Detailed Information on the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Assessment

Identifying and implementing challenging annual targets and final outcome goals for all agency performance measures.

Developing in collaboration with partners methods for measuring performance that support the agency's goals.

Continuing to implement structural changes and other recommendations to improve efficiency and effectiveness of program.

Measure: Individuals benefiting from improvements to organizations' policies, practices or procedures, because of the EEOC's enforcement programs

Explanation:The measure demonstrates the long-term and annual outcome of the program by the percentage increases in individuals benefited through its charge, federal sector hearings and appeals, and litigation enforcement programs. [This is a combined long term and annual measure 1 in a modification to the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Confidence of the public in the EEOC's enforcement of Federal equal employment opportunity laws

Explanation:The measure demonstrates the long-term outcome of the program by determining the degree of confidence the public has in EEOC and its ability to enforce its statues. The baseline was determined from a survey, which will be the method for collecting results in subsequent years. [This is long term measure 2 in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Private sector charges resolved in 180 days or fewer

Explanation:Achieving timely resolution for a large number of the private sector charges filed with the EEOC links to the confidence the public has in the EEOC's ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws. [This is measure 2.1 in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Federal sector hearings resolved in 180 days or fewer

Explanation:Achieving timely resolution for a large number of the Federal sector hearings filed with the EEOC links to the confidence the public has in the EEOC's ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws. [This is Measure 2.2 in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Federal sector appeals resolved in 180 days or fewer

Explanation:Achieving timely resolution for a large number of the Federal sector appeals filed with the EEOC links to the confidence the public has in the EEOC's ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws. [This is Measure 2.3 in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Reviewed investigative files meet established criteria for quality

Explanation:A large proportion of sampled investigative files reviewed will meet two critical quality criteria: the appropriate charge categorization and fill documentation to support actions taken; and, the resolution of the charge. Ensuring the quality of the EEOC's private sector charge work links to the confidence the public has in the EEOC's ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws. [This is measure 2.4 in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Confidence of respondents and charging parties in the EEOC's private sector mediation program

Explanation:The mediation/ADR program is an important tool for achieving timely resolution of the charges. Building confidence in the program enhances its use and links to the confidence the public has in the EEOC's ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws. [This is measure 2.5 in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Percent of lawsuits successfully resolved

Explanation:Successful resolutions demonstrate effective enforcement to employers and workers. [This is annual measure 2.6 in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.]

Measure: Individuals benefited per FTE

Explanation:A Measure of the EEOC's efficiency in delivering its program is the number of individuals benefited by its private sector, federal sector and litigation enforcement programs and its outreach efforts. Enhancing the number benefited for an FTE demonstrates our efficiency, because over 70% of the agency's budget is dedicated to compensation and benefits.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the primary Federal agency responsible for enforcing federal statutes that prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age and disability. It also is responsible for Executive Order 12067, which promotes coordinating and minimizing duplication within the Federal government among Federal agencies administering statutes or regulations prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC is the lead Federal agency responsible for combating employment discrimination in the private sector, state and local governments, unions, secondary schools and universities and colleges, and the Federal workforce.

Evidence: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Pub. L. 88-352); Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (Pub. L. 90-202); Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (Pub. L. 88-38); Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, for the Federal sector only (Pub. L. 93-112); Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (Pub. L. 101-336); Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166); Executive Order 12067; EEOC Regulations appearing in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations(www.eeoc.gov/policy/regs/index.html); The EEOC Strategic Plan, Performance and Accountability Reports, and Congressional Budget Justifications

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: In its report on a recent public opinion poll regarding workplace discrimination, The Gallup Organization concluded: "Despite major change in public attitudes about race and gender, and despite progress for women and minorities in the workplace, this survey shows that there remains considerable work to eliminate discrimination from the workplace completely." This is supported by EEOC charge receipt data, which reflect the continuing need for enforcement in both private and Federal workplaces. In FY 2005, the EEOC received over 75,000 new charges from individuals alleging that they experienced employment discrimination in the private sector. EEOC resolved 77,000 charges (via settlements, withdrawals with benefits and conciliation) that included over $271.5 million in monetary relief for the victims of discrimination - an indicator of the extent of economic and other harm remedied. Resolutions also include significant non-monetary relief such as changes in discriminatory workplace policies and practices. The agency filed more than 380 lawsuits and resolved over 330, obtaining over $100 million in damages as well as non-monetary relief. The Federal sector enforcement program received more than 10,000 requests for hearings on the allegations of employment discrimination and resolved over 10,000 cases at the hearings stage, granting over $58 million in monetary relief. The agency received almost 7,500 requests for appeals of a Federal sector decision and resolved almost the same number of cases, obtaining more than $15 million in monetary relief.

Evidence: The Gallup Organization, Employee Discrimination in the Workplace, December 2005; EEOC FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report; Enforcement Statistics and Litigation (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/all.html)

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established the EEOC as the lead Federal agency combating employment discrimination. EEOC policies and practices are designed to enforce Federal employment discrimination statutes nationwide. Other Federal agencies enforce the same laws in their own workplaces and in programs they administer. EEOC handles appeals of decisions made in these agencies' internal investigations and resolution mechanisms. In addition, EEOC cooperates with the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs with investigation of workplace discrimination charges against organizations doing business with federal agencies. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division investigates some employment discrimination charges but its authority is generally limited to state and local employers. Although EEOC leads Federal equal employment efforts, agency oversight is shared with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which has the lead for recruiting practices and application of merit system principles. Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) enforce state and local laws that are similar but often less comprehensive than Federal protections. EEOC has Worksharing Agreements with more than 90 such agencies that describe the procedures for processing and investigation of charges that are covered by both sets of laws. EEOC also has Cooperative Arrangements with over 60 Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs) that seek to enhance employment opportunities for Indians and enforce workplace discrimination laws on Indian reservations. EEOC's Worksharing Agreements help expedite service, prevent redundant investigations and facilitate the exchange of information regarding charges. These arrangements offer individuals convenience and enhanced protection of their rights by automatically dual-filing charges with their FEPA and the EEOC, regardless of which agency they contact. Dual filing also facilitates transfers of charges between agencies when it would improve processing or provide greater protection, or when Federal authority is required (e.g., litigation of cases against multi-state employers).

Evidence: Title VII, section 709(b); Memoranda of Understanding with Federal agencies(http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/mou.html); GAO Report "Equal Employment Opportunity: The Policy Framework in the Federal Workplace and the Roles of EEOC and OPM," April 2005 (GAO-05-195); FY 2006 Contracting Principles for State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs); Worksharing Agreements with FEPAs; (http://www.eeoc.gov/charge/overview_charge_filing.html); Cooperative arrangements with Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs); National Enforcement Plan (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/nep.html)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program design is based on two central statutory requirements: that individuals must first file a charge with EEOC in order to seek recourse for discrimination under federal law, and that EEOC must attempt to resolve alleged violations through voluntary settlement whenever possible. The laws provide the EEOC with an exclusive period of time to investigate charges before civil court remedies may be pursued. The EEOC initiates enforcement lawsuits in federal court only when voluntary conciliation efforts fail. There is no evidence that another design would be more effective or more efficient. These fundamental requirements each make an important contribution to the program's cost-effectiveness. EEOC operates an effective mediation program to further minimize the cost of processing and resolving charges. Non-monetary relief - modification of workplace policies and practices - is sought to prevent recurrence of illegal behavior. Prevention is also pursued via education of employees about their rights and employers about their responsibilities under the law. To this end, the EEOC conducts training and outreach, issues guidance, and provides compliance assistance.

Evidence: Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012(http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/strategic_07-12/index.html)

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The EEOC's enforcement programs reach a large number of applicants and employees. The agency accepts charges from more than 75,000 individuals annually, as well as more than 10,000 annual requests for hearing in the federal sector. EEOC reaches thousands of individuals, advocacy groups, employer and federal agency representatives annually with its outreach program, and all workers and employers have access to extensive information available on the agency's web site and to print materials upon request. There were more than 575,000 visitors per month to the web site in FY 2005. EEOC targets "underserved populations" by reviewing charge data and anecdotal evidence. For example, after the agency recognized that many charges were being filed against small and medium sized businesses that often do not have human resources and legal experts available to them, the agency launched a training initiative targeting that employer group. Litigation efforts focus primarily on merits of the case. Litigation priorities include cases which could have a significant impact beyond the parties to the dispute; cases promoting the development of the law; and cases involving the integrity of the EEOC's enforcement process. In selecting cases for litigation, the EEOC considers such factors as the number of aggrieved individuals, geographic diversity, and diversity of basis of discrimination. Recently, however, the Commission's Systemic Task Force, formed to study the mission-critical activity of identifying and reducing systemic discrimination (defined as "pattern or practice, policy and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic location"), issued a report that concluded "there is great room for improvement with respect to the accessibility and usefulness of existing data, efforts to obtain additional data, internal expertise and support, and incentives for identifying and developing systemic cases." It appears, then, that while EEOC is reaching large numbers of individuals, it could have much greater impact by leveraging its knowledge. The program design of a field-based infrastructure is intended to locate staff close to customers. While this restructuring is appropriate for supporting EEOC's nation wide enforcement and technical assistance activities, recent studies have questioned the efficiency of the agency's structure. The National Academy of Public Administration observed in 2003 that EEOC's enforcement-oriented structure was not well suited for its new focus on prevention and mediation and did not take full advantage of new technology. The Academy's major recommendations, such as the National Call Center and field restructuring, have been implemented, yet a 2006 GAO report found that EEOC had not adequately considered all 64 of the study's recommendations - thereby missing additional opportunities to improve.

Evidence: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b), 29 U.S.C. § 630(b), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, 29 U.S.C. § 633a, 29 U.S.C. § 794a, and 29 U.S.C. § 204(f); Small Business Initiative (http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusinesses.html); National Enforcement Plan (www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/nep.html); Regional Attorneys' Manual (www.eeoc.gov/litigation/manual/index.html); NAPA Report "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Organizing for the Future," February 2003 (http://www.napawash.org/pubs/eeoc_report_new.htm); Government Accountability Office "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic Consideration of Advisory Panel's Recommendations," October 2005 (GAO-06-10); Systemic Task Force Report, March 2006 (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/task_reports/systemic.html)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The agency is not aware of a valid, feasible method for direct measurement of discrimination in the workplace. Not all violations are reported and not all charges are meritorious. As indicated in the program design section, EEOC encourages recognition and reporting of illegal discrimination by outreach and easy access as well as by diligent investigation of charges. The effectiveness of its efforts in these areas are captured by two long-term measures. Measure #1 identifies the number of individuals benefited by EEOC's enforcement and outreach programs. These include individuals benefited not only monetary awards, but also such non-monetary benefits as changes in policies, practices or procedures, resulting from the EEOC's successful litigation and mediation efforts in the private sector charge process, and public sector hearings and appeals process; and, those identified beneficiaries directly impacted from its different outreach, education and technical assistance efforts. Long Term Measure #2 (the agency's fourth measure) identifies public confidence in the EEOC's enforcement of Federal equal employment laws. Ultimately, all of EEOC's programs aim to instill confidence in its ability to address employment discrimination in the workplace. Measure #1 is a new measure incorporated in the EEOC's revised Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012, issued on October 1, 2006. Long Term Measure #2 was in the EEOC's previous Strategic Plan as measure 1.1.5., and is also incorporated into the agency's revised Strategic Plan.

Evidence: EEOC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-20012; EEOC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2009, including its Addendum listing interim changes to performance measures; Performance and Accountability Reports; Congressional Justification for the President's Budget (www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/index.html); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) "Ten-Year Check-Up" report (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/10yr04/10yr04.pdf); NAPA Report "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Organizing for the Future," February 2003

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Measure #1 is new; FY 2007 is the baseline year upon which targets for subsequent years will be developed. A baseline for Measure #4 has recently been established. Targets for FY 2007 and beyond will appear in the revised Strategic Plan.

Evidence: FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The EEOC's annual measures include two measures associated with its long-term performance measure for individuals benefited by its enforcement and outreach programs (measure #1), and seven measures associated with its long-term performance measure to enhance public confidence in its ability to enforce Federal equal employment laws (measure #4). Most of the annual measures have been used by the agency since at least FY 2004. All appear in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. Explanations of links between each annual measure and the associated long term measure are in the Performance Measures section of this review. The new structure is a complementary and strategically integrated approach that enables the agency to clearly link yearly progress to the achievement of its long-term goals, its strategic objectives and its overall mission. The agency also has recently developed an efficiency measure - the number of individuals benefited per FTE.

Evidence: Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012; Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2009, including its Addendum listing interim changes to performance measures; FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report; Congressional Justification for the FY 2007 President's Budget

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The EEOC has baselines and targets for 5 of its 9 annual performance measures. However, just 3 of these appear to be ambitious (Measures 5, 7 and 8). Targets for Measures 6 and 9 are below recent performance levels and remain constant through FY 2009.

Evidence: Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012; Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2009, including its Addendum listing interim changes to performance measures; FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report; Congressional Justification for the FY 2007 President's Budget (www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/index.html)

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The EEOC is responsible for investigating and resolving charges and complaints of employment discrimination and litigating where appropriate. Its primary partners for the private sector charge process are the 96 Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) that share EEOC's commitment to redress discrimination in the workplace and cooperate via Worksharing Agreements with the Commission. In FY 2005, FEPA partners investigated and resolved over 54,000 charges under contract with EEOC. In addition, the EEOC provides funding to, and works with, 64 Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs) that provide education regarding employment issues on or near tribal reservations. EEOC has oversight responsibility for the Federal sector equal employment opportunity (EEO) process. To promote effective enforcement by its Federal partners (thus minimizing appeals to the Commission), EEOC issues procedural regulations that require each Federal agency to establish an EEO program that includes a pre-complaint process; a formal complaint process to investigate and resolve allegations of employment discrimination; an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process to expeditiously resolve complaints; an affirmative employment program; and a special emphasis program. EEOC also provides technical assistance to help agencies perform their EEO responsibilities more effectively. While all partners share the goal of reducing illegal workplace discrimination and make significant contributions toward that end, reporting primarily collects charge processing data. EEOC does not measure its partners' performance or require that they do so. EEOC monitors FEPA contract compliance via on-site and case file reviews of the processing of selected charges to ensure the adequacy of investigations and resolutions. Unacceptable performance can result in modification or cancellation of a contract, denial of reimbursement credit or requirement of a charge resolution plan. TEROs face analogous sanctions for non-compliance.

Evidence: Memoranda of Understanding with Federal agencies; FY 2006 Contracting Principles for State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies; State and Local Programs Handbook; FEPA Worksharing Agreements; TERO Cooperative Agreements

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The EEOC's programs are reviewed and evaluated regularly by the U.S Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), and independent contractors. The EEOC contracted with the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to review the agency's organizational structure and for improving it. Pursuant to the major recommendations in NAPA's February 2003 report, EEOC has approved a 2-year contract to establish EEOC's National Contact Center (NCC) and completed a plan to realign the Commission's field organization. The agency is currently addressing a third recommendation - to restructure its headquarters operation. In 2005, the GAO issued a study of the EEOC's implementation of NAPA's recommendations, and found that while EEOC implemented the major recommendations, it lacked a plan for systematic consideration of numerous others. The USCCR's FY 2004 report entitled, "Ten-Year Check-Up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume IV: An Evaluation of the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," analyzed elements relevant to civil rights enforcement and contained recommendations for EEOC in several areas: Planning and Performance Measurement, Policy Guidance, Technical Assistance, Education and Outreach, Complaint Processing and Staff Training. To evaluate the effectiveness of its mediation program, the EEOC contracted for a series of independent evaluations that demonstrated the program's overall effectiveness and identified enhancements. In the revised Strategic Plan, six other program evaluations are planned that focus on key aspects of the agency's Strategic Objectives: policy guidance and communications, the private sector systemic process, the National Contact Center, and federal sector evaluations and assistance. The charge process study will be completed in FY 2007.

Evidence: Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012; Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2009 (www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/index.html); Government Accountability Office "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic Consideration of Advisory Panel's Recommendations," October 2005 (GAO-06-10) (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0610.pdf); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) "Ten-Year Check-Up" report (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/10yr04/10yr04.pdf); NAPA Report "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Organizing for the Future," February 2003 Reports on EEOC Mediation Program in 2000, 2001, and 2003 (http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/mcd-intro.html)

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The EEOC has aligned its budget and performance information and identified direct and indirect costs at the Strategic Objective and front-line programmatic level, but does not allocate costs among its performance measures. Its new Strategic Plan will address options concerning cost allocation. During the past several years EEOC has improved its ability to link resources, including estimates of indirect costs, for major programmatic areas such as administrative charge processing, litigation, and federal sector hearings and appeals. The Congressional Justification conforms the Strategic Plan by aligning all resources with the primary Strategic Objective ?? Justice,Opportunity and Inclusive Workplaces. However, information systems are insufficient to enable alignment of performance goals with resources. The agency is considering approaches that will provide this capability (see Question 2.8).

Evidence: Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012; Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2009, including its Addendum listing interim changes to performance measures; FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report; Congressional Justification for President's Budget (www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/index.html)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: In its February 2003 report on the EEOC, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) questioned the link between the program's performance measures and overall discrimination. In its September 2004 "Ten Year Check-Up" report, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) reviewed the FY 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and recommended that EEOC "develop performance measures that assess the extent to which employment discrimination in the workplace is being eradicated." As indicated in the explanation for Question 2.1, it is not feasible to measure discrimination levels directly. As a step in that direction, however, EEOC adopted two new Long Term Performance Measures that will track the number of individuals benefited by EEOC outreach and enforcement programs and public confidence in EEOC's enforcement of Federal equal employment laws (beginning with FY 2007, the baseline year). Four existing Annual Performance Measures are linked to the first; six contribute to the second. Targets for those measures are being revised to more ambitious levels wherever possible.

Evidence: NAPA Report "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Organizing for the Future," February 2003; USCCR "Ten Year Check-up" report (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/10yr04/10yr04.pdf); Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: The program regulations which EEOC promulgates include recordkeeping and reporting requirements, interpretive regulations and some legislative rules. The Title VII, ADEA, ADA and EPA recordkeeping regulations are necessary to guarantee that employment records which may be relevant to the investigation and resolution of charges of discrimination are available to the Commission and/or to the courts. Without such regulations, employers might destroy relevant evidence in the due course of their operations, thereby hampering subsequent investigations and perhaps leading to erroneous conclusions based upon those investigations. The Title VII reporting regulations require employers to file the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) which allows the EEOC to determine the composition of an individual company or industry's work force in order to track employment trends or to use such information during the investigation/resolution of individual or class discrimination claims. EEOC's interpretive regulations are essentially informative policy statements issued by the Commission with respect to the various discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC. These regulations inform employers, employees and unions of the Commission's interpretation of various aspects of Title VII and the other discrimination laws so that those stakeholders can consider such views in forming their own policies or making other employment-related decisions. The Commission's interpretive regulations therefore promote the EEOC's mission by educating the public and encouraging behavior consistent with the discrimination laws. Substantive regulations were issued pursuant to the ADEA and the ADA. Section 9 of the ADEA permits EEOC to issue substantive regulations as it deems appropriate for enforcing the law and to establish reasonable exemptions from the statute when "necessary and proper in the public interest." The ADEA substantive rules are limited to waivers and exemptions. Section 106 of the ADA permits the EEOC to issue regulations "to carry out this subchapter." The Commission has issued substantive regulations which largely track the statute in defining employers' obligations under the ADA. Substantive regulations are critical to the agency's enforcement of the ADA. In combination with the ADA interpretive regulations, they promote voluntary compliance with the law by explaining the ADA rights and responsibilities of employers and individuals with disabilities.

Evidence: Recordkeeping regulations - 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (Title VII and ADA), Part 1627 (ADEA), and §1620.32 (EPA); Reporting regulations - Subparts B and C of section 1602 (Title VII); Interpretative regulations are found at 29 C.F.R. §§ 1604-1608 (Title VII), Part 1620 (EPA) and Subpart A of Part 1625 (ADEA); Legislative rules - 29 CFR Part 1630(ADA), Subpart B of Part 1625 (ADEA) and Subpart C of Part 1627 (ADEA).

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The EEOC monitors performance via the Integrated Mission System (IMS), which covers all its programs and includes data from State and local FEPA partners. It tracks private sector charge activity from the initial inquiry through charge filing, mediation and investigation to litigation. Quarterly data are available for national, district, area, local and further subsets. They include pending inventory, receipts, resolutions, mediation resolutions, hearings held, and availability of investigators, mediators and Administrative Judges. Workload adjustments are made based on these data. If staffing levels seem too low and positions are available, EEOC may provide certain offices with additional investigator, mediator or AJ slots. Charge investigation responsibilities are occasionally transferred, as well. IMS data are also used in EEOC research; to identify resource needs and adjustments; to set performance targets; and to support reports that are shared with Congress, stakeholders and the public. The EEOC has established an IMS Oversight Group that works to ensure data credibility by issuing quarterly guidance concerning consistent data entry and by frequent review and assessment of the system's performance and capability. EEOC routinely reconciles records and verifies that data are accurate. The National Contact Center (NCC) also collects detailed information about inquiries it receives. This information is analyzed for geographic and demographic trends as well as the types of inquiries received. These data will be considered in the Commission's decision on whether to extend the NCC pilot.

Evidence: Quarterly Data Summary Reports; Quarterly and Annual Reports on Administrative Enforcement Activities Statistics published by EEOC (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/index.html); Memoranda for Transfer of Enforcement Charges

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The EEOC fosters a system of accountability by identifying managers responsible for achieving program results and establishing clearly defined performance standards and accountability for those managers, as well as program partners. Annual performance appraisals for Senior Executive Service (SES) executives, managers and supervisors include assessments of contributions toward achievement of organizational goals, strategic planning initiatives and priorities. Partners are held accountable through the contract process. Fair Employment Practices Agencies' (FEPAs) Worksharing Agreements are monitored by EEOC staff both in field offices and in headquarters. EEOC conducts Substantial Weight Reviews (SWRs) on no less than 10 percent of all cases submitted for contract credit by certified FEPAs, and reviews 100 percent of all cases submitted for credit by non-certified FEPAs. In addition to the SWRs, EEOC reviews and evaluates reports relating to charge processing activities of contract FEPAs. This evaluation may include onsite visits to the FEPAs and/or case file reviews by field or Headquarters staff. EEOC also evaluates reports generated from Integrated Mission System data to track contract compliance.

Evidence: FY 2006 Performance Plans for Senior Executives, Supervisors and Managers; SES Performance Management System Handbook; Performance Planning and Evaluation Program (PEP) for Managers/Supervisors; Quarterly Data Summary Reports and Fact Sheet by ORIP; FY 2006 Contracting Principles for State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The agency closely monitors all funds, which are allocated to offices based on resource needs and requirements after the agency engages in extensive efforts to identify all mission critical components and activities requiring resources. Acquisition plans and resource obligations and expenditures are monitored on a monthly basis by senior management in each office as well as the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, using both the online financial/procurement system and internal financial reports distributed to office directors. Acquisition requests by program offices are reviewed prior to execution for conformity with the approved operating plan. Quarterly, office directors must certify the validity of all unliquidated obligations for all previous funding decisions and reevaluate resource allocations needed to attain the agency's performance targets. A formal six-month and ten-month budget status review is conducted for each office and adjustments are made as warranted. For FEPA partners receiving funds for dual-processed charges of discrimination, the agency monitors the quality of case files on a regular basis and ensures that contract obligations are fulfilled. Resources may be re-aligned based on case workload among the FEPAs.

Evidence: FY 2006 Financial Plan; FY 2006 Mid-Year Budget Review Memorandum

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Reviews of Integrated Mission System (IMS) data and other sources are conducted regularly to ensure that work loads and staffing are balanced and that performance measures are on track to reach targets. The Commission recently approved information technology (IT) projects designed to improve identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination cases. Pursuant to a recent directive from the Chair, the IT office is developing an action plan to: 1) link IMS data with data from the EEO-1 survey; 2) create a mechanism for flagging issues, bases, industries, and employers of interest; and 3) integrate Census data into the EEO-1 desktop software to allow staff to construct Census-based worker availability estimates. These proposed enhancements will provide staff with capability to litigate complex systemic discrimination cases and collaborate more effectively. EEOC is also examining programs and processes comprehensively for opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies. The primary purpose of the recently implemented field repositioning plan was to redirect more resources to front-line activities. Delayering of management and consolidation of field administrative functions has resulted in greater customer service capacity. The pending headquarters repositioning anticipates additional resources shifting to field operations. EEOC has a new efficiency measure - Individuals benefited per FTE - that will provide an aggregate indicator of the cost-effectiveness of its private sector, federal sector and litigation enforcement programs and its outreach efforts. FTE is a valid proxy for cost because over 70% of the agency's budget is dedicated to compensation and benefits.

Evidence: Systemic Task Force report (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/task_reports/systemic.html)

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The EEOC enters agreements with other agencies to allocate enforcement responsibility, to improve expertise in identification and remediation of discrimination in other jurisdictions, and to facilitate establishment of a single government position in various discrimination issues. For example, the Commission has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) that obligates OFCCP to forward individual charges of discrimination against government contractors to the Commission for investigation. Systemic or class charges against government contractors are investigated by OFCCP because they focus on contractors' employment practices and policies more generally. This division of labor prevents duplication of effort and allows OFCCP to apply its particular expertise to the class discrimination claims that are of most interest to its program. EEOC also provides training to OFCCP personnel with respect to pay discrimination issues. Another example is the vital coordination among the EEOC, the Department of Labor and the Justice Department immediately after the events of September 11, 2001 to communicate a consistent message expressing the Federal government's firm intolerance of discrimination against persons of Arab or Islamic backgrounds. A recent Government Accountability Office report noted that "a majority of [Federal] agency EEO and human capital officials responding to our survey said that guidance and feedback from EEOC was useful or very useful." However, there is room for improvement. GAO also "found little evidence of coordination at the operating level between EEOC and OPM in developing policy, providing guidance, and exercising oversight, despite overlapping responsibilities in federal workplace EEO."

Evidence: Worksharing agreements with State and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs); Cooperative arrangements with Tribal Employment Rights Organizations (TEROs); Memoranda of Understanding with agencies (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/mou.html); GAO Report "Equal Employment Opportunity: Improved Coordination Needed between EEOC and OPM in Leading Federal Workplace EEO", June 2006 (GAO-06-214)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The EEOC has received "unqualified" opinions for both FY 2004 and 2005 financial statements issued by the Inspector General's independent auditor. The auditors did not report any material internal control weaknesses in FY 2005, nor did they discover any instances of noncompliance or erroneous payments. To ensure that payments are made properly for their intended purpose, EEOC has appointed Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTR) charged with oversight of every contract and purchase order. Refresher training is offered to these employees each year. The Department of the Interior's National Business Center provides EEOC's financial management software, personnel/payroll application and automated interfaces for procurement, travel and bankcards. The Integrated Financial Management System supports day-to-day operations and a cost accounting module provides program operations information to support management decision-making. Monthly reports prepare all office directors for financial status meetings. Formal financial reviews are conducted for all offices at the six- and ten-month cycle during each fiscal year.

Evidence: Performance and Accountability Report (www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/index.html)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: EEOC's primary data source for program management is the quarterly Data Summary Report (DSR), which is compiled using data submitted by field offices. The report details activity on private sector charges processed both by EEOC and FEPAs, covering Commissioner and systemic charges, mediations and hearings complaints. Trends in charge receipts by statute are examined to detect fluctuations that may indicate events occurring in the workplace. EEOC also uses the data to track District office performance and to proactively deal with practices that may be adversely contributing to the Commission's workload. The Office of Field Programs (OFP) and District staff have a range of other reports that can be generated from the IMS database for any designated period and is not limited to a quarterly reporting basis. District Directors and other managers review data on trends in their district to ensure that their performance will lead to achievement of established performance goals for their offices. OFP conducts regular field technical assistance visits to identify and address any problems with a specific office or nationally, if trends are noted. For instance, when the National Mediation Program began in 1999, an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Deskbook was issued that outlined procedures for management of District level programs. OFP visits determined that in recent years, due to staffing and other resource issues, offices began adjusting their individual practices. EEOC determined the need to update and reissue the ADR Deskbook to ensure consistency where appropriate but to also allow for program variations when such flexibility did not affect the overall program. This Deskbook is currently under final review and will be issued this fiscal year. When OFP identifies procedures that are effective, EEOC shares the information with other field offices for implementation. On a quarterly basis, each Regional Attorney is required to submit several reports. One report, called the 396 report, is a comprehensive report which outlines the litigation activity in his or her district. OGC uses the 396 reports primarily in conducting Regional Attorney performance appraisals. Data in the reports assist in determining the quality of each district office's suit filing and resolution efforts, in conjunction with a review of the actual resolution documents. In addition to the 396 reports, OGC requires each district office to submit quarterly reports describing the status and plan for each case in active litigation, called Case Conference Reports. These reports are useful in ensuring that each office is managing the litigation of each case, and enables OGC to detect and inquire into potential problems, such as delays in initiating discovery or failing to maintain prosecutorial initiative. The EEOC Inspector General (IG) annually evaluates the most serious management challenges facing the agency. In FY 2005, the IG noted that the agency strengthened its enforcement activities and expanded outreach, while repositioning the agency for improved service and sustained viability.

Evidence: Quarterly Data Summary Reports; Litigation Reports; Regional Attorneys' Manual (www.eeoc.gov/litigation/manual/1-1-d_reporting_to_ogc.html); FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report; Inspector General's semi-annual reports for Fiscal Year 2005 (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/oig/index.html)

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The Commission uniformly complies with the spirit and the letter of all laws governing the issuance of regulations, including the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In its rulemaking, the Commission always considers public comments and addresses those comments (whether the comments were adopted or rejected by the Commission) in the preambles to the various rules published by the Commission. With respect to reporting requirements, this practice is exemplified by the Commission's modification of its EEO-1 report substance and methodology. Before publishing its initial proposal, the EEOC obtained input from various employer groups and other federal agencies. Subsequently, the EEOC published its initial PRA Notice on June 11, 2003 [68 FR 34965]. After receiving more than 30 comments and holding an October 29, 2003 public hearing, the Commission issued its final PRA Notice on November 28, 2005 [70 FR 71294]. The preamble to that notice comprehensively summarized the aforementioned comments and explained the EEOC's reasoning in adopting or rejecting those comments. With respect to its regulations implementing the ADA, the EEOC solicited interested party feedback while drafting its guidance and then followed similar publication, public comment and published explanation procedures. See 56 FR 35726 (July 26, 1991). The ADEA waiver rules were issued through a negotiated rulemaking procedure and hence affected parties played a significant role in drafting the regulations. See 63 FR 30624 (June 5, 1998).

Evidence: Federal Register notices referenced in evidence for question 2RG1; 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (37 FR 9219, as amended at 46 FR 63268, and 56 FR 35755); Part 1627 (44 FR 38459); § 1620.32 (46 FR 4888, as amended at 46 FR 63268 and redesignated at 51 FR 29819); § 1602.7 (37 FR 1219, as amended at 56 FR 35755); § 1602.12 (31 FR 2833, as amended at 46 FR 63268, 56 FR 35755); Part 1604 (37 FR 6836); Part 1605 (45 FR 72612); Part 1606 (45 FR 85635); Part 1607 (43 FR 38295, 38312); Part 1608 (44 FR 4422); Part 1620 (51 FR 29819); Part 1625 (46 FR 47726); Part 1630 (56 FR 35734).

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation:

Evidence:

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: Interpretive regulations issued by the Commission educate the public with respect to the Commission's position regarding the various laws enforced by the Commission. More informed people avoid misunderstandings regarding the law; this reduces the incidence of discrimination, allowing the EEOC to devote its resources to education or resolution activities involving other employers and individuals. Interpretive regulations are considered highly cost-effective since their direct cost is just staff time to promulgate them and they contribute to avoidance of costs associated with charge processing. The Commission's employment record retention regulations and reporting requirements protect access to employment records that may be relevant to the investigation and resolution of charges. Without such regulations, employers might inadvertently destroy relevant evidence, thereby hampering subsequent investigations and perhaps leading to erroneous conclusions. The Employer Information Report (EEO-1) required by the EEOC allows the EEOC to determine the composition of an individual company or industry's work force in order to track employment trends or to use such information during the investigation/resolution of individual or class discrimination claims. These sources of information are essential to the EEOC's effectiveness in investigating charges, in analyzing nation-wide employment trends and in identifying systemic or class-based patterns of discrimination. The cost of acquiring this information is justified, and there are no viable or less expensive alternative means to achieve these goals - as shown by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) analyses. The substantive rule issued under the ADEA concerning waivers establishes criteria and procedures by which waivers may be effectuated, thereby requiring each party who seeks a waiver to determine if the effort to comply with the regulation's requirements is justified by the value of the waiver to that party. Based upon the accompanying PRA analysis, the ADEA's waiver regulation imposed minimal notification requirements and did not add reporting or record-keeping requirements. See 63 FR 30627 (June 5, 1998). Exemptions issued pursuant to the Commission's substantive authority under the ADEA lessen the burden on those entities subject to the exemption. The ADA regulations were analyzed in a preliminary regulatory impact analysis published at 56 FR 8579 (February 28, 1991) which concluded that the regulations were likely to produce benefits in exceeding costs after considering factors such as EEOC administrative costs, reasonable accommodation expenses, productivity gains, decreased support payments and increased taxes.

Evidence: ADA regulations analysis - 56 FR 8579 (February 28, 1991); Interpretive regulations - Part 1604 (37 FR 6836); Part 1605 (45 FR 72612); Part 1606 (45 FR 85635); Part 1607 (43 FR 38295, 38312); Part 1608 (44 FR 4422); Part 1620 (51 FR 29819); and Part 1625 (Subpart A) (46 FR 47726) Record-keeping and reporting regs - § 1602.7 (37 FR 1219, as amended at 56 FR 35755); § 1602.12 (31 FR 2833, as amended at 46 FR 63268, 56 FR 35755); 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (37 FR 9219, as amended at 46 FR 63268; 56 FR 35755); Part 1627 (44 FR 38459); § 1620.32 (46 FR 4888, as amended at 46 FR 63268 and redesignated at 51 FR 29819) Legislative regulations - Part 1625 (Subpart B) (46 FR 47726); 63 FR 30627 (June 5, 1998); Part 1627 (Subpart C); Part 1630 (56 FR 35734); 56 FR 8579 (February 28, 1991)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: EEOC has just created long term measures. One of the two has a baseline but no trend data.

Evidence:

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Five of the nine annual performance measures have data. Of these, one just established baselines in FY 2005 (Measure 8). Of the remaining four measures, performance reached or exceeded targets in FY 2004 and FY 2005 for just two (Measures 7 and 9).

Evidence: FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report.(http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/plan/index.html).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: EEOC is implementing a new efficiency measure; no data are available at this time. However, FY 2005 Federal sector hearings average processing time dropped by 29.9% ?? to 249 days vs. 355 days in FY 2004. Also in FY 2005, despite an 11% increase in new Federal sector appeals, EEOC continued reduction of the appeals inventory and continued to increase the percent of appeals processed in 180 days over FY 2004 performance (see results for Annual Performance Measure 2.3). Controlling the appeals inventory and further improvement in processing efficiency was especially challenging in light of the Commission's hiring freeze over the past several years and increased employee attrition. The repositioned field structure will save $8.2 million over an eight year period in rent and payroll reductions. EEOC has conducted one A-76 competition - for its operations files control room functions - that produced modest savings ($100,000) but demonstrated a significant commitment to efficiency and developed an important institutional capability.

Evidence: Federal sector hearings (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/nofear/hearings.html) and appeals http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/nofear/appellate.html); Supplemental Financial Data for Repositioning

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no known studies comparing EEOC effectiveness to that of other civil rights enforcement organizations broadly. However, many organizations share significant functions and goals with this program, and comparisons generally cast EEOC in a favorable light. The Government Accountability Office just issued a report on equal employment opportunity efforts of EEOC and OPM. Its main conclusion is that they could achieve efficiency and improve service to federal agencies by more formally and routinely coordinating policy, assistance and oversight roles. Surveys indicated, however, that by several measures, EEOC was significantly more helpful. Over half of EEOC's charge receipts involve small and mid-sized businesses, so it has an extensive Small Business Liaison program. In FY 2005, for the second year in a row, the agency received a rating of "A" in the Small Business Administration's National Ombudsman's Report. This is a relatively rare achievement among federal agencies that deal with small businesses. The EEOC conducted an internal study of the performance of its litigation program as compared to the pool of federal employment discrimination plaintiffs generally. The main conclusion of the study was that, by several different indicators, the EEOC's success rate in both the district and appellate courts was significantly higher than that of federal employment discrimination plaintiffs generally. While the general pool of employment discrimination plaintiffs is not a formal "program," it includes litigation filed by civil rights advocacy groups such as NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and National Women's Law Center, as well as law firms specializing in employment law, such as the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under the Law and the Impact Fund. The only other federal program responsible for litigating employment discrimination cases is the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, whose authority under the employment discrimination laws is generally limited to state and local governments and which files too few discrimination lawsuits for any meaningful statistical comparison. Other federal agencies with some responsibilities for enforcing civil rights laws, such as the OFCCP and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, have no litigation authority. The vast majority of FEPAs likewise have no litigation authority or exercise it sparingly. Moreover, any state and local government litigation efforts would be in the service of the various state and local laws, and take place in state courts, and thus be inappropriate for comparison.

Evidence: GAO Report "Equal Employment Opportunity: Improved Coordination Needed between EEOC and OPM in Leading Federal Workplace EEO", June 2006 (GAO-06-214); Press Release on SBA rating (http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-10-04.html); Comparative Analysis of EEOC Litigation Program, April 2006

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Evidence indicates that the Commission is having a positive impact but that it could be more effective. No one has studied the EEOC's overall effectiveness, but numerous studies offer insights regarding significant aspects of the program. Academic studies have concluded as recently as 2005 that "the level of federal support and enforcement are clearly contributing factors to the dynamics of racial workplace integration" and that female wage gaps are being reduced as a result of EEOC's and plaintiff bar's enforcement efforts. The risk of discrimination lawsuits is taken very seriously by employers in the U.S. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), in its February 2003 report on the agency's organizational structure, concluded that "the Commission needs more fundamental changes to enable it to provide its diverse, far-flung customers with the level and quality of services they need." The agency has since implemented NAPA's major recommendations - establishing the National Contact Center (NCC) and realigning its field structure. The NCC, which utilizes 21st Century technology to improve public access to information about EEOC's services, was extended another year after completing an initial two-year pilot phase. A study commissioned by the OIG concluded in its June 2006 report that while the contact center has demonstrated potential to make a significant contribution to program effectiveness, EEOC needs to modify its integration with other operations. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) commended EEOC for its extensive outreach, education, and technical assistance activities that reach underserved groups through forums, public events, and regular and ethnic media. USCCR suggested that other federal agencies study some of the EEOC's efforts and consider emulating them as appropriate. In 2000, 2001 and 2003, independent studies of the EEOC's private sector mediation program were conducted by academic researchers. These studies concluded that the program was effective and recommended enhancements.

Evidence: Stainback, Kevin, Core L. Robinson and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey "Race and Workplace Integration: A 'Politically-Mediated' Process?" American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 48, No. 9, May 2005, pp.1200-1228; Becker, Elizabeth, and Cotton M. Lindsay: "The limits of the wage impact of discrimination," Managerial and Decision Economics, Volume 26, Issue 8 (2005), pp. 513-525; NAPA Report "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Organizing for the Future," February 2003; USCCR study "Ten-Year Check-up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? Volume IV: An Evaluation of the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission," September 2004; Reports on EEOC Mediation Program (http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/mcd-intro.html); EEOC Contact Center Customer Satisfaction Survey, May 2006; Job Performance Systems, Inc. study for the EEOC Office of Inspector General "The EEOC's National Contact Center: An Evaluation of its Impacts," June 29, 2006

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation:

Evidence: