Gender and Public Agency Hiring: An Exploratory Analysis of Recruitment Practices in Federal Law Enforcement

Abstract

Census data indicate that women are grossly underrepresented in federal law enforcement. As all agencies must compete to attract quality candidates to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, recruiting and hiring more women should be a priority for all agency leaders. This descriptive and exploratory analysis seeks to understand the recruitment process in federal law enforcement using both qualitative and quantitative data generated from surveys collected from 201 new federal law enforcement officers working in 32 federal law enforcement agencies. The study finds that although recruitment usually precedes hiring, federal law enforcement agencies do not appear to actively recruit their officers. The study further highlights proactive efforts to recruit more women into federal law enforcement.

Keywords

federal government law enforcement affirmative action gender recruitment hiring

Since the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, a number of studies have examined the recruitment practices of women in state and local law enforcement (Campbell, Christman, & Feigelson, 2000; Felkenes, Peretz, & Schroedel, 1993; Lonsway, 2000; Milgram, 2002; Riccucci & Riccardelli, 2014; Traut, Feimer, Emmert, & Thom, 2000; Tuomey & Jolly, 2009; Whetstone, Reed, & Turner, 2006; Zhao, He, & Lovrich, 2006); however, research in federal law enforcement is virtually nonexistent. Although there is basis to concentrate on municipal policing—the 1990s represent a time during which workforce diversity, especially hiring female (and minority) officers, was a major feature of community-oriented policing practices that took place in many police agencies across the country (Horne, 2006; Tuomey & Jolly, 2009; Zhao et al., 2006)—the fact remains federal law enforcement agencies differ from local and state police agencies and have been discounted in public administration scholarship. Executive Order 13583 (2011)—Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce—has renewed interest in the employment tools used for recruitment in federal policing. One of the primary purposes of Executive Order 13583 (2011) is for all federal law enforcement agencies, like other federal organizations, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity that may exist in human resource policies and practices in regard to recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training. Over 100 federal law enforcement agencies exist across the entire federal domain, employing over 120,000 sworn officers operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and in an ever-increasing number of foreign countries; however, women account for just 15.5% of those figures (Ackerman, 2006; Bumgarner, 2006; Reaves, 2012). Since all federal law enforcement agencies must compete to draw quality applicants to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, it becomes increasingly clear that recruiting (and hiring) more women should be a priority for all agency leaders, especially since the percentage of women in federal policing has increased only 8% when there was a 45% increase in the overall number of federal law enforcement officers (Reaves, 2012; Reaves & Hart, 2000). When law enforcement agencies substantially increase their female applicant pool, chances are they typically hire more female recruits (Milgram, 2002).

This article provides a descriptive and exploratory analysis of the recruitment process in federal law enforcement and has three aims: first, to determine how women are recruited; second, to identify and provide recommendations on proactive human resource management (HRM) and marketing policies and practices to recruit more women in federal law enforcement; and third, to set apart women’s experiences in federal law enforcement from that of local and state law enforcement. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to analyze recruitment practices or hiring in federal law enforcement.

Background

History of Federal Law Enforcement

The history of federal law enforcement certainly backs the need for affirmative action to remedy past discrimination. It was not until 1969 that President Richard M. Nixon paved the entry of women into federal law enforcement when he signed Executive Order 11478—Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government—which provided equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons; prohibited discrimination in federal employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age; and promoted equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative action program in each executive department and agency. Although the wording of Executive Order 11478 appeared to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, a “firearms” exception stemming from an earlier law in 1870 continued to bar women from these positions (Schulz, 2009). Civil service regulations specified that all appointments were without regard to sex unless the Civil Service Commission granted an exception. One of those exceptions was “law enforcement jobs requiring the bearing of firearms” (Schulz, 2009, p. 676). Although Congress finally repealed the 1870 law in 1965, the Civil Service Commission did not cancel the “firearms” exception until 1971 (Hellriegel & Short, 1972; Markoff, 1972; Schulz, 2009; Yu, 2015). Only then do women become eligible for job positions that require carrying a firearm. The U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service were the first agencies to swear in women federal agents in 1971 (Bumgarner, 2006; Schulz, 2009; Yu, 2015). Other agencies such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (today known as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives implemented the change after the passage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Hess, 2009). Incidentally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not hire women until after the death of J. Edgar Hoover when on May 2, 1972, acting director L. Patrick Gray III ordered that women would be federal agents (Schulz, 2004).

Theoretical Framework

The scholarship on representative bureaucracy—particularly passive representation—has been an important research topic in public administration since Mosher (1982) delineated the two forms and put forth the proposition that a public workforce should reflect the same demographical characteristics as the overall population it serves. Literature on active representation has also grown since it explores the consequences that passive representation has for policy-making and policy implementation (Bowling, Kelleher, Jones, & Wright, 2006; Marvel & Resh, 2015; Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Sowa & Selden, 2003; Wilkins, 2007). However, recent research on passive representation has focused on symbolic representation—that is, the mere existence of passive representation in a public organization can influence how citizens judge the legitimacy of that organization and are willing to co-produce important policy outcomes (Gade & Wilkins, 2013; Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Riccucci, Van Ryzin, & Lavena, 2014; Riccucci, Van Ryzin, & Li, 2016; Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009). For example, Riccucci et al. (2014) found that the gender composition of an agency—in this case women in a local policing agency—can causally influence people’s judgment of the agency as being both fair and with trustworthiness in the context of handling domestic violence policies. In addition, Riccucci et al. (2016) found that female representation on a local recycling initiative influenced the willingness of female citizens to cooperate and participate on an important policy outcome.

The applicability of passive and/or symbolic representation for women in federal law enforcement is especially interesting, partly because of the traditional views of law enforcement as a male-dominated profession—as mentioned previously 15.5% of all federal law enforcement officers are women—but also because the current state of law enforcement is perhaps better suited than ever to complement the modern skill sets that women bring to the profession (Reaves, 2012; Schulze, 2012; Swan, 2016). Testimony provided by the Women in Federal Law Enforcement (2015) in response to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (Executive Order 13684) asserts that

Women tend toward a different style of policing that relies more on communication skills. They demonstrate an ability to foster cooperation with citizens and are more likely to use their skills to de-escalate conflict. In a highly competitive and increasingly fractious world, women possess the kind of critical problem-solving skills that are urgently needed to break down barriers, build understanding, and create the best conditions for law enforcement to effectively address its jurisdictional and community responsibilities.

As a result, the theory of representative bureaucracy provides further legitimacy and trustworthiness for women to view federal law enforcement as a viable career option, while asserting public organizations should reflect the demographical characteristics of the public they serve. In addition, representative bureaucracy serves as the catalyst for highlighting affirmative action programs as a means for hiring more women in federal law enforcement, while complying with Executive Order 13583 (2011) to promote equal employment opportunities to attract the most talented citizens to public service.

Legal Framework

There is a general policy, evidenced by statutory and judicial rulings, to encourage federal employers to adopt affirmative action programs to remedy the effects of past discrimination against protected groups like women and minorities (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 1987; United Steelworkers v. Weber, 1979; Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education, 1986; 42 U.S.C. 2000e [16](e); 29 C.F.R. 1607.13). However, because affirmative action programs exist in tension with the idea that agencies should hire without regard to race, gender, or other similar factors, there are constraints on how an agency may enact such programs. The Supreme Court, in a series of decisions addressing gender- and race-based affirmative action, has identified parameters within which an agency may remedy a badly skewed workforce. Although many of the decisions involve state interests, cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 1987; United Steelworkers v. Weber, 1979) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Fisher v. University of Texas, 2016; Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 1978; United States v. Virginia, 1996; Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education, 1986) provide useful guidelines for appropriate affirmative action in federal employment. However, if the differentiation is based on race and brought under the Equal Protection Clause, a higher standard is applied to satisfy “strict scrutiny” requirements (Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education, 1986). On the contrary, if the differentiation is based on gender and brought under the Equal Protection Clause, the less exacting test of “immediate scrutiny” is applied, although there still needs to be an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the classification (wUnited States v. Virginia, 1996).

Employers may not implement hiring practices that are race- or sex-conscious unless they can show “compelling interest”—that is, unless they can demonstrate a compelling problem that the program is designed to remedy (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 1987; United Steelworkers v. Weber, 1979; Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education). The compelling interest needs to demonstrate an “important governmental objective” such as compensating women for particular past discrimination, promoting diversity and equal employment opportunities, and reducing the economic disparity between men and women (Califano v. Webster, 1977; California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 1987; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Fisher v. University of Texas, 2016; 29 C.F.R. 1608.4). The economic disparity justification could be particularly applicable for the need to hire more female federal law enforcement officers, given that they are eligible for a host of economic benefits, including law enforcement availability pay—a mandated supplemental income equal to 25% of an officer’s basic pay to compensate for the large amounts of overtime recognized in federal law enforcement—and early 20-year retirements (OPM, 2017a, 2017b). However, more recent decisions by the Court have curtailed the scope and meaning of affirmative action by focusing on the issue of diversity as a compelling interest (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Fisher v. University of Texas, 2013; wFisher v. University of Texas, 2016). As a result, “The importance of diversity in educational institutions has far-reaching consequences” for promoting diversity “in public and private employment” (Riccucci, 2017, p. 23). Therefore, promoting diversity may be a better justification for hiring more women in federal law enforcement.

Beyond the compelling government interest, an employer must be able to show that there is a “manifest imbalance” in the workforce between the numbers of male and female employees, and that the imbalance affects a position or occupation that is “traditionally segregated” (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 1987). Determining that there is a manifest imbalance takes more work than simply looking at the relative number of male and female federal law enforcement officers; however, according to 29 C.F.R 1608.3(b), the appropriate comparison is between the number of women in the workforce qualified for the position, relative to the number of qualified men. If the proportion of women currently in federal law enforcement is (statistically) significantly different from the proportion of qualified female candidates, then a manifest imbalance may exist. This groundwork is a necessary prerequisite to implementing an affirmative action program directed at hiring women because the Courts will not uphold an affirmative action program based on societal discrimination alone (Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education, 1986). However, some of the work has already been done. For example, the latest census of federal law enforcement officers concludes that 15.5% of federal officers are female (Reaves, 2012). This is proof that at least 15.5% of the qualified workforce is female. If a federal agency has a lower percentage than that, this would show disparate impact and be a good place to start as evidence for the need for affirmative action. It seems likely, however, that more than 15.5% of individuals qualified to be federal officers are women. Nevertheless, demonstrating a manifest imbalance within a specific agency, not just with federal law enforcement at large, is a necessary prerequisite to adopting any kind of affirmative action initiative. A specific agency need not explicitly admit that they previously discriminated, but must identify a troubling current imbalance in the workforce.

Enacting an Affirmative Action Plan and Recruitment

Therefore, in order for an affirmative action policy to be constitutionally acceptable, it has to be explicitly set out in an official policy, “substantially related” to the governmental interest identified above, narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal, and must negatively impact as few others as possible (29 C.F.R. 1608.4 [b]-(c)). The affirmative action plan cannot include any kind of “quota” or designated percentage that need to be female, and no positions should be set aside specifically for female hires (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003; Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 1978). Rather, it can, at most, permit the consideration of gender as one of many factors in a hiring decision (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 1978). This is consistent with the policy of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). According to 29 C.F.R. 1608.5(c), an employer may not hire or open a position to only one gender without special OPM permission. Incidentally in 2014, OPM waived Title 5 and sanctioned the advertisement of a female-only vacancy announcement for Border Patrol agents in Customs and Border Protection. The agency successfully defended a critical need to hire more female agents due to the influx of undocumented women and children crossing the southwest borders. Although unknown if OPM will waive Title 5 again, it opens the door for a possible change in governmental hiring. However, under normal circumstances when gender is under consideration, hiring decisions should always be a case-by-case choice between equally qualified candidates and not based wholly on gender, to be constitutionally sound (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 1987). In addition to being explicit, goal-oriented, and multi-faceted, the program must also be temporary. It is permissible to have a program designed to attain a measure of parity between the genders in a certain job category, but it is not permissible to have a program to maintain such parity long term (United Steelworkers v. Weber, 1979).

Although the statutory and regulatory restrictions focus on discrimination in hiring practices, recruitment efforts are not subject to the same types of restrictions. Therefore, much of the workforce imbalance can be corrected through selective and targeted recruitment. According to Milgram (2002), when law enforcement agencies reach out to qualified women and send them the message that they are welcome and valued, these agencies are able to significantly increase the number of females selected for initial training. However, even when agencies aggressively recruit women, there is no guarantee that women will be hired. In addition, men have filed “reverse discrimination” suits when agencies seek to hire more women (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 1987). The following agencies are among state and local law enforcement agencies that have increased the number of female recruits through targeted recruitment: Albuquerque Police Department, New Mexico (10%-33%); Tucson Police Department, Arizona (10%-29%); Delaware State Police Department (11%-23%); and San Jose Police Department, California (8%-50%; Milgram, 2002). Despite the effort in state and municipal policing, there does not appear to be much effort with recruiting more women in federal law enforcement. Besides the one-time unprecedented action by OPM for Customs and Border Protection as mentioned previously, an annual career fair hosted by a women’s federal law enforcement advocacy group, and the presence of women (usually one) on an agency’s marketing poster, the author was unable to find any other proactive recruitment efforts generated toward women. This is evident by the dismal growth of women in federal law enforcement during the last decade. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women accounted for 14.2% of all federal officers in 1998—almost 12,000 of about 83,000 total officers (Reaves & Hart, 2000). In comparison with the most recent census collected in 2008, women accounted for just 15.5% of all federal officers—approximately 18,600 of about 120,000 total officers (Reaves, 2012). This represents only an 8% increase of women officers when there was a 45% increase in the overall number of federal law enforcement officers during this time (Reaves, 2012; Reaves & Hart, 2000) (Table 1). Although women have now worked as federal officers for over 45 years, unlike their counterparts in state and local law enforcement, their presence has received little documentation in the research community. This study was designed to fill this gap and explores the recruitment practices for women in federal law enforcement.

Table 1.

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Over Time.

	Overall	Women	Overall Increase % (Women)
1998	83,000	11,786 (14.2%)	N/A
2000	88,000	12,672 (14.4%)	6% (1.1%)
2002	93,000	13,764 (14.8%)	12% (2.4%)
2004	105,000	16,905 (16.1%)	26.5% (6.2%)
2008	120,000	18,600 (15.5%)	44.6% (8.2%)

Source. Adapted from Reaves and Hart (2000, 2001); Reaves and Bauer (2003); Reaves, (2006, 2012).

Research Settings and Method

This study drew its sample (N = 201) from sworn federal law enforcement officers who graduated from the Criminal Investigators Training Program (CITP) at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) between August 2015 and July 2016. FLETC is specifically asked to participate in this research project because they are the primary provider of basic law enforcement training to over 90 federal law enforcement agencies in the United States, and CITP is their 56-day program of instruction that fulfills the basic criminal investigative training requirements for all new criminal investigators employed by a federal law enforcement agency (FLETC, 2017). An online Qualtrics survey was sent to all recent graduates of the CITP and was open for 30 days with a reminder mid-study. To increase reciprocity with potential study participants, the survey link was sent by a member of FLETC, describing the study and encouraging maximum voluntary participation. The 15-item survey asks both quantitative and qualitative questions about participants’ identities and experiences with recruitment. It covers two basic domains: demographic profile (e.g., gender, age, race, education) and recruitment practices (e.g., how recruited and proactive human resource recommendations to recruit more women in federal law enforcement). Not all survey items are covered in this article. Although the primary purpose was to analyze responses from female officers, the inclusion of male officers allows for developing a comparative landscape of the organizational climate women face in federal law enforcement. All respondents are guaranteed anonymity.

Survey responses are loaded onto SPSS software for data analysis. The first section collects responses to demographic variables using both open-ended and fixed-choice questions to describe the sample. Open-ended questions include respondents’ age, current agency, and total years of service in state or local law enforcement (if any). The remaining demographic variables utilize fixed-choice questions and include: gender (1 = male and 2 = female), veteran status (1 = yes, 2 = no; 3 = active duty), level of education (1 = high school, 2 = associate, 3 = bachelors, 4 = masters, 5 = Juris Doctor, and 6 = PhD), ethnicity (1 = African American, 2 = Asian/Pacific Islander, 3 = Caucasian, 4 = Hispanic, 5 = Native American, and 6 = Multi-Racial), relationship status (1 = single, 2 = married, 3 = separated, 4 = divorced, and 5 = widowed), number of children (select 0-10), and state and local law enforcement experience (1 = yes and 2 = no). The remainder of the survey collects responses to actual experiences and opinions to explore recruitment practices in federal law enforcement—how officers are recruited and how agencies can recruit more women into federal law enforcement.

Responses to open-ended questions are coded into specific themes based on author’s technical interpretation of the data. See Appendix for all survey items used in this analysis.

Findings

Demographic Profile

The sample consists of 158 male officers and 43 female officers representing 32 federal law enforcement agencies. Almost two-fifths (39.3%) have prior military service or are currently on active duty. The respondents are 22 to 49 years old with a mean age of 32.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.81). Well over half identify as Caucasian (69.5%) and married (64.2%) and have a mean response of 1.86 children (SD = 1.16). These sworn officers are educated with 53.5% having at least a bachelor’s degree and 32% having a master’s or higher. Interestingly, 40.2% have prior experience in state or local law enforcement with a mean tenure of 6.81 years (SD = 3.78) before being hired into federal law enforcement. Controlling for gender, the demographic profile becomes more interesting when the data are segregated. Four variables stand out: veteran status, relationship status, number of children, and prior experience in state and local law enforcement (Table 2).

Table 2.

Demographic Profile.

	N	Males	Females	All
Gender	201	158	43	201
Age	200	33.6	30.3	32.9
Veteran or active duty status^a	201	45.6%	16.3%	39.3%
Relationship status^a	199
Single		24.8%	54.8%	31.2%
Married		73.2%	33.3%	64.8%
Separated/divorced		1.9%	9.5%	3.5%
Widowed		0.0%	2.4%	0.5%
Number of children^a	197	2.01	1.33	1.86
Ethnicity	200
Caucasian		68.2%	74.4%	69.5%
African American		8.9%	9.3%	9.0%
Asian/Pacific Islander		1.9%	4.7%	2.5%
Hispanic		14.6%	11.6%	14.0%
Native American		1.3%	0.0%	1.0%
Multi-racial		5.1%	0.0%	4.0%
Level of education	200
High school		7.0%	0.0%	5.5%
Associate		10.2%	4.7%	9.0%
Bachelor		54.8%	48.8%	53.5%
Master		24.2%	39.5%	27.5%
Juris Doctor		2.5%	7.0%	3.5%
PhD		1.3%	0.0%	1.0%
Prior state or local experience^a	199	43.9%	26.2%	40.2%

Noted differences between male and female respondents.

Recruitment Practices

In addition to demographics to describe the junior officers in this study, the research sought to explore recruitment practices in federal law enforcement—how officers are recruited and how agencies can recruit more women into this profession (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3.

Recruitment Method.

	Males	Females	All
	(n = 145)	(n = 41)	(n = 186)
Self-applied (not recruited)	62.1%	46.3%	58.6%
Recommendation (recruited)	22.8%	34.1%	25.3%
Internal hire (prior non-LE position)	12.4%	7.3%	11.3%
Internship	2.8%	12.2%	4.8%

Note. LE = law enforcement.

Table 4.

Strategies to Recruit More Women in FLE.

	Males	Females	All
	(n = 147)	(n = 43)	(n = 190)
Active FLE advertisement	32.7%	22.9%	30.3%
Women-centric/diversity advertisement	23.8%	27.1%	24.6%
College job fairs w/female recruiters	16.3%	20.8%	17.4%
More family-friendly policies	6.1%	14.5%	8.2%
Other LE agencies	8.8%	4.2%	7.7%
Female-only job announcement	1.4%	4.7%	2.1%

Note. FLE = federal law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, over half (58.6%) of the respondents are not actively recruited into federal law enforcement but rather self-applied. Unlike local and state law enforcement agencies that recruit and hire on a jurisdictional basis—12,326 local police departments, 3,012 sheriff’s offices, and 49 state agencies (Reaves, 2015)—the federal government, to include federal law enforcement agencies, uses USAJOBS.gov as their official employment site (USAJOBS, 2017). Federal agencies use USAJOBS to help recruit and facilitate their hiring processes, therefore, serving as the central location to find job openings within hundreds of federal agencies and organizations. As a result, an argument can be made that federal law enforcement agencies do not need to actively recruit potential applicants, as it is common knowledge that all federal governmental hiring is done through USAJOBS. The data certainly support this argument, which does not necessarily bode well for active female recruitment unless OPM sanctions the advertisement of a female-only vacancy announcement as mentioned previously. However, over two-fifths (41.4%) of the respondents are actively recruited into federal law enforcement through personal recommendations, internal cross-functional hires, and internships. Controlling for gender, more female respondents (53.7%) are actively recruited than male respondents (37.9%), suggesting perhaps that federal agencies are actively seeking female officers. This is consistent with research on representative bureaucracy and gender diversity that suggest that public agencies should mirror the demographical characteristics of its citizens and service recipients to improve work outcomes (Choi, 2010; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006; Kennedy, 2014; Lim, 2006; Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Pitts & Wise, 2010; Selden, 1997). To recruit more women into this profession, the respondents in this study identify five recommendations for federal agencies to target more female applicants.

Recommendations and Discussion

The federal government’s hiring preference for veterans is well protected with the passage of the Veteran’s Preference Act of 1944 and supporting OPM guidelines; however, it potentially serves as a disadvantage for women interested in nontraditional occupations such as law enforcement since recruitment stems from another nontraditional occupation—women make up only 15.9% of all active duty military members to begin with (Defense Manpower Data Center [DMDC], 2016). This is reflected in the sample; 45.6% of the men are veterans or on active duty compare to just 16.3% of the women. One possible means of enacting affirmative action in federal law enforcement hiring is through preferential selection of certified applicants. Rather than ranking applicants numerically, agencies may group applicants into qualification categories pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2108, with federal officer hires selected from only the highest qualification category; however, there is some flexibility in how applicants are ordered within a category, allowing female applicants to move to the top of the list. In addition, 5 U.S.C 3317(b) allows the hiring authority to select anyone from the highest-qualified category; however, that discretion is limited. There are a class of individuals called “preference eligibles” who must automatically rise to the top of the list in whatever category they fall into; some (like most veterans) automatically rise to the best-qualified category and then to the top of that list (OPM, 2017c). All preference eligibles must come before all non-preference eligibles within a given qualification category. Although the hiring authority is generally able to appoint anyone from the highest qualified category, they may not select a non-preference eligible over a preference eligible, even within the same category, without filing a written objection with and obtaining final permission from OPM (5 U.S.C. 3,318[b]). Even if a hiring authority wishes to object to a preference eligible in order to hire a female non-preference eligible to improve the workforce balance, OPM would unlikely grant the objection, particularly if the position is advertised to applicants of both genders. However, among non-preference eligibles, the applicants on the certification may be listed in any order, and this provides the best opportunity to adopt a moderate affirmative action program, permitting the gender of the applicant to be one factor in determining where they fall among the non preference eligibles. This program seems to conform to the requirements set forth by the Court, as long as it is temporary in nature and accompanied by explicit and carefully crafted hiring goals. For example, an agency must make gender only one factor in the decision-making process, and ensures that all candidates are equally qualified for the position (because they are all being drawn from the same category). Placement lower on the list does not negatively affect the eligibility of the male non-preference eligibles because all individuals in the highest category must be certified as eligible (OPM, 2017c). Therefore, if an agency is willing to undertake the requisite planning, this could be a moderate and reasonable affirmative step toward improving the ratio of female to male officers within an agency; however, veteran’s preference does not bode well for increasing women’s presence in federal law enforcement unless the percentage of women on active duty also increases, an unlikely outcome in the near future.

Relationship status and the number of children also vary widely among gender. The overwhelming majority of male officers are married (73.2%) and 24.8% are single. The female officers portray a different image. Far fewer female officers are married (33.3%), and over half (54.8%) are single with another 9.5% that are divorced. Although it is unclear what the disparity in reporting may imply, age and career choice likely played a role. The male officers have a mean age of 33.6 (SD = 4.82). In comparison, the female officers have a mean age of 30.3 (SD = 3.83), suggesting women are recruited and hired into federal law enforcement at a younger age than the men. Although the exact reasons are unknown, the data are consistent with social trends that show women are delaying marriage to pursue a career (Livingston & Caumont, 2017; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). As for children, the male officers have a mean response of 2.01 children (SD = 1.19), whereas the female officers have a mean response of 1.33 children (SD = 0.82). This is again likely attributable to age and marital status and consistent with previous studies that found women in federal law enforcement as unmarried and had few to no children (Keverline, 2003; Schulz, 2009; Yu, 2015).

Finally, prior experience in state and local law enforcement also vary widely among gender. More male officers (43.9%) have prior law enforcement experience than the female officers (26.2%). As a whole, this is positive. Since all federal law enforcement agencies must compete to attract new and experienced recruits to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve, this is certainly a field they will find a pool of qualified candidates. In addition, Dougherty and Van Gelder (2015) found that public servants with prior experience in the public sector have a more balanced approach to decision-making. However, like veteran’s status, state and local law enforcement is also a nontraditional occupation and their percentages are even lower than federal law enforcement—women represent 12.2% of officers in local police departments, 13.9% in sheriffs’ offices, and 6.5% in state agencies (Burch, 2016; Langton, 2010; Reaves, 2015). Despite the low percentages, federal agencies should reach out to women in local and state law enforcement during joint investigations and liaison efforts. A personal recruitment pitch is one of the most effective messaging strategies to welcome women into an organization. Plus, federal law enforcement agencies offer higher starting salaries, as well as higher annual median earnings. In May 2004, the median annual earnings were US$75,700 in federal government, US$46,670 in state government, and US$49,650 in local government (Damp, 2008).

To recruit more women into this profession, the respondents in this study identify five recommendations for federal agencies to target more female applicants. Not surprisingly, the top suggestion is active advertising for federal law enforcement occupations in general. Although most people are familiar with federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency to name a few, there are over 100 federal law enforcement agencies, representing over 40 job series that perform one of six primary functions—criminal investigation, police response and patrol, inspections, corrections and detention, security and protection, and court operations (Ackerman, 2006; Reaves, 2012).

Viewing recruitment as advertising may require a major paradigm shift for many law enforcement agencies as many view the profession as a “calling” rather than a career choice (Milgram, 2002); however, such thinking is antiquated and federal agencies must proactively recruit through their agency’s webpages, social media, and other news outlets to attract quality candidates to reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.

The remaining recommendations are women-centric. Similar to the first recommendation, the respondents suggest a women-specific approach to advertising. Strategies include the presence (and recognition of achievements) of female officers in marketing campaigns, highlighting more realistic job duties and responsibilities of the profession (non-physical), and active advertisements on websites, news outlets, conferences, job fairs, and other gatherings dedicated to women (e.g., gyms, clubs, etc.). If physical presence is required (e.g., conference, job fair, etc.), a female officer should represent the organization in lieu of a male officer. Other suggestions include the advertising of family-friendly policies and/or adopting more family-friendly policies, as well as actively recruiting women from other local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, to include women soon departing the military. Regardless of which strategy an agency may adopt, the messaging must be clear: we want and welcome women.

A final recommendation by the author includes the posting of a female-only job announcement. Although only 2.1% of the respondents provide this suggestion, it warrants a further look. As mentioned previously, OPM waived Title 5 and sanctioned the advertisement of a female-only vacancy announcement for Border Patrol agents in the southwest offices of Customs and Border Protection. Like all federal organizations, federal law enforcement agencies must fill vacant positions through competitive examining and hiring processes; however, it is now possible due to their actions in 2014 to get OPM to delegate a direct-hire authorization under 5 U.S.C. 3304 (a)(3) for a critical hiring need or when there is a severe shortage of candidates. Although it would be difficult to allege that direct-hire authority is needed under the regulatory definition of “severe shortage” of qualified applicants (5 C.F.R. 337.204), the definition of a “critical hiring need” may prove more useful. According to 5 C.F.R. 337.202 (c), a critical hiring need occurs when the “agency needs to fill a position or a group of position(s) to meet mission requirements . . . or to conform to the requirements of law, a Presidential directive, or an Administration initiative.” Arguably, hiring more female federal officers could be necessary to fill the position with some women to comply with Executive Order 11478, and all equal opportunity initiatives the government has undertaken with regard to gender or minorities since its signing in 1969. Furthermore, according to 5 C.F.R 330, veteran’s preference does not apply in direct-hire situations. There is also a public notice requirement (5 C.F.R. 337.203) that may, however, generate a substantial amount of criticism. Regardless, the process to convince OPM to delegate a direct-hire authority for such an affirmative project is not easy. The request has to come from the “Chief Human Capital Officer” or the agency equivalent, and must explain why the hiring need is critical to the agency and its mission, explain the circumstances attending the request, establish the duration of the requested direct-hire authority, and show why other authorities for hiring won’t or haven’t worked (OPM, 2007). The possibility that it will be publicly unpopular may make them hesitant to approve the request. In addition, using direct-hire authority solely to appoint women or minorities may raise some constitutional concerns; however, the fact that the direct-hire authority is time limited and subject to review and monitoring by OPM (5 C.F.R. 337.206) puts the proposition in a stronger position constitutionally though it is still fallible. If other programs, such as targeted recruitment and the name-reordering plan, fail to remedy the imbalance, this program may, in fact, be the most tailored, least intrusive method effective for bringing on more female federal officers. In the case of Customs and Border Protection, the agency successfully defended a critical need to hire more female agents due to the influx of undocumented women and children crossing the southwest borders. Although it is unknown if OPM will waive Title 5 again, it opens the door for other agencies.

Conclusion

In this article, the author focuses on the recruitment practices for women in federal law enforcement. The findings are revealing and represent a unique opportunity for the federal law enforcement agencies to progress and be a leader of change. Although challenges in attracting a diverse workforce are not unique, recruiting more women would transform federal law enforcement not because women are the same as men but because they are different and bring skillsets that focus on communication, critical-thinking, problem-solving, and conflict resolution. Unless traditional HRM policies and practices are substantially changed, women will remain underrepresented in this field and end up in the same situation for our next generation of female participation in federal law enforcement. This study provides six recommendations for recruiting more women into federal law enforcement. Although options will vary from one agency to another, any active effort should succeed in increasing the female applicant pool.

The present study is not unique in its research limitations. First, the sample represents those sworn officers trained at FLETC. This limits the sampling frame and may therefore not be representative of all sworn federal law enforcement officers. In addition, the single wave of data collection continues to limit the representation of all sworn federal officers. Second, responses relied on the self-reporting of participants. As all participants have unique characteristics, different orientations, and different perceptions, there may be some reporting bias; however, as the author has technical understanding of federal law enforcement, the survey uses appropriate language. In addition, the author pretests the survey instrument with two individuals familiar with federal law enforcement to minimize bias or misinterpretation. Finally, the descriptive approach to this study precludes any generalizable findings; however, the information brought forth in this article should be of interest to HRM professionals in federal agencies as well as in law enforcement agencies. In addition, students of HRM will gain a better understanding of practices in federal agencies.

Footnotes

Appendix

Survey Items.

1. Age: (fill in)
2. Gender:	a. Male	b. Female
3. Are you a veteran?	a. Yes	b. No	c. Active Duty
4. Highest level of education attained:
	a. High School	b. Associate	c. Bachelors
	d. Masters	e. Juris Doctor	f. PhD
5. Ethnicity:	a. African American	b. Asian/Pacific	c. Caucasian
	d. Hispanic	e. Native American	f. Multi-Racial
6. Relationship status:	a. Single	b. Married	c. Separated
	d. Divorced	e. Widowed
7. Number of children: (select 0-10)
8. Do you have prior experience in state or local law enforcement?
	a. Yes	b. No (skip to #10)
9. How many years and months did you work in state or local law enforcement? (fill in)
10. Which federal law enforcement agency do you currently work for? (fill in)
11. How did this particular agency recruit you into federal law enforcement? (NOTE: If you were not directly recruited, please state how you found this agency.) (fill in)
12. According to the latest figures provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women comprise just 15.5% of all sworn federal law enforcement officers. How can federal law enforcement agencies recruit more women into this field/profession? (fill in)

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Daiya Lemon for her assistance with Qualtrics and data analysis.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Helen H. Yu is an assistant professor of Public Administration at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. She is a retired lieutenant colonel with the US Air Force, and her research interests include the recruitment, retention, and promotion of women in federal law enforcement.

References

Ackerman

T. H.

(2006). Federal law enforcement careers: Profiles of 250 high-powered positions and surefire tactics for getting hired. Indianapolis, IN: Jist Works.

Bowling

C. J.

Kelleher

C. A.

Jones

Wright

D. S.

(2006). Cracked ceilings, firmer floors, and weakening walls: Trends and patterns in gender representation among executives leading American state agencies, 1970-2000. Public Administration Review, 66, 823-836.

Bumgarner

J. B.

(2006). Federal agents: The growth of federal law enforcement in America. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Burch

A. M.

(2016, June). Sheriff’s office personnel, 1993-2013 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 249757). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (1977).

California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987).

Campbell

D. J.

Christman

B. D.

Feigelson

M. E.

(2000). Improving the recruitment of women in policing: An investigation of women’s attitudes and job preferences. The Police Chief, 67(11), 18-28.

Choi

(2010). Diversity in the U.S. federal government: Antecedents and correlates of diversity in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 301-321.

Damp

D. V.

(2008). The book of U.S. government jobs: Where they are, what’s available, and how to get one (10th ed.). McKees Rocks, PA: Bookhaven Press.

10.

Defense Manpower Data Center. (2016). Active duty military personnel by service by rank/grade. Retrieved from https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp

11.

Dougherty

G. W.

Van Gelder

(2015). Pubic agency hiring, minimum qualifications, and experience. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 169-192.

12.

Executive Order No. 11478, 34 F.R. 12985 (1969).

13.

Executive Order No. 13583, 76 C.F.R. 52847 (2011).

14.

Executive Order No. 13684, 79 C.F.R. 76865 (2014).

15.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.fletc.org

16.

Felkenes

G. T.

Peretz

Schroedel

J. R.

(1993). An analysis of the mandatory hiring of females: The Los Angeles police department experience. Women and Criminal Justice, 4(2), 31-63.

17.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U. S. __(2013).

18.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. __ (2016).

19.

Gade

D. M.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2013). Where did you serve? Veteran identity, representative bureaucracy, and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 267-288.

20.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).

21.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

22.

Hellriegel

Short

(1972). Equal employment opportunity in the federal government: A comparative analysis. Public Administration Review, 32, 851-858.

23.

Hess

K. M.

(2009). Introduction to law enforcement and criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

24.

Horne

(2006). Policewomen: Their first century and the new era. The Police Chief, 73(9), 56-61.

25.

Hsieh

C. W.

Winslow

(2006). Gender representation in the federal workforce: A comparison among groups. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 276-294.

26.

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987).

27.

Kennedy

(2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society, 46, 395-421.

28.

Keverline

(2003, August). Executive summary: In the face of challenges, women in federal law enforcement persist and excel. Paper presented at the 4th Annual WIFLE® Leadership Training Conference, Washington, DC.

29.

Langton

(2010, June). Women in Law Enforcement, 1987-2008 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, NCJ230521. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

30.

Lim

(2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 193-205.

31.

Livingston

Caumont

(2017). 8 facts on love and marriage in America. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/13/8-facts-about-love-and-marriage/

32.

Lonsway

K. A.

(2000). Hiring and retaining more women: The advantages to law enforcement agencies. Washington, DC: National Center for Women and Policing.

33.

Markoff

H. S.

(1972). The federal women’s program. Public Administration Review, 32, 144-151.

34.

Marvel

J. D.

Resh

W. G.

(2015). Bureaucratic discretion, client demographics, and representative bureaucracy. American Review of Public Administration, 45, 281-310.

35.

Meier

K. J.

Nicholson-Crotty

(2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66, 850-860.

36.

Milgram

(2002). Recruiting women to policing: Practical strategies that work. The Police Chief, 69(4), 23-29.

37.

Mosher

F. C.

(1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

38.

Office of Personnel Management. (2007). Delegated examining operations handbook: A guide for federal agency examining offices. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/competitive-hiring/deo_handbook.pdf

39.

Office of Personnel Management. (2017a). Pay and leave, fact sheet: Availability pay. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/availability-pay/

40.

Office of Personnel Management. (2017b). Special retirement handbook. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications-forms/csrsfers-handbook/c046.pdf

41.

Office of Personnel Management. (2017c). Frequently asked questions: Veterans. Retrieved from https://www.opm.gov/faqs/topic/veterans/

42.

Pitts

D. W.

Wise

L. R.

(2010). Workforce diversity in the new millennium: Prospects for research. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30, 44-69.

43.

Reaves

B. A.

(2006, July). Federal law enforcement officers, 2004 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 212750). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

44.

Reaves

B. A.

(2012, June). Federal law enforcement officers, 2008 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 238250). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

45.

Reaves

B. A.

(2015, May). Local police departments, 2013: Personnel, policies, and practices (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 248677). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

46.

Reaves

B. A.

Bauer

L. M.

(2003, August). Federal law enforcement officers, 2002 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 199995). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

47.

Reaves

B. A.

Hart

T. C.

(2000, March). Federal law enforcement officers, 1998 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 177607). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

48.

Reaves

B. A.

Hart

T. C.

(2001, July). Federal law enforcement officers, 2000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, NCJ 187231). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

49.

Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

50.

Riccucci

N. M.

(2017). Fisher v. University of Texas and the status of affirmative action: Implications for social equity. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37, 23-39.

51.

Riccucci

N. M.

Riccardelli

(2014). The use of written exams in police and fire departments: Implications for social diversity. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35, 352-366.

52.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

Lavena

C. F.

(2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 537-551.

53.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76, 121-130.

54.

Schulz

D. M.

(2004). Breaking the brass ceiling: Women police chiefs and their paths to the top. Westport, CT: Praeger.

55.

Schulz

D. M.

(2009). Women special agents in charge: The first generation. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32, 675-693.

56.

Schulze

(2012). The masculine yardstick of physical competence: U.S. police academy fitness tests. Women & Criminal Justice, 22, 89-107.

57.

Selden

S. C.

(1997). Representative bureaucracy: Examining the linkage between passive and active representation in the Farmers Home Administration. American Review of Public Administration, 27, 22-42.

58.

Sowa

J. E.

Selden

S. C.

(2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63, 700-710.

59.

Swan

A. A.

(2016). Masculine, feminine, or androgynous: The influence of gender identity on job satisfaction among female police officers. Women & Criminal Justice, 26, 1-19.

60.

Theobald

N. A.

Haider-Markel

D. P.

(2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 409-426.

61.

Traut

C. A.

Feimer

Emmert

C. F.

Thom

(2000). Law enforcement recruit training at the state level: An evaluation. Police Quarterly, 3, 294-314.

62.

Tuomey

L. M.

Jolly

(2009). Step-up to law enforcement: A successful strategy for recruiting women into the law enforcement profession. The Police Chief, 76(6), 68-73.

63.

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).

64.

United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979).

65.

USAJOBS. (2017). About USAJOBS. Retrieved from https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/About/

66.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Current population survey, annual social and economic supplements, 1947 to 2016. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

67.

Whetstone

T. S.

Reed

J. C.

Turner

P. C.

(2006). Recruiting: A comparative study of the recruiting practices of state police agencies. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8, 52-66.

68.

Wilkins

V. M.

(2007). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 77-94.

69.

Women in Federal Law Enforcement. (2015, January). Testimony in response to the president’s task force on 21st century policing. Retrieved from http://www.wifle.org/pdf/WIFLEtestimony.pdf

70.

Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986).

71.

H. H.

(2015). An examination of women in federal law enforcement: An exploratory analysis of the challenges they face in the work environment. Feminist Criminology, 10, 259-278.

72.

Zhao

Lovrich

N. P.

(2006). A longitudinal analysis of factors associated with the hiring of female officers. Police Quarterly, 9, 463-485.