EPA 1811 Sept Announcement

[Yeti1]

Has anyone heard back from the EPA for the announcement that expired on 1-Sept?

[jlac20]

Has anyone heard back from the EPA for the announcement that expired on 1-Sept?

I got a email saying

Thank you for your interest in working for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. We received your application for vacancy announcement HQ-OECA-MP-2009-0080, Criminal Investigator.

You were determined eligible for this position at the GS-07 level and your application was referred to the selecting official for consideration.

[usmcvet]

+1

I got a email saying

Thank you for your interest in working for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. We received your application for vacancy announcement HQ-OECA-MP-2009-0080, Criminal Investigator.

You were determined eligible for this position at the GS-07 level and your application was referred to the selecting official for consideration.

[Scout0315]

I heard back from 0039 but not 0080. I was referred on 0039 (GL-9).

[Kimble]

I'm not bashing EPA or any agency, but having worked environmental crimes before, I can say this is NOT work cut out for everyone (if I never work another environmental criime again, you'll hear no complaints from me). Some people dig it, and more power to them. It's work that helps to ensure the health of us all in what we eat, drink and breath, but if you're applying to this job just to get your 1811... well, it may not be to your liking if you don't have a passion for environmental crimes.

Just something to consider.

[Scout0315]

Follow-up

I called my HR contact, and I was referred for all 0080, 0096, and 0039.

GS-9 level.

Some stats I learned.

2000+ applicants to the 0039
800+ applicants to 0080
90 applicants to 0096

Just a little competitive for 24 total vacancies.

[jlac20]

I called my HR contact, and I was referred for all 0080, 0096, and 0039.

GS-9 level.

Some stats I learned.

2000+ applicants to the 0039
800+ applicants to 0080
90 applicants to 0096

Just a little competitive for 24 total vacancies.

The 0080 vacancy I applied for was specifically for Atlanta, so I hope you're not saying its 800 applicants for the 2 positions in Atlanta

[Scout0315]

The 0080 vacancy I applied for was specifically for Atlanta, so I hope you're not saying its 800 applicants for the 2 positions in Atlanta

0080 was the status national announcement to fill vacancies in 11 cities including Atlanta.

2 vacancies - Chicago Metro Area, IL 2 vacancies - Denver [Includes Lakewood], CO 2 vacancies - Helena, MT 2 vacancies - Philadelphia Metro Area, PA 2 vacancies - San Francisco County, CA 2 vacancies - Seattle & Tacoma, WA 2 vacancies - Anchorage, AK 2 vacancies - Baton Rouge, LA 2 vacancies - Atlanta, GA 2 vacancies - Miami, FL 2 vacancies - Los Angeles County, CA

0039 was the public version.

0096 was for 2 spots in Seattle

Giving a total of 24 psots or one class at FLETC.

[dpd0779]

Applied under the 0080 announcement and got referred, hopefully an interview soon. I have a buddy who got on with them last year, he seems to enjoy working there.

[Yeti1]

Scout - thanks for the info!

Anyone have any idea how the interview process works? For instance, how do the offices choose candidates who have selected multiple locations.

[Scout0315]

Scout - thanks for the info!

Anyone have any idea how the interview process works? For instance, how do the offices choose candidates who have selected multiple locations.

Now that there is a certificate (0080, 0039). Each certificate (copy of) is sent with the referred list for that location.

For example 100 names are on the certificate (0080). Only 40 of those names selected Atlanta. Only those 40 get sent to Atlanta for review. They can interview anyone, everyone , nobody. On a status announcement its wide open. Each site is a vacuum. So potentially if you selected every city, and you attracted the attention of all the SACs or ASAC (selecting official), you could be interviewed in all 11 locations.

Far smaller list for the public announcement I think they would send a list of like 5 or 6 names to each location. To put it in context my NOR is 106. Rule of three applies.

EPA MO is they generally select from the status announcement, much less red tape, and more applicants to look at. Further EPA does not like vets to much, so they don’t like public announcement that make them select a vet.

8.8% of the EPA work force are vets, less than ½ of 1 % are disabled vets as compared to 26.6% and 4% for the total executive agency work force.

[OKcop1]

I applied too and received the same message saying referred to the selecting official. I listed Chicago on my app.

[dpd0779]

Now that there is a certificate (0080, 0039). Each certificate (copy of) is sent with the referred list for that location.

For example 100 names are on the certificate (0080). Only 40 of those names selected Atlanta. Only those 40 get sent to Atlanta for review. They can interview anyone, everyone , nobody. On a status announcement its wide open. Each site is a vacuum. So potentially if you selected every city, and you attracted the attention of all the SACs or ASAC (selecting official), you could be interviewed in all 11 locations.

Far smaller list for the public announcement I think they would send a list of like 5 or 6 names to each location. To put it in context my NOR is 106. Rule of three applies.

EPA MO is they generally select from the status announcement, much less red tape, and more applicants to look at. Further EPA does not like vets to much, so they don’t like public announcement that make them select a vet.

8.8% of the EPA work force are vets, less than ½ of 1 % are disabled vets as compared to 26.6% and 4% for the total executive agency work force.

I would think there would be more who apply under the Public announcement. Wouldn't Vets apply under the Status announcement?

In speaking with my buddy he said the EPA likes Vets. Why would an agency not like Vets? What is the source of your stats? Are you including everyone who works for EPA or just the Agents?

[Scout0315]

I would think there would be more who apply under the Public announcement. Wouldn't Vets apply under the Status announcement?

In speaking with my buddy he said the EPA likes Vets. Why would an agency not like Vets? What is the source of your stats? Are you including everyone who works for EPA or just the Agents?

My data is based on 2006 report issued by OPM. It is based on the Agency as whole, not anyone subsection.

As a whole the EPA is designated "hostile" by veterans groups. GAO did an assessment of there employment practices in 2003 and hiring managers on public announcements routinely selected non-vets over vets in direct violation of the rule of 3, even when the vet was the most qualified individual.

It also culturally does not support reserve/NG. Members as a population do not receive promotions, raises, or bonuses at the same levels as their non-vet peers. Further in the senior levels (GS-14 and above) vets are almost non-existent. This is based on OPM & GSA reports.

Based on Employment Practices Related to Veterans:

Of independent Agencies EPA is ranked last (Agencies with more than 5,000 employees).

Compared to the 32 executive agencies (33 counting EPA) is ranked 2nd to last just behind Health and Human Service.

Out of 18,733 employees in 2006 the EPA employed 91 individuals who were rated 30% or greater disabled by the VA.

Too have so few so rated individuals’ takes bias in employment.


2006 OPM Data

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/demograp/2002/table8mw.pdf

[usmcvet]

Well, that's just ef'd up. Why the hostility against people that wore the cloth of the nation?

Anyway, I'm still hoping I get picked up.

My data is based on 2006 report issued by OPM. It is based on the Agency as whole, not anyone subsection.

As a whole the EPA is designated "hostile" by veterans groups...

It also culturally does not support reserve/NG. Members as a population do not receive promotions, raises, or bonuses at the same levels as their non-vet peers. Further in the senior levels (GS-14 and above) vets are almost non-existent.

Based on Employment Practices Related to Veterans:

...Out of 18,733 employees in 2006 the EPA employed 91 individuals who were rated 30% or greater disabled by the VA.

Too have so few so rated individuals’ takes bias in employment.


http://www.opm.gov/feddata/demograp/2002/table8mw.pdf