.

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. a. Each year we review the applicant data and evolve our recruiting strategy to address gaps. We also attend recruiting and retention conferences to ensure that we are also looking at nationwide recruiting issues and looking to new and innovative marketing and community engagement opportunities. SPD will also be retaining outside assistance with branding strategies in 2019.

b. We continue to build our recruiting support team and have SPDALL messaging in the works from the Chief of Police regarding the important role that all or personnel make in attracting candidates.

c. We are constantly adjusting our media and print ads to reflect our agency makeup and to include inclusive language on all our materials and website.

d. We collaborate with SFD and SDHR to collaborate and share ideas across all hiring efforts in the City of Seattle. SFD does not have any dedicated recruiters.

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. 46

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. a. We continue to offer 5 free workshops prior to each exam, and they are offered on the weekends and evenings to assist with candidates' schedules for attendance.

b. SDHR is in preliminary conversations with the Mayor's Office Innovation and Policy team to explore if updates to email and other communications will impact exam attendance. Sinn Five (5) pre-test workshops are offered at Police HQ prior to each entry-level testing cycle (four entry-level exams in-state per year). In 2014 SPD Recruiting coordinated with CBO's (Community Based Organizations) to conduct workshops outside Police HQ and within different parts of the community. Recruiting coordinated with Edith Elion and Tony Benjamin from the Atlantic Street Center, Emma Catague from the Filipino Community Center and Sergio Camacho from the El Centro de la Raza Community Center. We offered at least one workshop per month at each of the three locations with an average of 2-3 attendees per workshop. We average approximately 20 attendees per workshop at HQ. Civil Service also provides a link to the SPD website regarding the free pre-test workshops at HQ when they apply for the exam.

Recruiting also has information regarding the workshop dates and times when at recruiting events or festivals. The dates and times are included with the Recruiting flyer which outlines test dates, pay, benefits, etc.

6. Update PSCSC exam tools Asian Pacific Islander, Black, and women of color candidates pass the video exam at low rates.46

Men of Color pass the oral board interviews at a low rate.46

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 50% community member and 50% uniform review panels, independent scoring of candidate responses, and a transparent pass/fail scoring structure. a. SDHR has confirmed with the National Testing Network (NTN) that the police video exam is validated.

b. SDHR now utilizes the consultant's recommended scoring practice.

c. The exam used by the department as part of its police officer hiring process is generated by a consultant retained by the city. The consultant generates police tests nationally and uses data generated from that process to validate the results and control for disparate impact. The oral board questions used by the department are drawn from the CalPOST test question bank, which is also validated and controlled for disparate impact.

d. The efforts outlined in response to Strategy 6c above are undertaken on a continuous basis to ensure the validity and equity of the test and oral board process.

e. One out of three oral board panel members are currently non-sworn. Oral boards are currently independently scored by the panel members and scores are clearly noted as pass/fail.

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. a. This work is underway in partnership with the Mayor's Office of Policy and Innovation.

b. Once the project with Mayor's Office is complete, a regular frequency of analyzing the data and adjusting the hiring process will occur.

c. This annual report serves this purpose.

8. Equitably apply preference points strategy 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 women48 candidates are less likely to have veteran's status. rier(s) to Equity 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. Entry Police Hiring Action Steps a. With the implementation of preference points approved by PSCSC, SDHR plans on using them by the summer hiring cycle. SDHR will be contracting with outside assistance (also used by King County for their language preference points process) for the language testing.

b. Any recommendations will be reviewed when received.

Update

Police Exam Changes Update

Data Summary

Applicants Sit for Exam Apply/Sit Ratio Pass Pass Rate

2017 3472 1036 29.84% 667 64%

2018 2856 837 29.31% 681 81%

SDHR implemented the use of an updated exam scoring matrix released by the consultant who developed the video exam. The new exam scoring matrix gives credit for answers that were not deemed "most correct," but which were deemed to be also worthy of credit in the context of the scenario presented. The use of the new scoring matrix contributed to a greater number of applicants successfully passing the video portion of the test (64% in 2017 to 81% in 2018).

2017 and 2018 Police Exam Dashboard

Apps Received Passed Min Quals Participated in Test Passed

2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018

American Indian 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Asian 13% 13% 13% 13% 17% 14% 13% 11%

Black 18% 17% 18% 16% 13% 12% 11% 11%

Hispanic 14% 15% 14% 15% 13% 14% 11% 13%

White 50% 50% 50% 51% 52% 54% 60% 58%

Prefer Not to Respond 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 5% 4% 5%

TOTAL 3472 2856 3280 2714 1036 837 667 681

Apps Received Passed Min Quals Participated in Test Passed

2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018

Female 16% 18% 16% 18% 15% 14% 15% 14%

Male 82% 81% 82% 80% 83% 85% 84% 85%

Prefer not to Respond 1% 4% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1%

TOTAL 3472 2856 3280 2714 1036 837 667 681

Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination

An Anti-Harassment Interdepartmental Team (IDT) was formed in March 2018 to study the City of Seattle's current practices of responding to and preventing workplace discrimination and harassment, with the charge of providing recommendations in the areas of policy, reporting, and training. The 21-person team was carefully and intentionally selected to include voices of some of those most impacted, and representation from various entities including: The Seattle Silence Breakers, the Coalition of Affinity Groups Against Racial Harassment, Mayor's Office and Council Representatives, Labor Partners, Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) Change Teams and Race and Social Justice (RSJ) Affiliates.

The resulting membership reflects diversity of age, gender and race. Departments represented range from large utilities to smaller offices to non-executive departments.

As a part of a first review, the Anti-Harassment IDT collected and reviewed City of Seattle Personnel Rules, Department policies, other municipal county and city policies, and survey data of key stakeholders to assess past experiences and current processes, find gaps and disparities, and to determine barriers to reporting harassment and discrimination.

The IDT heard consistently that very often employees do not feel heard, and are further victimized in the process, where they fear and experience retaliation and marginalization in the process of addressing their experience. It also became clear in our review that Human Resources staff are under-resourced and are often unable to effectively investigate and respond to complaints in a timely and equitable manner.

The team's recommendations take into consideration the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 2016 Select Task Force report on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, employee feedback collected via the RSJI Employee Survey, and specialized focus groups. From the information they gathered, 35 recommendations and 125 strategies were developed with the focus of addressing and preventing workplace discrimination and harassment. These recommendations supply strategic recommendations focusing on Continued Work, Commitment & Accountability, Policy, Reporting, Training, and Areas for Further Review & Consideration. Recommendations are shared with a deliberate foundation of racial equity.

As this information provided in the report is substantial, four priority areas were identified and highlighted by the IDT for immediate implementation under the headings of Accountability and Values, Central Hub, Independent Advocate System, and Comprehensive Training.

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 RSJ, independent, and relational.

INDEPENDENT ADVOCATE SYSTEM

Launch an advocate system to support employees through the intake, reporting, investigation, resolution, and aftercare processes.

Advocates will be survivor-centered, competent, passionate, RSJI-trained, skilled in trauma-informed care practices and not mandatory reporters.

COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING

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

The recommendations were designed to enable greater accountability, culture change, reframing, resourcing, and systemic change. The IDT offered the recommendations and strategies in the report as a necessary starting place. They also shared a need for the City to commit ongoing funding, staffing, time, and accountability measures to sustain prevention efforts and address workplace discrimination and harassment with the goal of ensuring respectful and equitable treatment of all our employees.

A full copy of the report can be view via the following link. https://www.seattle.gov/personnel/resources/pubs/forms/AH_IDT_Final_Recommendations_July_2018.pdf