Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Sharing Promising
Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human Capital Planning
Can Improve Management of Growing Workload (23-JUN-08,
GAO-08-589).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, promotes equal
opportunity in the workplace and enforces federal laws that
prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
color, religion, national origin, age, and disability. As the
nation's primary enforcer of civil rights employment laws, EEOC
investigates charges of employment discrimination from the
public, litigates major cases, and reaches out to federal
agencies and the public to educate and prevent discrimination.
EEOC serves every industry, every segment of the population, and
every part of the country. While its core mission has not changed
since the agency was established more than 40 years ago, EEOC
continues to face a range of new challenges in the 21st century,
including long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics,
and rapid advances in technology. The federal government overall
faces significant human capital challenges, including a
retirement wave that will lead to the loss of leadership and
institutional knowledge at all levels. EEOC is not immune from
this trend. EEOC estimates that within 4 years, all of its
current senior executives and senior managers will be retirement
eligible, if they have not already retired by that time.
Moreover, between 2000 and 2007, EEOC lost nearly one-quarter of
its full-time-equivalent staff, from approximately 2,850 to about
2,150. In view of EEOC's human capital management challenges and
the growing demand for its services, we examined (1) national
trends in EEOC's private sector enforcement workload and the
factors that contribute to them, (2) how EEOC offices manage
their workload, and (3) EEOC actions to address its future
workforce needs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-589
ACCNO: A82490
TITLE: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Sharing
Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human
Capital Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload
DATE: 06/23/2008
SUBJECT: Agency missions
Employees
Employment
Employment discrimination
Employment opportunities
Fair employment programs
Human capital
Human capital management
Human capital planning
Human capital policies
Internal controls
Performance measures
Policy evaluation
Private sector practices
Program management
Staff utilization
Strategic planning
Work measurement
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-589
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to [email protected].
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate:
June 2008:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Sharing Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human
Capital Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload:
GAO-08-589:
Contents:
Letter:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Briefing to Congressional Staff on June 12, 2008:
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 23, 2008:
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
Dear Madam Chairman:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, promotes equal opportunity in the
workplace and enforces federal laws that prohibit employment
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national
origin, age, and disability. As the nation's primary enforcer of civil
rights employment laws, EEOC investigates charges of employment
discrimination from the public, litigates major cases, and reaches out
to federal agencies and the public to educate and prevent
discrimination. EEOC serves every industry, every segment of the
population, and every part of the country. While its core mission has
not changed since the agency was established more than 40 years ago,
EEOC continues to face a range of new challenges in the 21st century,
including long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics, and
rapid advances in technology.
The federal government overall faces significant human capital
challenges, including a retirement wave that will lead to the loss of
leadership and institutional knowledge at all levels. EEOC is not
immune from this trend. EEOC estimates that within 4 years, all of its
current senior executives and senior managers will be retirement
eligible, if they have not already retired by that time. Moreover,
between 2000 and 2007, EEOC lost nearly one-quarter of its full-time-
equivalent staff, from approximately 2,850 to about 2,150. In view of
EEOC's human capital management challenges and the growing demand for
its services, we examined (1) national trends in EEOC's private sector
enforcement workload and the factors that contribute to them, (2) how
EEOC offices manage their workload, and (3) EEOC actions to address its
future workforce needs.
We limited our review to EEOC's private sector enforcement program,
which represents the majority of the agency's workload.[Footnote 1] To
address our three objectives, we analyzed administrative and personnel
data from EEOC's data systems; interviewed investigators, attorneys,
and administrative staff on-site at six EEOC offices; administered a
data collection instrument to the Office of Human Resources; reviewed
relevant documentation about EEOC's strategic and human capital
planning process; and discussed that planning process with senior
agency officials at EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C. Specifically,
we analyzed (1) data from fiscal years 2004 through 2007 from EEOC's
Integrated Mission System database, which maintains information on
private sector charges of employment discrimination, and (2) personnel
data on investigator staffing levels from EEOC's Office of Human
Resources. We assessed the reliability of these data and found them to
be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We visited
EEOC offices in Atlanta, Baltimore, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Philadelphia,
and Seattle to collect information from a range of staff on EEOC's
private sector enforcement program. We selected offices on the basis of
a number of criteria, including geographic location, recent changes to
office structure, and varying performance levels. A more detailed
explanation of our methodology can be found in appendix I of this
report. We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to June
2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
On June 12, 2008, we briefed your office on the results of our analysis
(see app. II). This report formally conveys information provided during
that briefing. In summary, we reported the following findings about
EEOC's private sector enforcement program:
* Multiple factors contribute to EEOC's growing private sector
enforcement workload. Over the last 4 years, EEOC's private sector
workload has increased by 10 percent. Factors that have contributed to
the growing workload include the growth in the number of new
discrimination charges, which have become increasingly resource
intensive, and a decrease in the number of investigators. Over the same
period, the number of total charges handled per investigator increased
by 22 percent, the average number of days taken to close a charge
increased by 34 days, and the number of open charges at the end of the
fiscal year increased by 82 percent. EEOC's mediations and lawsuits for
its private sector charges showed modest increases over the last 4
years.
* While offices vary significantly in their ability to manage workload
in a timely manner, promising management practices have not been
identified. In 2007, the average number of days taken to close a
charge, the percentage of charges closed, and the average number of
total charges handled per investigator varied significantly by office.
At the same time, we found that key measures--such as the average
number of total charges per investigator and the percentage of new
resource-intensive charges--are not correlated with an office's ability
to manage workload in a timely manner. With varying levels of success,
the EEOC offices we visited use a variety of techniques to manage their
workload. However, EEOC lacks a systematic process to identify
promising management practices.
* Although EEOC has taken some actions to address future workforce
needs, these actions do not fully address leading principles for
effective strategic workforce planning. Specifically, EEOC's efforts to
develop, communicate, and implement a strategic human capital plan are
incomplete after 4 years. In addition, the critical skills that are
necessary to achieve EEOC's current and future programmatic results
have not been assessed, and current strategies to address gaps and
sustain critical skills are not based on identified skill gaps.
Furthermore, building support, such as with technology, for EEOC's
workforce planning strategies has posed challenges for the agency.
Finally, EEOC's progress toward achieving its human capital goals is
not directly measurable or linked to its programmatic results.
In conclusion, EEOC's mandate to promote equal opportunity in the
workplace and enforce federal employment antidiscrimination laws could
be compromised if EEOC cannot keep pace with its growing private sector
workload. EEOC could identify processes used by those offices that
achieve quality outcomes while resolving cases in a timely manner
despite the burden of heavy workloads. Such promising practices could
be used to help other offices meet EEOC's performance goals. In
addition, EEOC could make better use of the strategic planning
processes to develop a strategic human capital plan that addresses gaps
in knowledge, skills, and abilities in its current and future
workforce.
To help improve EEOC's ability to meet its current and future needs for
a critically skilled workforce, we are recommending that the Chair of
EEOC take the following two actions:
* develop criteria for identifying offices that ensure quality outcomes
in a timely manner and evaluate and share promising practices across
the agency and:
* finalize the strategic human capital plan, on the basis of skills and
competencies assessments, and develop an implementation plan for the
strategies identified in the plan with stakeholder input that
identifies necessary resources, responsible parties, timelines for
completion, and milestones to measure progress.
We provided a draft of this report to EEOC for comment. EEOC stated
that our report concludes that the agency's ability to manage its
private sector workload declined between fiscal years 2004 and 2007.
Our report does not draw this conclusion; rather, it describes national
trends in its private sector enforcement program and identifies factors
that contribute to them. We conclude that EEOC's mission could be
compromised if the agency cannot keep pace with its growing workload.
With regard to our recommendation that it develop criteria for
identifying and sharing promising practices across the agency, EEOC
stated that it currently has a mechanism to do so. However, we found
that EEOC's technical reviews do not systematically inquire about or
identify promising practices, based on our assessment of the review
protocol. Moreover, during our site visits to EEOC field offices,
managers in three field offices we spoke with noted a lack of
involvement in the systematic and agencywide sharing of promising
practices. EEOC did not fully address our second recommendation, but
stated that it anticipates that its strategic human capital plan will
be submitted to the Chair by the end of fiscal year 2008. EEOC also
noted that it conducts both workforce analysis and planning as part of
its annual budget process and as a component of program management. We
found that it does not approach workforce planning strategically--based
on mission needs, customer expectations, workload, and workforce--or
systematically. Furthermore, we found that EEOC's draft strategic human
capital plan does not currently integrate workforce data with workload
data. We stand by our recommendation that the plan be finalized, on the
basis of skills and competencies assessments, and that EEOC develop an
implementation plan for the strategies it has identified that includes
stakeholder input and identifies necessary resources, responsible
parties, timelines for completion, and milestones to measure progress.
EEOC commented on several additional findings in the draft report.
Although EEOC agreed with our characterization of the agency's
challenges, it raised concerns about our calculation of mission-
critical staff. Yet our analysis is based on the mission-critical
occupations identified in EEOC's draft strategic human capital plan
that are part of its private sector enforcement program. EEOC also
stated that we do not significantly acknowledge the impact of the
reduction in staff on EEOC's ability to manage its workload. Our report
finds that the decline in the number of investigators from fiscal years
2004 to 2007 is a contributing factor to EEOC's growing private sector
workload. EEOC said we should not ignore the relationship between
charge inventory and staffing. We did not. In fact, our analysis of
EEOC's data shows no correlation between an office's ability to close
charges within 180 days or fewer and the average number of total
charges handled by an investigator. Further, EEOC questioned our
exclusion of other criteria that could have been assessed, such as the
size of the office, geographic areas served, and staff time devoted to
intake. We selected the most critical factors to examine, based on our
interviews with staff in six EEOC field offices. As part of its
workload/workforce analysis, EEOC can study the potential impact of the
additional factors it has identified on an ongoing basis. Finally, EEOC
stated that in describing the variety of techniques EEOC offices use to
manage workload, our report minimizes the effectiveness of EEOC's
charge categorization process as a tool for workload management. We
disagree with this assertion; we refer to this process throughout the
report (see slides 8, 9, and 25). The full text of EEOC's comments
appears in appendix III. EEOC also provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Chair of EEOC, and other interested parties. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We limited our review to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
(EEOC) private sector enforcement program, which represents the
majority of the agency's workload. EEOC is also responsible for
coordinating the federal government's employment nondiscrimination
effort and provides guidance, outreach, and technical assistance to
federal agencies. Federal sector complaint procedures require federal
agencies to conduct initial investigations of complaints filed by their
employees or applicants. Upon completion of agency investigations, or
if an agency dismisses a complaint, EEOC may conduct hearings and hear
appropriate appeals. In fiscal year 2007, EEOC's federal sector program
received about 7,900 requests for hearings and 5,200 requests for
appeals, when compared with more than 85,000 private sector charges of
employment discrimination it received that year.
To examine national trends in EEOC's private sector enforcement
workload and the factors that contribute to them, we analyzed (1) data
from fiscal years 2004 to 2007 from EEOC's Integrated Mission System
(IMS) database, which includes information on private sector charges of
employment discrimination, and (2) personnel data from EEOC's Office of
Human Resources. To analyze EEOC's workload from 2004 to 2007, we
limited our data set to charges that closed on or after October 1,
2002, or were an active part of EEOC's workload as of October 1, 2002.
This enabled us to track and report on charges that originated prior to
fiscal year 2004 but were not closed until or after 2004. We excluded
from our analysis charges that are investigated by state and local
agencies, which raise claims under state and local laws prohibiting
employment discrimination in addition to the federal laws enforced by
EEOC.[Footnote 2] However, we included those charges that returned from
these agencies to EEOC and therefore became part of EEOC's workload.
Specifically, we analyzed data from two of the five support
capabilities available through the IMS system--the IMS Private Sector
and IMS Litigation components. We assessed the reliability of the IMS
data by:
* performing electronic testing of required data elements;
* reviewing existing information about these data and the system that
produced them, and:
* interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data.
In addition, we compared the IMS data with other published agency
documentation, when available, to determine data consistency and
reasonableness. When we found obvious discrepancies in our analysis of
the data, such as missing data or highly inconsistent results based on
prior published information, we brought them to the attention of the
agency for corrective action or to determine a resolution. We also made
adjustments, where appropriate, to our analyses on the basis of
consultations with the agency. In addition, we analyzed EEOC's
personnel data from the Office of Human Resources on investigator
staffing levels from fiscal years 2004 to 2007. We assessed the
reliability of the personnel data by examining the data elements
provided for missing data or obvious errors and interviewing agency
officials knowledgeable about these data and the system that produced
them. Similarly, when we found obvious errors or discrepancies, we
returned to the agency for corrective action. On the basis of these
efforts, we determined that the administrative and personnel data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To describe how EEOC offices manage their workload, we examined IMS
data at the office level, conducted site visits with six EEOC offices,
interviewed agency officials in EEOC headquarters, and reviewed related
documentation on EEOC's periodic reviews of field offices.
Specifically, we analyzed a variety of performance indicators by
office--including the agency's timeliness performance measure--in
fiscal year 2007 using data from the IMS system. In addition, we
conducted analyses to determine whether potential correlations exist
between two key measures identified by EEOC and an office's ability to
close charges within 180 days or fewer. To describe the various
techniques EEOC offices use to manage their workload, we conducted site
visits and semistructured interviews with a range of EEOC staff,
including investigators, attorneys, administrative staff, and
management, in six offices--Atlanta, Baltimore, Las Vegas, Milwaukee,
Philadelphia, and Seattle. We selected these offices on the basis of a
number of criteria, including recent changes to office structure,
varying performance levels, and geographic diversity. In each office,
we interviewed employees about their experiences with EEOC's private
sector enforcement program and, specifically, the management of
workload with the resources available. We also interviewed agency
officials from the Office of Field Programs in Washington, D.C., about
best practices in its private sector enforcement program and reviewed
related documentation from reviews of various field offices.
To examine EEOC actions to address its future workforce needs, we
reviewed relevant documentation about EEOC's strategic and human
capital planning processes and discussed the planning process with
senior agency officials in Washington, D.C. Specifically, we reviewed
available information on EEOC's agencywide strategic plan, strategic
human capital plan, private sector enforcement workload projections,
and budget documents. In addition, we administered a data collection
instrument to the Office of Human Resources to collect information on
strategic workforce planning, recruitment and hiring, and training and
reviewed the related documentation provided by agency officials to
support their responses. We conducted interviews with EEOC
Commissioners, including the Chair of the Commission, as well as
officials representing various EEOC offices--including the Office of
General Counsel; Office of Field Programs; Office of Human Resources;
Office of Research, Information, and Planning; Office of Chief
Financial Officer and Administrative Services; and Office of Inspector
General. We also drew on GAO's prior work on key principles for
effective strategic workforce planning and examined the extent to which
EEOC's actions conform to leading principles.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to June 2008, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Briefing to Congressional Staff on June 12, 2008:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Sharing Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human
Capital Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload:
Briefing to Congressional Staff:
June 12, 2008:
Introduction:
Created in 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
promotes equal opportunity in the workplace and enforces federal laws
that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
color, religion, national origin, age, and disability.
The federal government faces human capital challenges, including a
retirement wave that will lead to the loss of leadership and
institutional knowledge at all levels. In 2006, the Office of Personnel
Management reported that approximately 60 percent of the government�s
1.6 million white-collar employees and 90 percent of about 6,000
federal executives will be eligible for retirement over the next 10
years.
EEOC also faces human capital challenges. It estimates that, by 2012,
all of its current senior executives and senior managers will be
retirement eligible, if they have not already retired by that time.
* EEOC�s Office of Inspector General has recently identified the
strategic management of human capital as a significant challenge facing
the agency and is currently undertaking a review of EEOC�s human
capital management.
Research Objectives:
In view of EEOC�s human capital management challenges and the growing
demand for its services, we were asked to examine the following:
1. national trends in EEOC�s private sector enforcement workload and
factors that contribute to them;
2. how EEOC offices manage their workload, and;
3. EEOC actions to address its future workforce needs.
Scope and Methodology:
We limited our review to EEOC�s private sector enforcement program,
which represents the majority of EEOC�s workload.
For objectives 1 and 2,we analyzed data from fiscal years 2004 to 2007
from EEOC�s Integrated Mission System database, which maintains
information on private sector charges of employment discrimination, and
EEOC�s Office of Human Resources. We determined that these data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also interviewed a range of staff in EEOC offices in Atlanta,
Baltimore, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Seattle on EEOC�s
private sector enforcement program.
For objective 3, we obtained responses on human capital planning
efforts from a data collection instrument we administered to the Office
of Human Resources, and reviewed corroborating information.
We also reviewed relevant documentation about EEOC�s strategic and
human capital planning process and discussed the planning process with
senior agency officials at EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Our work was performed from July 2007 to June 2008 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary of Key Findings:
Multiple factors�including the growth in the number of new employment
discrimination charges, which have become increasingly resource
intensive, and a decline in the number of investigators�contributed to
EEOC�s growing private sector workload.
While offices vary significantly in their ability to manage workload in
a timely manner, promising management practices have not been
identified.
Although EEOC has taken some actions to address future workforce needs,
these actions do not fully address leading principles for effective
strategic workforce planning.
Background:
EEOC�s Private Sector Enforcement Program and Mission-Critical Staff:
EEOC investigates charges of employment discrimination from the public,
litigates major cases, and reaches out to the public to help educate it
and prevent such discrimination. [Footnote 3]
EEOC has identified staff positions�including investigators, mediators,
and trial attorneys�that are critical to fulfilling its mission and
provide these direct services to the public.
These mission-critical staff comprise about half of the agency�s
workforce and are stationed across EEOC�s 53 offices.
Figure: EEOC�s 53 Offices Are Located in 15 Districts:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States depicting the 15 EEOC
districts, the district offices, and additional offices. The district
offices listed are:
Atlanta, GA;
Birmingham, AL;
Charlotte, NC;
Chicago, IL;
Dallas, TX;
Houston, TX;
Indianapolis, IN;
Los Angeles, CA;
Miami, FL;
Memphis, TN;
New York, NY;
Philadelphia, PA;
Phoenix, AZ;
San Francisco, CA;
St. Louis, MO.
Source: GAO, EEOC, and MapArt.
[End of figure]
Prioritizing and Processing Private Charges of Employment
Discrimination:
Individuals may initiate the discrimination complaint process of filing
a charge by providing initial information in person, by telephone or
mail. While individuals can provide initial intake information on the
Web, they cannot currently file a charge electronically.
EEOC prioritizes charges to devote the greatest resources to those
whose initial evidence suggests a violation of law and categorizes them
accordingly. [Footnote 4]
* Charges may be dismissed at any point if, in the agency's judgment,
further investigation will not establish a violation of the law.
Employers may resolve charges early in the process through settlement
or mediation, both informal and voluntary processes. If mediation is
not successful, a charge is returned to the field office enforcement
unit for investigation.
EEOC will attempt conciliation, where evidence has established that
discrimination has occurred, and if unsuccessful, may decide to
litigate cases in federal court.
Figure: Prioritizing and Processing Private Charges of Employment
Discrimination:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a flowchart depicting the following information:
Charge A:
* Investigation(Generally occurs);
* Determination of Findings (Generally occurs);
* Litigation (Occurs when the agency is unable to mediate or conciliate
the charge).
Charge B:
* Mediation(Generally occurs);
* Investigation(Generally occurs);
* Determination of Findings(Generally occurs);
* Litigation (Occurs when the agency is unable to mediate or conciliate
the charge).
Charge C:
* Early Dismissal (Generally occurs).
Source: GAO and EEOC.
Note: A and B charges�where the initial evidence suggests a violation
of law or where additional information is needed�are generally more
resource intensive than C charges, and move through investigation
and/or mediation. With C charges, the agency may not have jurisdiction
or the charges may be unsupported, and the charges may be suitable for
early dismissal.
[End of figure]
Status of EEOC�s Recent Restructuring Efforts:
In recent years, EEOC began implementing major initiatives in an effort
to reposition itself to better serve the public.
Table:
Initiative: Established national call center to respond to inquiries
from the public (2005);
Current status: In August 2007, Commission voted to replace contracted
call center with in-house telephone answering team. Contracted call
center ceased operation in December 2007. EEOC has since hired and
trained more than 60 staff for its in-house team, located in 15 EEOC
offices, to answer calls and assist the public.
Initiative: Repositioned field structure (2005);
Current status: Repositioning, effective January 2006:[A]
* consolidated 23 districts into 15 districts and;
* added 2 new field office locations.
Initiative: Restructuring headquarters�operations (current);
Current status: In 2007, a workgroup consisting of headquarters and
field personnel was formed to provide recommendations to the EEOC
Chair, with a focus on streamlining, eliminating redundancies, and
enhancing efficiency.
[A] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but
Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic
Consideration of Advisory Panel�s Recommendations,GAO-06-10
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005).
[End of table]
High-Performing Organizations Require Transformations in People,
Processes, and Technology:
GAO has previously reported that the federal government faces a range
of new challenges in the 21st century, including long-term fiscal
challenges, an aging and more diverse population, and rapid advances in
technology.[Footnote 5]
Building a high-performing organization that is results-oriented and
meets the needs of clients and customers during a time of rapid change
requires fundamental transformations in the management of:
* people;
* processes, and;
* technology.
Leading Strategic Workforce Planning Principles:
Strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning
an organization�s human capital program with its current and emerging
mission and programmatic goals and (2) developing long-term strategies
for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic
goals. [Footnote 6]
GAO�s Leading Strategic Workforce Planning Principles:
* Involve top management, employees, and other stakeholders in
developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce
plan;
* Determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to
achieve future programmatic results;
* Develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in critical
skills and competencies that need attention;
* Build the capability needed to address administrative, educational,
and other requirements important to support workforce strategies;
* Monitor and evaluate the agency�s progress toward its human capital
goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward
achieving programmatic goals.
Figure: Strategic Workforce Planning Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration consisting of a continual loop of
processes as follows:
Build capability to support workforce strategies:
Set strategic direction:
Workforce gap analysis (Involvement of management and employees);
Workforce strategies to fill the gaps (Involvement of management and
employees);
Evaluation of and revisions to strategies (Involvement of management
and employees);
Return to first step.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Objective 1: National Trends and Contributing Factors:
Multiple Factors Contribute to EEOC�s Growing Private Sector Workload:
Overview:
Over the last 4 years, EEOC�s private sector workload has increased by
10 percent.
Multiple factors that contribute to the growing workload include the
growth in number of new charges, which have become increasingly
resource intensive, and a decline in investigative staff.
At the same time, the:
* average number of total charges per investigator increased by 22
percent;
* average time to close charges increased by 34 days, and;
* number of open charges at the end of the fiscal year increased by 82
percent.
EEOC�s mediations and lawsuits for its private sector charges showed
modest increases over the last 4 years.
For Fiscal Years 2004 through 2007, EEOC�s Private Sector Workload
Increased by 10 Percent.
Table: Total charges nationwide, by fiscal year:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of charges (in thousands): 115,593.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of charges (in thousands): 111,282.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of charges (in thousands): 114,668.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of charges (in thousands): 127,710.
Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.
Note: The total number of charges includes new charges that are opened
in each fiscal year and existing charges that were opened in previous
years.
[End of table]
Multiple Factors Have Contributed to Growing Workload: New Charges of
Employment Discrimination Have Risen:
Table: New charges, by fiscal year:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of charges (in thousands): 83,118.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of charges (in thousands): 78,790.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of charges (in thousands): 78,872.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of charges (in thousands): 85,509.
Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.
[End of table]
Multiple Factors Have Contributed to Growing Workload: New Charges Have
Become Increasingly Resource Intensive:
For fiscal years 2004 through 2007, A and B charges increased from 83
to 90 percent of all new charges, while C charges fell from 16 to 10
percent. According to EEOC officials and investigators, A and B
charges�where the initial evidence suggests a violation of law or where
additional information is needed�are more resource intensive than C
charges.
Since 2006, the agency has increased emphasis on its systemic program.
This program investigates and litigates alleged discrimination with a
broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic
location. EEOC officials told us that these charges are substantially
more resource intensive than individual charges of employment
discrimination.
Multiple Factors Have Contributed to Growing Workload: Investigative
Staff That Handle Private Sector Charges Decreased 9 Percent over the
Last 4 Years:
Figure: Total number of nonsupervisory investigators, by fiscal year:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of investigators: 734.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of investigators: 701.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of investigators: 629.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of investigators: 666.
Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.
Note: These figures include all nonsupervisory investigators.
[End of figure]
Over the Last 4 Years, the Average Number of Total Charges per
Investigator Has Increased by 22 Percent:
Figure: Total charges per investigator, by fiscal year:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of total charges: 157.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of total charges: 159.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of total charges: 182.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of total charges: 192.
Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.
[End of figure]
Table: For 2004 through 2007, the Average Time Taken to Close a Charge
Rose by 34 days:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 171;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 67%.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 184;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 66%.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 200;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 61%.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 205;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 56%.
Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.
[A] EEOC has a performance measure to resolve a specific percentage of
charges within 180 days, which was 65 percent in 2004 and increased to
72 percent in 2007.
[End of table]
The Number of Open Charges at the End of the Fiscal Year Has Grown 82
Percent over the Last 4 Years:
Figure: Number of open charges at the end of the fiscal year:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of charges (in thousands): 30,389.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of charges (in thousands): 33,962.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of charges (in thousands): 40,275.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of charges (in thousands): 55,232.
Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.
Note: As the number of charges that remain open have increased over the
last 4 years, the percentage of charges closed by the end of the year
declined by 17 percentage points.
[End of figure]
EEOC�s Mediations and Lawsuits for Its Private Sector Charges Showed
Modest Increases over the Last 4 Years:
From 2004 to 2007, mediations increased by 5 percent to about 12,050
held in 2007.
However, as a share of workload over the last 4 years, mediations were
relatively stable and represented:
* 22 percent of all new charges eligible for mediation [Footnote 7]
and;
* 11 percent of total closed charges.
At the same time, the number of lawsuits�which is comprised of new
suits and those that are carried over from previous fiscal
years�increased by 3 percent.
In 2007, EEOC had 930 cases in litigation.
[End of Objective 1]
Objective 2: How EEOC Offices Manage Workload:
While Offices Vary Significantly in Their Ability to Manage Workload in
a Timely Manner, Promising Management Practices Have Not Been
Identified:
Overview:
* Average time taken to close charges, percentage of charges closed,
and the average number of total charges per investigator varied
significantly by office in 2007.
* Key measures�such as the average number of total charges per
investigator and the percentage of new resource-intensive charges�are
not correlated with an office�s ability to manage workload in a timely
manner.
* With varying levels of success, the EEOC offices we visited use a
variety of techniques to manage their workload.
* EEOC lacks a systematic process to identify promising management
practices.
Table: Average Time Taken to Close a Charge, Percentage of Charges
Closed, and Number of Charges per Investigator Significantly Varied by
Office in 2007:
National Average:
Average number of total charges per investigator: 192;
Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 90%;
Percentage of charges closed: 57%;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 56%;
Number of days taken to close a charge: 205.
Office low:
Average number of total charges per investigator: 125;
Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 66%;
Percentage of charges closed: 26%;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 30%;
Number of days taken to close a charge: 92.
Office high:
Average number of total charges per investigator: 622;
Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 99%;
Percentage of charges closed: 74%;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 90%;
Number of days taken to close a charge: 310.
Difference between office low and office high:
Average number of total charges per investigator: 497;
Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 33%;
Percentage of charges closed: 48%;
Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 60%;
Number of days taken to close a charge: 218.
Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.
[A] EEOC�s performance measure for the timely resolution of private
sector charges in 2007 was to close 72 percent of charges within 180
days or fewer; five offices came within 3 percentage points of this
goal and one office exceeded the goal.
[End of table]
Key Measures Are Not Correlated with an Office�s Ability to Manage
Workload in a Timely Manner:
EEOC has reported that declining numbers of staff and growing numbers
of new charges have affected its ability to meet the performance goal
of closing 72 percent of charges within 180 days or fewer.
According to EEOC officials, resource-intensive charges influence their
ability to manage workload in a timely manner.
However, we found that an office�s ability to close charges within 180
days or fewer is not correlated to the:
* average number of total charges handled per investigator or;
* percentage of new charges that are resource intensive.
With Varying Levels of Success, EEOC Offices Use a Variety of
Techniques to Manage Their Workload:
EEOC offices we visited vary in terms of their ability to close charges
within 180 days or fewer, and use a variety of practices to manage
their workload.
Examples of practices that differ throughout the charge process include
the management of the following:
* Initial Screening of Charges:
- The Atlanta office emphasizes that all charges that individuals wish
to file should be accepted.
- The Milwaukee office focuses on screening during the intake process.
* Charge Inventory:
- In the Atlanta office, all charges are assigned to investigators, and
their supervisors are required to send status reports on their aged
inventory to management.
- In the Seattle office, charges are held, pending assignment, on the
basis of investigator workload.
- In the Baltimore office, investigators rely on internal milestones to
track charges.
- In the Las Vegas office, charges have been transferred to the San
Diego and Honolulu offices to reduce the pressure from a large
workload.
* Systemic Charges[Footnote 8]:
- In the Atlanta office, two investigators are assigned exclusively to
class and systemic charges.
- In the Baltimore and Milwaukee offices, systemic charges are
distributed among investigators.
EEOC Lacks a Systematic Process to Identify Promising Management
Practices:
EEOC has conducted surveys of its investigative staff to identify
techniques that high performers use to succeed in their work. �EEOC has
not conducted a survey since 1996.
EEOC conducts technical reviews of select offices�policies and
practices to ensure compliance with agency standards.
- Technical reviews include assessments of broad functional areas as
well as quality reviews of investigative files.
- Investigative file reviews are designed, in part, to ensure that work
is not completed quickly at the expense of quality results.
- EEOC officials said that in some cases they will identify required
processes that are not consistently applied among offices and, as a
result, they will update policies and procedures to improve compliance.
- However, EEOC does not use these reviews to systematically identify
promising practices for managing workload.
According to EEOC officials, employees have opportunities to share
information about policies and practices during regularly scheduled
meetings, and other mechanisms, such as internal Web pages.
[End of Objective 2]
Objective 3: How EEOC Actions Address Workforce Planning Principles:
EEOC�s Actions to Meet Future Workforce Needs Do Not Fully Address
Leading Strategic Workforce Planning Principles:
Overview:
Although the agency has taken some actions, these steps do not fully
address key principles for effective strategic workforce planning.
Specifically:
* EEOC�s efforts to develop, communicate, and implement a strategic
human capital plan are incomplete after 4 years.
* Critical skills needed to achieve current and future programmatic
results have not been assessed.
* Current strategies to address gaps and sustain critical skills are
not based on identified skill gaps.
* Building support for workforce planning strategies has posed
challenges.
* Progress toward human capital goals is not directly measurable or
linked to programmatic results.
Efforts to Develop, Communicate, and Implement a Strategic Human
Capital Plan Are Incomplete after 4 Years:
Figure: Strategic Workforce Planning Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration consisting of a continual loop of
processes as follows:
Build capability to support workforce strategies:
Set strategic direction:
Workforce gap analysis (Involvement of management and employees);
Workforce strategies to fill the gaps (Involvement of management and
employees);
Evaluation of and revisions to strategies (Involvement of management
and employees);
Return to first step.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Involvement of management and employees:
* Draft plan does not integrate workforce with workload data or
establish clear link to achieving agencywide performance measures;
* Input from top leadership�Commission Chair�not yet incorporated;
* Input from District Directors not yet incorporated, although their
buy-in is critical for adoption and implementation;
* Draft plan lacks implementation component that identifies necessary
resources, responsible party for implementing strategies, and time
frame for completion.
Critical Skills Needed to Achieve Current and Future Programmatic
Results Have Not Been Assessed:
Workforce gap analysis:
* Core competencies for mission-critical positions developed but not
used to assess skills of current employees;
* Workforce planning not approached strategically�based on mission
needs, customer expectations, workload, and workforce�or
systematically;
* Employee positions were revised in the field without an assessment of
work processes or position structures to maximize productivity and
efficiency;
* GAO has reported on the value of planning for future human capital
needs from multiple scenarios instead of a single view of the future.
[Footnote 9]
Current Strategies to Address Gaps and Sustain Critical Skills Are Not
Based on Identified Skills Gaps:
Workforce strategies to fill the gaps:
* Workforce strategies, such as training and rotational assignments,
not based on an assessment of the skills of current employees;
* Workforce strategies not targeted most effectively because workforce
planning efforts between the Office of Human Resources and individual
program offices are not effectively integrated.
Building Support for Workforce Planning Strategies Has Posed
Challenges:
Build capability to support workforce strategies:
* Information technology: Lack of adequate support left key workforce
planning software purchased to analyze the workforce, determine
staffing needs, and integrate workload and financial data unusable,
according to an EEOC official;
* Internal structure: Lack of Commission approval has stalled efforts
necessary for funding workforce planning activities, according to
senior EEOC officials;
- Commission approval necessary for the obligation of funds that exceed
$100,000.
Progress Toward Human Capital Goals Is Not Directly Measurable or
Linked to Programmatic Results:
Evaluation of and revisions to strategies:
* Draft human capital plan lacks specific measures or milestones for
achieving outcomes, so progress is not measurable;
* Revised strategic plan overview lacks management objective and
measures related to achieving human capital outcomes, so progress is
not measurable;
* Training and development efforts lack measures to assess
contributions toward individual mastery of learning and achieving
agency goals.
[End of Objective 3]
Conclusions:
EEOC�s mandate to promote equal opportunity in the workplace and
enforce federal employment antidiscrimination laws could be compromised
if EEOC cannot keep pace with its growing private sector workload.
* EEOC could identify processes used by those offices that achieve
quality outcomes while resolving cases in a timely manner despite the
burden of heavy workloads. Such promising practices could be used to
help other offices meet EEOC�s performance goals.
* EEOC could make better use of the strategic planning processes to
develop a human capital plan that addresses gaps in knowledge, skills,
and abilities in its current and future workforce.
Recommendations:
To improve EEOC�s ability to meet its current and future needs for a
critically skilled workforce, we recommend that the Chair of EEOC take
the following two actions:
* develop criteria for identifying offices that ensure quality outcomes
in a timely manner and evaluate and share promising practices across
the agency and;
* finalize the strategic human capital plan, on the basis of skills and
competencies assessments, and develop an implementation plan for the
strategies identified in the plan with stakeholder input that
identifies necessary resources, responsible parties, timelines for
completion, and milestones to measure progress.
Related GAO Products:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but Agency
Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic
Consideration of Advisory Panel�s Recommendations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-10]. Washington, D.C.: October
28, 2005.
Equal Employment Opportunity: The Policy Framework in the Federal
Workplace and the Roles of EEOC and OPM. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-195]. Washington, D.C.: April
29, 2005.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39].
Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in
Managing Their Workforces. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-2]. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2002.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint Caseloads and
Underlying Causes Require EEOC's Sustained Attention. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-00-104]. Washington, D.C.:
March 29, 2000.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Complaint Caseloads Rising, with Effects
of New Regulations on Future Trends Unclear. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-99-128]. Washington, D.C.:
August 16, 1999.
EEOC: Burgeoning Workload Calls for New Approaches. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-95-170]. Washington, D.C.:
May 23, 1995.
EEOC: An Overview. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-
HRD-93-30]. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 1993.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Office of the Chair:
Washington, DC 20507:
June 9, 2008:
George A. Scott, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on GAO Report GAO-
08-589 entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Sharing
Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human Capital
Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload." As the title
suggests, the report addresses EEOC's growing private sector charge
activity (between fiscal years 2004-2007) with a critical analysis of
EEOC's human capital management challenges and the growing demand for
its services.
The report concludes that EEOC's ability to manage its workload
(private sector enforcement representing the majority of the agency's
workload) has declined over the 4-year review period (2004-2007). It
correctly states that, while its core mission has not changed since the
agency was established more than 40 years ago, EEOC continues to face a
range of new challenges in the 21st Century, including long-term fiscal
constraints, changing demographics, and rapid advances in technology.
At the same time, the report notes, the federal government overall
faces significant human capital challenges, including a retirement wave
that will lead to the loss of leadership and institutional knowledge at
all levels, and that the EEOC is not immune from this trend.
The report points out that between 2000 and 2007, EEOC lost nearly one
quarter of its full-time-equivalent staff, from approximately 2,850 to
about 2,150. Although the GAO report states that about half of the
agency's workforce is comprised of mission-critical staff, citing
investigators, mediators, and trial attorneys stationed across EEOC's
53 offices, in fact the number of mission-critical positions comprise a
portion substantially greater than one-half the agency's workforce. As
such, EEOC is compelled to point out that, notwithstanding efforts to
balance its workload and workforce, GAO does not significantly
acknowledge the impact of reduction in staff on EEOC's ability to
manage its workload.
Staffing expenditures continue to comprise about 70% of the agency's
total budget (EEOC currently spends about 2% more on staffing than it
did five years ago). EEOC investigator numbers, however, have dwindled
over the 4-year review period (2004-2007). Had EEOC been able to
maintain its investigative staff at the 2004 level (734 investigators)
with an average productivity of rate of 105 charges per year per
investigator, the agency's workload at the end of 2007 would have been
33,602 instead of 55,232. While the GAO study proposes, but then
dismisses any correlation between factors it suggests (average
workload, percentage of high-resource charges, or percentage of 180-day
closures) and inventory, we believe the correlation between inventory
and staffing cannot be ignored.
Another major point of the report with which EEOC takes issue is the
conclusion that EEOC does not have a mechanism for finding and sharing
promising practices among its many offices. During the study, EEOC
shared with GAO the summaries of the reviews that EEOC conducts of its
field offices. The reviews cover the spectrum of field office
processing, including both private and federal sector cases, and looks
at intake, case management, mediation, and all other aspects of the
administrative process. EEOC has at least two meetings each year for
all District Directors during which a particular focus is placed on
promising practices. EEOC believes that is has a significant mechanism
for identifying promising practices and a methodology for communicating
those practices and testing them in our field offices.
Some other salient points concerning the report's findings warrant
comment. Among them are the varying levels of success to which EEOC
offices use a variety of techniques to manage the growing workload. It
appears that GAO minimizes the effectiveness of EEOC's Priority Charge
Handling Procedures (PCHP) and more specifically, the charge
categorization process - which is the single most effective tool that
EEOC has in its workload management arsenal. While offices may use
other procedures and techniques to augment PCHP to address specific
issues in each office, we believe greater recognition should be given
to EEOC's effective use of the PCHP.
Additionally, GAO notes that there is no correlation between an
office's ability to resolve charges within 180 days and the average
investigator workload or percentage of resource intensive charges.
However, to limit the assessment to only these two factors omits other
criteria that could have been assessed. Notably, they are: the size of
the office both in terms of type (District, Field, Area or Local) and
the geographic areas served, the size of the investigator staff in
comparison to the complement of managers to supervise and oversee the
process, the size of the mediation unit, the investigators available
(taking into account those who are on extended leave, military
deployment or in training status) or the amount of staff time devoted
to the intake process.
On another point in the report's conclusions, EEOC challenges the
statement that "[the agency] could identify processes used by those
offices that achieve quality outcomes while resolving cases in a time
manner despite the burden of heavy workloads. Such promising practices
could be used to help other offices meet EEOC's performance goals."
This conclusion ignores the efforts that EEOC is making on a regular
basis to enhance office processes and practices to address its workload
processing. Additionally, the claim is silent on the fundamental crisis
facing EEOC in addressing its private sector workload, namely:
reduction in workforce while simultaneously facing a record growth in
the rate of receipts and charge inventory.
Lastly, while the report concludes that EEOC has not fully implemented
a strategic human capital plan, it is important to point out that the
agency conducts both workforce analysis and workforce planning as a
part of the annual budget process as well as a part of program
management. As a basis for hiring and retention, EEOC requires mission-
critical employees to possess the critical skills necessary for
successful resolution of private sector charges.
EEOC has undertaken, but has not yet completed, the competency analyses
of mission critical occupations using the format established by OPM
through the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
(HCAAF) for President Management Agenda (PMA) scored agencies. Our
preliminary results from the work done for the investigator occupation
have reinforced the basic knowledge, skills and abilities that we
currently require for those positions. We anticipate that our strategic
human capital plan will be submitted to the Chair by the end of FY
2008.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Signed by:
Anthony J. Kaminski:
Chief Operating Officer:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Bill Keller (Assistant
Director), Avani Locke, Paul Kazemersky, Rachael Schacherer, Jean
McSween, Jerome Sandau, Susannah Compton, Anthony Lofaro, Kate Walker,
and James Rebbe made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] EEOC is also responsible for coordinating the federal government's
employment nondiscrimination effort and provides guidance, outreach,
and technical assistance to federal agencies. Federal sector complaint
procedures require federal agencies to conduct initial investigations
of complaints filed by their employees or applicants. Upon completion
of agency investigations, or if an agency dismisses a complaint, EEOC
may conduct hearings and hear appropriate appeals.
[2] EEOC contracts with these agencies, known as Fair Employment
Practice Agencies, to investigate and resolve charges through work-
sharing agreements to avoid duplication in processing.
[3] EEOC enforces the following federal statutes: Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title I and Title V of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 through 505 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In addition, EEOC coordinates federal equal
employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.
[4] EEOC began implementing priority charge handling procedures in
1995.
[5] GAO, Comptroller General�s Forum: High-Performing Organizations:
Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the
21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO-04-343SP (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).
[6] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[7] Generally, only charges designated as category B are eligible for
mediation.
[8] Individual EEOC districts are required to develop plans to help
ensure that EEOC is identifying and investigating systemic
discrimination in a coordinated, strategic, effective agencywide
manner.
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
*** End of document. ***