[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 
                   GENERAL REPORT ON USDA OVERSIGHT OF 
                   CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, OVERSIGHT, AND DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 15, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-30
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov
                         
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-549 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

JIM COSTA, California                GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, 
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice  ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
Chair                                Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia   SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            DOUG LaMALFA, California
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio               RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Northern Mariana Islands             DON BACON, Nebraska
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois               JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   CHRIS JACOBS, New York
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
RO KHANNA, California                TRACEY MANN, Kansas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida              RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               BARRY MOORE, Alabama
JOSH HARDER, California              KAT CAMMACK, Florida
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa                   MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JIMMY PANETTA, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

                                 ______

                      Anne Simmons, Staff Director

                 Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

    Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations

                 JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut, Chairwoman

JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     DON BACON, Nebraska,  Ranking 
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina        Minority Member
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio               ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              Arkansas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Northern Mariana Islands             VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida              CHRIS JACOBS, New York
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
JIMMY PANETTA, California            KAT CAMMACK, Florida
                                     JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana

             Katherine Stewart, Subcommittee Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                                  
                                  
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Bacon, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska, 
  opening statement..............................................     3
Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from 
  Connecticut, opening statement.................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Submitted report.............................................    25
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     4

                                Witness

Fong, Hon. Phyllis K., Inspector General, Office of Inspector 
  General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; 
  accompanied by Gil H. Harden, Assistant Inspector General for 
  Audit, OIG, USDA...............................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Supplementary material.......................................    65
    Submitted question...........................................    67

 
REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON USDA OVERSIGHT 
                       OF CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINTS

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department 
                                                Operations,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Jahana Hayes [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Hayes, McGovern, Adams, 
Brown, Rush, Sablan, Lawson, Bishop, Bacon, Baird, Jacobs, 
Cloud, Letlow, and Thompson (ex officio).
    Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Chu-Yuan Hwang, Katherine 
Stewart, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn, Jennifer Tiller, 
and Dana Sandman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAHANA HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM CONNECTICUT

    The Chairwoman. I now call to order the hearing of the 
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department 
Operations.
    Good afternoon, everyone. This hearing of the Subcommittee 
on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations entitled, 
Review of the Office of Inspector General Report on USDA 
Oversight of Civil Rights Complaints, will come to order. 
Welcome, and thank you all for joining us here today.
    After brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony 
from our witness today, and then the hearing will be open to 
questions. In consultation with the Ranking Member and pursuant 
to Rule XI(e), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware 
that other Members of the full Committee may join us today.
    Thank you to the Inspector General, accompanied by the 
Assistant Inspector General for Audit, for joining us today to 
provide testimony and answer our questions. I appreciate you 
taking time out of your schedules to provide us with this 
expertise. I look forward to a productive conversation about 
the USDA Office of the Inspector General report on the USDA 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' (OASCR) 
oversight of the civil rights complaint process.
    The mission of OASCR is to provide leadership and direction 
for the fair and equitable treatment of all USDA customers and 
employees while ensuring the enforcement of civil rights. 
However, as we know, USDA has a documented history of race- and 
gender-based discrimination in its role as an administrator of 
Federal programs, an employer, and processor of civil rights 
complaints. Discriminatory actions have resulted in several 
class action lawsuits and settlements over the years.
    While the USDA's civil rights complaints process should 
provide recourse for employees and program participants who 
face discrimination in hiring, employment, and program 
delivery, serious issues have plagued the Department's 
complaint processing for more than half a century and 
undermined the ability to timely and effectively resolve civil 
rights complaints.
    And, while these problems are not new, OIG's September 2021 
report on USDA Oversight of Civil Rights Complaints, which 
reviewed complaints processed between October 2016 and June 
2019 had some very concerning findings. OIG's findings show 
that, under the previous Administration, USDA regressed in 
terms of the timeliness of its civil rights complaint 
processing. Of the complaints OIG sampled, more than 85 percent 
took longer than 180 days to process. In Fiscal Year 2019, it 
took 799 days on average, or more than 2 years, to process 
complaints.
    We are also aware that, at that time, massive cuts were 
requested for OASCR's budget, almost $3.5 million in cuts in 
Fiscal Year 2021, for example, and [the Administration was] 
realigning the office in 2018 to eliminate redundancies.
    Among other concerning changes, as part of the 2018 
reorganization of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights, Secretary Perdue proposed eliminating Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at OASCR, and eliminating 
the Policy Division within OASCR because it was: ``no longer 
necessary in an era of decreased regulations.''
    Furthermore, the budget proposed by the Trump 
Administration repeatedly proposed that they would not fill 
critical vacancies in the program and employment complaint 
areas. As a result, between 2016 and 2020, OASCR lost a 
substantial portion of their workforce.
    The OIG report * makes clear that the Biden Administration 
has their work cut out for them in the area of civil rights at 
USDA, both--I am sorry--because of USDA's historic struggle to 
appropriately process and adjudicate civil rights complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The report referred to is located on p. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am hopeful that today's hearing will help us better 
understand OIG's findings and recommendations for complaint 
processing at USDA. Further, I am hopeful that this hearing 
brings forth productive solutions to ensure that this process 
works and that OASCR has the staffing and support necessary to 
meet its mission.
    Thank you again to our Members and to OIG for joining us 
today. I look forward to today's conversation.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Hayes follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress 
                            from Connecticut
    Thank you to the Inspector General, accompanied by the Assistant 
Inspector General for Audit, for joining us today to provide testimony 
and answer our questions. I appreciate you taking time out of your 
schedules to provide us with your expertise.
    I look forward to a productive conversation about the USDA Office 
of the Inspector General (OIG) report on the USDA Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' (OASCR) oversight of the civil 
rights complaints process.
    The mission of OASCR is `to provide leadership and direction for 
the fair and equitable treatment of all USDA customers and employees 
while ensuring the enforcement of civil rights.'
    However, as we know, USDA has a long history of race- and gender-
based discrimination in its role as an administrator of Federal 
programs, an employer, and processor of civil rights complaints. 
Discriminatory actions against program participants, as well as against 
its own employees, have resulted in several class action lawsuits and 
settlements over the years.
    While USDA's civil rights complaints process should provide 
recourse for employees and program participants who face discrimination 
in hiring, employment, and program delivery, serious issues have 
plagued the Department's complaint processing for more than half a 
century and undermined its ability to timely and effectively resolve 
civil rights complaints.
    And, while these problems are not new, OIG's September 2021 report 
on USDA Oversight of Civil Rights Complaints, which reviewed complaints 
processed between October 2016 and June 2019 had some very concerning 
findings.
    OIG's findings show that, under the Trump Administration, USDA 
regressed in terms of the timeliness of its civil rights complaint 
processing.
    Of the complaints OIG sampled, more than 85 percent took longer 
than 180 days to process. In Fiscal Year 2019, it took 799 days on 
average--or more than 2 years--to process complaints.
    We are also aware that, at the same time, the Trump Administration 
was undermining OASCR by requesting massive cuts in its annual budget--
by $3.5 million in Fiscal Year 2021 alone, for example--and realigning 
the office in 2018 to supposedly `eliminate redundancies.'
    Among other concerning changes, as part of the 2018 reorganization 
of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Secretary 
Perdue proposed eliminating OASCR's Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights position, with little to no justification, and eliminating 
the Policy Division within OASCR because it was `no longer necessary in 
an era of decreased regulations.'
    Furthermore, the Trump Administration's budget repeatedly proposed 
that they would `not fill critical vacancies . . . in the program and 
employment complaint area.' As a result, between 2016 and 2020, OASCR 
lost a substantial portion of its workforce.
    The OIG report makes clear that the Biden Administration has their 
work cut out for them in righting the ship on civil rights at USDA, 
both because of USDA's historic struggle to appropriately process and 
adjudicate civil rights complaints, and because of the actions of the 
prior Administration.
    I am hopeful that today's hearing will help us better understand 
OIG's findings and recommendations and the decades of issues that have 
plagued civil rights complaint processing at USDA.
    Further, I am hopeful that this hearing helps us come together 
around productive solutions to ensure that this process works and that 
OASCR has the staffing and support necessary to meet its mission.
    Thank you again to our Members and to OIG for joining us today. I 
look forward to today's conversation.

    The Chairwoman. I now would like to welcome the 
distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 
Bacon, for any opening remarks he would like to give.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DON BACON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM NEBRASKA

    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Chairwoman Hayes. I appreciate your 
comments, and also your comments on OASCR and what has happened 
in the past. I also want to thank our witness today. I welcome 
Inspector General Fong to the Subcommittee, and I look forward 
to your discussion and learning from you. I also look forward 
to the opportunity to bring in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights at OASCR, even if it involves a 
second panel.
    After years of issues--and I agree, it has crossed multiple 
Administrations--it would be beneficial to question Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Rainge about our agency, its future, how it 
is going to work to ensure the program and employee complaints 
are processed timely and with integrity.
    OASCR provides the overall leadership, coordination, and 
direction of USDA's civil rights programs, including matters 
related to program delivery, compliance, equal employment 
opportunity, [inaudible] provides leadership and direction for 
the fair and equitable treatment of all USDA customers and 
employees, ensuring the delivery of quality programs and 
enforcement of civil rights. So, it is indeed one of the more 
important agencies of the Department. So, I hope we get an 
opportunity to talk to Deputy Assistant Secretary Rainge as 
well.
    Also, if you may indulge me for just a moment, I also hope 
to, sometime soon we can bring up the business of oversight 
with the 2018 Farm Bill. I would like to hear from our FNS 
personnel publicly regarding implementation or pandemic-related 
policies and spending, and of course, the $256 billion baseline 
update done by this Administration.
    So, with that, I thank the Inspector General for joining us 
today, and thank you, Chairwoman Hayes, for leading this 
Subcommittee. I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Bacon.
    I now would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 
full Committee, Representative Thompson, who has joined us 
today, for any opening remarks he would like to make.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much. Good 
afternoon, everybody, and much appreciation to you, Madam 
Chairwoman and Ranking Member Bacon.
    Welcome, Inspector General Fong. Thank you for being with 
us today. I would like to associate myself with the comments of 
the Ranking Member. OASCR should be with us today, and I hope 
we will have the chance to speak with them soon about this, and 
other matters, including how employee complaints are handled.
    The September 2021 report under discussion today highlights 
longstanding issues within OASCR. Regardless of the 
Administration, it appears the office has an outdated and 
inefficient approach to program complaints. I look forward to 
the discussion and any updates Inspector General Fong may have 
relating to her recommendations. And again, I do hope this 
Subcommittee starts to contemplate the 2023 Farm Bill. My 
colleagues and I have many questions about the 2018 Farm Bill 
implementation, including issues related to quality control. 
And on the heels of billions of pandemic-related spending, an 
additional $256 billion over 10 years in new spending. 
Everything in this space requires intense scrutiny and 
engagement.
    Once again, thank you so much for the opportunity to join 
this Subcommittee hearing. With that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Thompson. The 
chair would request that other Members submit their opening 
statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their 
testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for our 
questions.
    Our witness today is the Honorable Phyllis K. Fong, the 
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ms. 
Fong was nominated to serve as Inspector General for USDA by 
President George W. Bush and was subsequently confirmed by the 
U.S. Senate and sworn in as Inspector General for USDA in 2002. 
As Inspector General, Ms. Fong is responsible for audits, 
investigations, and other oversight activities related to USDA 
programs and operations. In addition to her work for USDA, Ms. 
Fong has also served as the acting Inspector General for the 
Federal Housing Finance Agency since July 2021. Prior to her 
appointment at USDA, Ms. Fong was nominated and confirmed as 
Inspector General of the Small Business Administration, where 
she served as Inspector General from April 1999 to December of 
2002.
    Ms. Fong is accompanied today by Mr. Gil Harden, the 
Assistant Inspector for Audit at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. In his role as Assistant Inspector for Audit, Mr. 
Harden is responsible for all audits of USDA, and its 
operations and programs.
    Welcome to both Ms. Fong and Mr. Harden. We will now 
proceed to hearing testimony from Ms. Fong. You will have 5 
minutes to give your testimony. The timer should be visible for 
you on your screen and will count down to 0, at which point 
your time has expired.
    Ms. Fong, if you are ready, please begin your testimony.

         STATEMENT OF HON. PHYLLIS K. FONG, INSPECTOR 
          GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 
         DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.; 
 ACCOMPANIED BY GIL H. HARDEN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR 
                        AUDIT, OIG, USDA

    Ms. Fong. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Hayes, Ranking 
Member Bacon, and Ranking Member Thompson. We really appreciate 
the opportunity to be here today to talk about our recent 
report, as you all have mentioned. With me today is Gil Harden, 
whose office performed the audit work that we will be 
discussing today. So, he's got a good grasp of all the details.
    As you know, our mission in the IG's office is to help the 
Department deliver its programs effectively and with integrity. 
We do that through audits, investigations, and other reviews, 
and we make recommendations to help the Department improve 
program delivery. In the end, however, it is the Department 
itself and program officials who must take the necessary 
corrective actions. We do not have the authority to do that.
    My written statement provides a detailed description of our 
report, so I would like to just spend a few minutes talking 
about some of the key themes that we have seen in over 20 
years, 20 years of oversight work involving the Department's 
civil rights programs.
    Our work has focused on three broad areas. We have looked 
at various USDA programs and outreach activities to underserved 
communities. The second area we have looked at is USDA's 
handling of the claims resolution process for class action 
litigation filed by various groups, as alluded to in the 
Chairwoman's opening remarks, and the third area that we have 
focused on is USDA's handling of program and EEO employment 
complaints under the Civil Rights Acts and other legislation, 
and it is this third area relating to the importance of a 
timely and responsive complaint process that we believe is 
critical to addressing perceived discrimination in USDA 
programs and building public trust and confidence that the 
Department can serve all the people.
    Our most recent report found that the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, that their program 
complaint process has fallen short of their goals. The report 
underscores a number of longstanding challenges, as many of you 
have pointed out today, that must be addressed if the 
Department is to move forward. We have identified these same 
themes 14 years ago in testimony to Congress, and civil rights 
and outreach activities have been a management challenge on our 
list of key challenges facing the Department for 20 years now.
    The themes that we have seen are as follows: strong 
leadership is essential to make it a priority to process 
complaints in a timely fashion; adequate resources need to be 
brought to bear, including sufficient staffing and an effective 
information technology system; monitoring and oversight of 
partnerships with other agencies is necessary to ensure that 
all are doing their part; and finally, clear performance 
measures need to be set and used so that success can be 
measured and reported.
    These challenges are not new. They will take concerted 
effort to address. I do want to acknowledge publicly that under 
the current OASCR leadership, Deputy Assistant Secretary Monica 
Rainge has agreed to act on all of our recommendations in the 
audit report, and we have accepted OASCR's proposed actions to 
address our recommendations.
    So, in closing, I want to thank this Committee for your 
interest in our work, and we look forward to discussing our 
report with you and answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Fong follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, Office 
 of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Introduction
    Good afternoon, Chairwoman Hayes, Ranking Member Bacon, and Members 
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you 
today to discuss the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) audit of the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' (OASCR) oversight 
of the civil rights complaints process.
    As you know, OIG's mission is to promote the economy, efficiency, 
and integrity of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
programs and operations. OIG performs audits, inspections, 
investigations, data analyses, and other reviews to address fraud, 
waste, and abuse, and makes recommendations that we believe will help 
improve how USDA's programs operate. In OIG's USDA Management 
Challenges--OIG's annual report on the most critical management 
challenges facing USDA--we have noted that, due to public attention 
concerning how USDA has historically treated members of socially 
disadvantaged groups, the Department is continually challenged to find 
effective ways to encourage and support all citizens in their 
agribusiness endeavors, especially those within underrepresented 
groups.\1\ Since noting this management challenge, OIG has conducted 
audits to make recommendations designed to improve the Department's 
civil rights programs and processing of civil rights complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USDA-OIG, Management Challenges (Feb. 4, 2021), https://
www.usda.gov/oig/reports/management-challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For instance, in 2012, OIG published an audit report evaluating 
OASCR's decision-making process for settling with complainants who were 
found to have a high probability of experiencing discrimination in USDA 
programs. Specifically, this report: (1) assessed the adequacy of 
OASCR's procedures for determining whether settling with complainants 
was the appropriate course of action; (2) determined whether settlement 
amounts were appropriate and supported; and (3) assessed OASCR's 
controls to ensure USDA agencies met the terms agreed upon in program 
complaint settlement and conciliation agreements. In addition, this 
report followed up on prior OIG audit recommendations relating to 
settlement agreements. OIG has also assessed the Department's actions 
to implement legal decisions, publishing audit reports in 2015 and 
2016.2-3   Finally, we have conducted audits assessing the 
grants the Department gives through the Office of Partnerships and 
Public Engagement's (OPPE) 2501 Program, to ensure their outreach is 
appropriate.4-6  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Audit Report 50601-0003-21, In re Black Farmers Discrimination 
Litigation, Sept. 2015.
    \3\ Audit Report 50601-0002-21, Hispanic and Women Farmers and 
Ranchers Claims Resolution Process, Mar. 2016.
    \4\ Audit Report 91099-0001-21, Controls Over the Grant Management 
Process of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, Feb. 2013.
    \5\ Audit Report 91099-0003-21, Section 2501 Program Grants Awarded 
FYs 2010-2011, Mar. 2015.
    \6\ Audit Report 91601-0001-21, Outreach and Assistance for 
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and 
Ranchers Program (2501 Program) in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, Nov. 
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA Oversight of Civil Rights Complaints
    While OIG has conducted numerous reviews over the years designed to 
improve the Department's civil rights programs and processing of civil 
rights complaints, the main focus of my statement today is our recent 
audit of OASCR's oversight of the civil rights complaints process, 
specifically OASCR's processing of program complaints. Program 
complaints are complaints of discrimination filed by any person or 
group of persons who believe they have been subjected to prohibited 
discrimination in a USDA program. Within USDA, OASCR is responsible for 
making final determinations on program complaints.
    In October 2018, OASCR reorganized to streamline the delivery of 
program complaint services at the mission area level and ensure that 
USDA projects a unified voice on all civil rights issues. Within OASCR, 
the Center for Civil Rights Enforcement supports OASCR's mission 
largely through its program directorates--the Program Complaints 
Division and the Program Adjudication Division. The program complaint 
process begins in the Program Complaints Division's Intake Division, 
which receives complaints from persons alleging discrimination in 
USDA's Federally conducted or assisted programs. The Program Complaints 
Division then determines which Federal civil rights laws, regulations, 
and policies the complaint pertains to, and chooses one of the 
following courses of action: administrative closure, programmatic 
referral, or investigation.
    The first process, administrative closure, can occur at any stage 
in the process if OASCR determines that procedural grounds exist 
warranting administrative closure. The second process, programmatic 
referral, occurs if the complaint pertaining to a USDA agency does not 
include a jurisdictional basis of discrimination covered under the 
civil rights statutes; in those instances, the complaint is forwarded 
to the respective agency for review and processing. The third process, 
investigation, results in OASCR assigning an investigator to determine 
the facts and evidence surrounding the complaint. After the 
investigation has been completed, an assigned adjudicator reviews the 
investigative report, analyzes the evidence, applies the applicable 
laws, and drafts a final agency decision. If OASCR determines that 
discrimination occurred--or if the issue is resolved through a 
settlement--the Compliance Division monitors to ensure all parties 
comply with the agreements and implement corrective actions.
    OASCR does not evaluate and process all complaints for USDA and it 
relies on the assistance of two organizations: USDA's Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS) and the United States Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD). USDA used Memoranda of Understanding to 
establish agreements to coordinate civil rights program complaint 
processing with FNS and HUD. OASCR refers program complaints relating 
to FNS programs to FNS officials to evaluate and process the 
complaints. Similarly, USDA refers any complaints alleging a potential 
Fair Housing Act violation to HUD. USDA's Rural Development serves as 
an intermediary between OASCR and HUD.
    OASCR's oversight of complaint resolution is critical to ensuring 
that complaints are resolved in accordance with Departmental and 
Federal requirements. Furthermore, it is essential that OASCR resolve 
complaints timely; when complaints are not resolved timely, individuals 
who have a legitimate claim of discrimination and would otherwise be 
eligible for USDA programs may not continue pursuing their complaint. 
Additionally, lengthy processing times could discourage potential 
complainants from filing a complaint.
Why OIG Performed the Audit
    In 2012, we reported that OASCR needed to strengthen its procedures 
for settlement agreements so that it could support its decisions, 
process cases timely, and report them accurately. Specifically, we 
identified control weaknesses surrounding timeliness, data accuracy, 
and supporting documentation.\7\ Additionally, in 2008, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) reported that OASCR needed to address 
several fundamental concerns about resolving discrimination 
complaints.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Audit Report 60601-0001-23, Report Review of the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' Oversight of Agreements Reached 
in Program Complaints, Aug. 2012.
    \8\ GAO, Recommendations and Options to Address Management 
Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
GAO-09-62 (Oct. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Building on these earlier reports, we completed our 2021 audit to 
evaluate OASCR's controls over the civil rights complaints process to 
ensure that program complaints were being processed in accordance with 
requirements and timely and efficiently resolved. In this audit, we 
also followed up on all five recommendations from our 2012 audit report 
and three of the six recommendations from GAO's 2008 audit report.\9\ 
Although OASCR agreed to take corrective action to address all 
recommendations at the time of each audit report's publication, our 
2021 audit report noted that control weaknesses continue to exist.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ OIG follows up on audit recommendations to evaluate the 
adequacy and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by 
management.
    \10\ Audit Report 60601-0001-21, USDA Oversight of Civil Rights 
Complaints, Sept. 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What We Found
    Overall, we found that OASCR needs to develop a stronger internal 
control environment over its civil rights program complaints processing 
to ensure that complaints are timely and appropriately handled, and 
that OASCR achieves established goals and objectives.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Due to the age of the prior audit recommendations provided by 
OIG and GAO, we did not report on the follow up of prior audit 
recommendations separately in a specific finding or section of this 
report. Rather, similar issues identified within prior audit reporting 
and addressed by prior audit recommendations were incorporated into our 
current findings and recommendations where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More specifically, OASCR did not timely process civil rights 
program complaints. OASCR officials processed program complaints using 
the 540-day timeframe established in an internal 2013 policy memorandum 
rather than using the 180-day timeframe set forth in the publicly 
available Departmental manual. From October 1, 2016, through June 30, 
2019, USDA processed 911 program complaints. Of these complaints, more 
than 85 percent of our sample took longer than 180 days to process.\12\ 
Furthermore, more than 67 percent of sampled program complaints took 
longer than 540 days to process. The average processing time of program 
complaints in our sample was over 630 days; overall, for all program 
complaints in FY 2019, OASCR processed program complaints within an 
average of 799 days. This is an increase from OACSR's average 
processing time for program complaints in FY 2018, which was 594 days 
and is an increase from OACSR's average processing time for program 
complaints in FY 2017, which was 571 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Of the 911 complaints, we non-statistically selected a sample 
of 28 complaints to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, because OASCR did not implement or update effective 
processes to monitor and track complaints, FNS and HUD did not timely 
resolve referred program civil rights complaints. Based on established 
agreements, FNS and HUD process civil rights program complaints for 
select areas of purview. Although program complaint processing is 
coordinated with these agencies, OASCR retains responsibility, 
oversight, and final authority for these complaints. Specifically, we 
found that between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, FNS took an 
average of more than 220 days and HUD took an average of more than 600 
days to process complaints referred to them by OASCR. Furthermore, 
there were two cases--one each from FNS and HUD--that were not resolved 
until after 1,700 days.
    Federal regulations require agencies to establish and make public 
procedures for the ``prompt processing and disposition of civil rights 
program complaints.'' \13\ Operating on timeframes that are different 
from those outlined in public guidance could diminish public confidence 
that USDA is carrying out its responsibility to process complaints in a 
timely manner. Additionally, without adequate oversight, OASCR cannot 
ensure that FNS and HUD promptly resolve referred program complaints in 
compliance with relevant directives and guidance. When faced with 
lengthy timeframes to process their complaints, individuals who have a 
legitimate claim of discrimination and would otherwise be eligible for 
USDA programs may not continue to pursue their complaint, and potential 
complainants may not file a complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Department of Justice 28 CFR  42.408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, although OASCR developed its Strategic Plan FY 2016-
2020, we found that it did not use the plan to measure or assess its 
progress toward established goals and objectives relating to program 
complaints because OASCR's management did not establish specific ways 
to: (1) monitor performance measures and indicators, (2) perform 
periodic reviews and regularly update the plan, and (3) report on 
actual performance compared to its goals and objectives. Using the 
performance measures provided in the strategic plan could have helped 
OASCR avoid shortcomings we identified in our audit; however, because 
OASCR has not established and implemented such measures, OASCR 
officials cannot determine whether they are achieving the Strategic 
Plan's intended goals and objectives. This further hinders OASCR's 
ability to improve the program complaint process.
    In our report, we made 21 recommendations intended to help OASCR 
improve its processing of civil rights program complaints. For example, 
we recommended that OASCR evaluate the timeframe to process program 
complaints and, based on this analysis, develop and implement 
timeframes and a success rate to ensure program complaints are 
processed in a prompt and timely manner. We further recommended that 
based on this analysis, OASCR update Departmental guidance outlining 
timeframes for processing program complaints and publish the updated 
Departmental guidance on OASCR's public website. Additionally, we 
recommended that OASCR use this analysis to revise and update the 
Memoranda of Understanding with FNS and HUD with timeframes for 
processing complaints to ensure program complaints are processed in a 
timely manner. We have reached agreement with OASCR on its proposed 
corrective actions for all of the report's 21 recommendations.
Upcoming Civil Rights Work
    In addition to our completed work, we have an audit planned that 
focuses on OASCR's Equal Employment Opportunity complaint process. 
Specifically, this audit will: (1) evaluate OASCR's Equal Employment 
Opportunity civil rights complaints process to ensure complaints are 
processed in a timely manner and in accordance with applicable 
procedures; and (2) ensure applicable corrective actions taken in 
response to prior audit recommendations remain effective.
Conclusion
    This concludes my statement. I want to again thank the 
Chair[woman], the Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee for 
the opportunity to testify today. I welcome any questions you may have.

    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. Fong.
    At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in 
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority 
Members. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each in order to 
allow us to get to as many questions as possible. Please keep 
your microphones muted until you are recognized in order to 
minimize background noise.
    I will recognize myself at the end so that we can get to 
our Members first, so I now recognize Representative Bacon, the 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate that.
    Inspector General Fong, has the President provided any 
indication as to when he will appoint a permanent Inspector 
General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, a role in which 
you have been in acting capacity since August of 2021, 
simultaneous to your current role in the Department? Thank you.
    Ms. Fong. Thank you for that question. I have a great 
personal interest in that, and, actually, the President has 
nominated a candidate who is going through the confirmation 
process. The most recent status is that he has made it out of 
the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and is 
awaiting a Senate vote. So, it could be soon.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
    One more question. For the OIG 2022 annual plan, three 
factors were identified that could hamper your ability to meet 
objectives, factor one, relating to hiring including challenges 
recruiting and maintaining sufficient personnel to meet 
stakeholder demands. Has this factor become a reality, and if 
so, what are the challenges you are currently facing, and is 
there a plan in motion to help mitigate those issues? Thank 
you.
    Ms. Fong. Yes, thank you for that question.
    Capacity is a key issue for us, and last year, we lost a 
number of people due to normal attrition. We have had 
challenges filling those positions, and that is probably our 
top internal management priority right now--to fill our 
vacancies. We are down about 40 or 50 positions--not positions, 
but people in those positions, and so, we are very much focused 
on filling them. We need auditors and investigators to do our 
work.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bacon. And with that, I will just say I know how 
important the Inspector General is. I did 30 years in the Air 
Force. I need a very good IG team to hear complaints and be a 
neutral sounding board, so I appreciate the role that you play.
    And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back and 
allow others to have their turn. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bacon.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Representative 
Brown. You have 5 minutes for questions.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Hayes and Ranking Member 
Bacon, for holding this important hearing, and thank you, Ms. 
Fong and Mr. Harden, for being here today and for your many 
years of service and dedication to supporting this Department.
    The Department of Agriculture has a longstanding track 
record of controversy on civil rights, from inconsistent access 
to farm programs for minority farmers and ranchers, to unfair 
treatment of minority, women, and disabled employees. So, it is 
no secret that the Department must do better.
    So, my question is: in your report, you raised concerns 
that, when faced with lengthy timeframes to process their 
complaints, individuals who have had a legitimate claim of 
discrimination and would otherwise be eligible for USDA 
programs may not continue to pursue their complaint. Ms. Fong, 
how will your recommendations help to rebuild public confidence 
in the USDA Office of Civil Rights and ensure that wrongdoers 
in the Agency are held accountable?
    Ms. Fong. Yes, thank you for that question.
    I think it is essential that the Department have an 
effective and timely process to deal with incoming complaints 
from employees and program participants who are concerned that 
they may have legitimate grievances, and as a complainant, if 
you file a complaint and it is not appropriately investigated 
and adjudicated within a reasonable amount of time, the concern 
is that you could lose confidence in the Department's ability 
to address your needs and to give you the assistance that you 
need, and that is just a very critical issue of credibility.
    Ms. Brown. So, is it your opinion that additional oversight 
will be needed?
    Ms. Fong. Well, our report found that the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary needs to really oversee these activities, 
both within its own program as well as within the agencies 
within the Department. And of course, it is our responsibility 
to also do oversight work to make sure that our recommendations 
are implemented.
    Ms. Brown. Okay, thank you.
    Chairman Bacon--Ranking Member Bacon, I am sorry--touched 
on the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at USDA which 
requires Senate confirmation and remained vacant for the 
entirety of the previous Administration. President Biden has 
nominated a candidate who is still waiting for Senate 
confirmation. Can you speak to the importance of confirming 
this position to all of the Department, the USDA?
    Ms. Fong. Yes, I think it is essential that whenever a 
position is designated as one requiring a Presidential 
appointee, there is a reason for that. That person sets a 
certain tone, has leadership responsibilities, and sets 
policies at the highest level, which all sets the tone for the 
organization. And so, we believe that it is critical that these 
positions be filled, and I think our work led a number of years 
ago to the creation of the position of a Presidentially 
appointed Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. So, we are very 
supportive of that.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much.
    And as we move into appropriations season, the previous 
Administration requested decreases in appropriations for the 
Office of Civil Rights, including a cut of $3.5 million in 
Fiscal Year 2021. Conversely, the Biden Administration has 
requested an increase of $6.5 million in this fiscal year. Do 
you think that President Biden's budget request is sufficient 
to carry out all the recommendations your office has presented, 
Ms. Fong?
    Ms. Fong. We have not done that analysis. We do understand 
that the Deputy Assistant Secretary has agreed to implement all 
of our recommendations, and, so, we believe in giving her that 
opportunity.
    Ms. Brown. Well, let me ask you this. What would be your 
top three recommendations that the Agency should prioritize?
    Ms. Fong. For the Office of Civil Rights?
    Ms. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Fong. Well, in our set of recommendations there were 21 
of them. I think it is key that the Office be very clear about 
its time for processing complaints, and then come up with a 
plan to actually achieve those goals, whether it is through 
staffing or IT resources or other means.
    They also need to revisit their strategic plan to make sure 
that they are focused on what they need to do and they set it 
out very clearly, and they measure their performance. And 
third, they need to focus on making sure they have the data to 
actually report back on how well they are doing.
    Ms. Brown. Well, thank you, Ms. Fong.
    As I expressed, I have some concerns about the findings in 
the report, and Chairwoman Hayes, if I have any additional 
questions, I will submit them for the record.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Brown.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, 
Representative Thompson. You have 5 minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Thompson. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much, and once 
again, Inspector General Fong, thank you for your service. You 
play a critical role within USDA, and you and your colleagues, 
we appreciate what you do.
    Last week, USDA announced a $1 billion pilot program for 
climate-smart commodities. It is my understanding this money 
will not go directly to farmers, but rather be doled out to 
companies or other entities who will, in turn, pay farmers for 
certain practices. So, I am concerned with the lack of 
transparency at this point. It is certainly concerning to me. 
Do you intend to audit the Partnership for Climate-Smart 
Commodities pilot and its financing by the Commodity Credit 
Corporation? That would be my first question, I guess.
    Ms. Fong. We don't have current plans to do that audit. We 
just became aware of the program announcement, and we are 
keeping an eye on it. We know that there are a number of 
concerns that are being expressed about it, and we need to 
learn a little bit more about the situation. But we will 
definitely consider that in our planning process.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate your 
due diligence of learning more about it. There is just a real 
lack of transparency, and to me, that those types of situations 
always lend themselves to audits. I find them helpful. I know 
our Members--all of our Members would. So, I appreciate that.
    Inspector General Fong, are you aware of a complaint filed 
with FNS Civil Rights Division alleging discrimination in FNS 
SNAP retailer administrative enforcement system, and, if so, 
has there been a formal investigation? Has a formal 
investigation been opened?
    Ms. Fong. Okay. We receive, as you know, a lot of 
allegations through our hotline and through whistleblowers.
    Mr. Thompson. Right.
    Ms. Fong. I can't really discuss anything that is an open 
and ongoing investigation, but we do work very closely with 
FNS. When they have concerns, they know that they can come to 
us to request assistance and we will give it every 
consideration and evaluation.
    If there is a particular situation that you would like to 
discuss, we would be happy to reach out to your staff and 
coordinate further.
    Mr. Thompson. Oh, I would appreciate that. If that is the 
case, I would be curious to know what the expected timeline for 
completion might be estimated to be. So, I appreciate those 
future communications.
    I think with that, Madam Chairwoman, I just once again 
thank you and the Ranking Member, and more specifically, 
Inspector General Fong, for joining us here today, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Thompson.
    We have another Member from the full Committee joining us 
today, the Representative from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, and the 
Members of the Committee have agreed to let him ask questions 
out of order, because he cannot stay with us for the entirety 
of this hearing. So, I now recognize the gentleman from 
Georgia, Representative Bishop, for 5 minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to 
the Members of the Committee for allowing me to speak out of 
turn. Thank you so much for this hearing. It is very timely and 
let me welcome Ms. Fong and thank her and her staff for her 
decades of extraordinary work in the Office of Inspector 
General.
    Ms. Brown of Ohio referenced earlier the efforts by the 
Administration, and you commented on the fact that the new 
director of that office has agreed to the recommendations to 
try to implement them. And I think Ms. Brown referenced and 
asked you whether or not the--you thought that the budget 
requests would allow them to comply with the recommendations. 
And of course, you indicated that you had not had an 
opportunity to analyze them.
    But as a Member of the Appropriations Committee, in fact, 
as Chair of that Subcommittee, I noticed that there were 
several, several requests that were made which we proposed to 
fund in the Fiscal Year 2022 bill. That is an increase for 
staff of 128 to 191, which is a cost of about $11 billion that 
would allow the office to reestablish alternative dispute 
resolution center, new program adjudicators to work exclusively 
with the Heirs Property Lending Program, new equal employment 
specialists and assistants to ensure that all of the employment 
complaints are handled in a timely manner, new employment 
specialists in the conflict complaints division to ensure that 
this model, which was set by the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission Program, would be able to process sensitive 
complaints efficiently, and additional hires would enhance 
their audit functions, increasing the program investigators for 
face-to-face investigations, enhance collaborative efforts with 
community-based organizations, increasing funding for 
employment investigation contract support, and replacing the 
current Civil Rights Enterprise System for processing the 
complaints. And of course, those proposed to be funded and both 
the House and the Senate seem favorably disposed to it.
    If, in fact, those provisions are all funded in the 
appropriations bill, will that give an opportunity, do you 
think, give them the resources that they need to comply with 
the recommendations that you made?
    Ms. Fong. Thank you for that information. A number of 
things that you said caught my ear. If, in fact, they receive 
that appropriation and are able to hire an additional 60+ 
people, that should make a significant difference in their 
ability to investigate and adjudicate claims.
    I also heard you say that they are planning to replace 
their CRES system, which sounds like a tremendous step forward 
in terms of getting an effective management information system 
to manage their caseload and keep track of what is going on and 
all the deadlines. So, that sounds very promising, and I hope 
to hear good things.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Ms. Fong, and I understand 
that in the previous Administration, there were drastic cuts in 
that agency, and of course, that resulted in an exacerbation of 
what was already a bad problem. And so, I think that this 
Administration, as you have recognized, is trying to move 
forward to remediate that and to take steps forward, and I 
think the authorizing committee and the appropriations 
committees on both sides of the Capitol, I should say, appear 
to be supportive of that. And so, thank you for your 
consistency in highlighting the failure to comply with the 
recommendations, and we hope that in this instance we will be 
able to provide the resources that will allow those 
recommendations to be followed.
    So, thank you very much, and with that, Madam Chairwoman, I 
will yield back my time and I thank you again for allowing me 
to go out of turn.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, and thank you for joining us 
today.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Representative 
Baird. You have 5 minutes for questioning. Please begin.
    Mr. Baird. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 
and the Ranking Member for holding this important session.
    I appreciate Inspector General Fong for being here and 
sharing her perspective on this office.
    I am curious. I am kind of curious. It looks like that we 
reported 911 complaints from 2016 to 2019. That would appear to 
me to be almost 1 a day in that 3 year period. I also am kind 
of curious about why we focused on the previous Administration 
and those 3 years. And so, what is your perspective on how we 
might move forward in analyzing this data and as we implement 
the suggestions that OASCR has suggested?
    Ms. Fong. Yes. Let me offer a few comments. We, as you 
pointed out, designed this review to focus on the 3 years of 
data that were available at the time. It was not intended to 
focus on any particular Administration, and we have done work 
throughout the 20 years that I have been at USDA. We have done 
work every few years on these issues. We had done work in 2014 
and 2015 on similar issues through our investigative side, and 
found similar processing delays with complaints. And so, it was 
again time to go back in. And so, this covered the next group 
of years. And I think, we just are here to report the data as 
we found it, and I think that the facts are set out in our 
report.
    Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. I am really glad to hear that, 
and I appreciate your perspective and I appreciate your 
comments in that regard.
    I would like to understand the relationship between the OIG 
or the OASCR and the Department through Memoranda of 
Understanding, and I would just like to understand that 
relationship and how that relates to the process of handling 
these complaints. And then I would like to have your idea on 
how long you think what period of time is sufficient for 
handling these complaints.
    Ms. Fong. Yes, those are very insightful questions, and I 
will take the second question first in terms of the appropriate 
timeframe for handling complaints. There is no Federal 
regulation that sets out an appropriate timeframe for program 
complaints. The Justice Department just says you have to do it 
in a prompt way. And so, our recommendation to OASCR is that 
they should figure out, do an assessment, perhaps do some 
benchmarking, think about what an appropriate timeframe might 
be, and then be very clear about communicating that to the 
public as well as to their own people. We have seen the 
timeframes expand over the years from 180 days until where it 
currently is. There has to be a standard that would be 
appropriate that they can adopt and hold themselves to.
    In terms of the relationships between OASCR and the 
Department and the MOUs, my understanding--and Gil might be 
able to step in here--is that OASCR basically oversees the 
handling of complaints within the Department, but with respect 
to two program areas, because of the expertise that resides in 
FNS for the nutrition programs, and with HUD for the housing 
programs, that there is an agreement there to have those two 
entities handle those program complaints, and OASCR is 
responsible for then overseeing the timeliness and the 
effectiveness of those processes, and they do that through an 
MOU.
    And Gil, I will turn the microphone over to you if you have 
any additional things to offer on that.
    Mr. Harden. Thanks, Phyllis.
    I think the only thing that I would add is, it really goes 
back to their oversight and monitoring of the process. They had 
agreements in place that they just weren't effectively 
overseeing, and they needed to update those agreements. So, 
renewed efforts there, there could be better processing times 
for both of those entities.
    I will also point out just in the report, the number or the 
percentage of cases processed by FNS and HUD of that 911 for 
that time period was 59 percent, so they processed a 
significant portion during that time period of the complaints 
to be processed. And so, having a good relationship with those 
entities and providing effective oversight is critical.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, and I have overrun my time, but 
anyway, I appreciate those answers very much.
    So, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you. It was a very important 
question, so I wanted to hear the answer. You are forgiven.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. I now recognize the gentleman from the 
Northern Mariana Islands. Mr. Sablan, you are recognized for 5 
minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding 
this hearing. I want to welcome our witness, Inspector General 
Fong, and of course, her assistant.
    Inspector General Fong, I will eventually reach out to your 
office for an issue with operations in my district in the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and it is sometimes a difficult 
relationship with the region office in Hawaii, but for today, 
in your report on the USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights, OASCR, would you confirm whether civil rights 
complaints from the U.S. Territories were examined?
    Ms. Fong. I do not know the answer to that, whether we had 
any of those complaints in our sample. If I had to say, I would 
say that USDA's jurisdiction would--OASCR's jurisdiction would 
extend to any USDA programs, wherever they are offered so that 
the jurisdiction and the authority is there, but I don't know 
if we looked at any complaints specifically from your district.
    Mr. Sablan. Okay, and how do we get your office to look at 
complaints, if there are any out there that have not been 
looked at? We are just so isolated, so remote, and we get 
looked over so many times.
    Ms. Fong. We would be happy to reach out to your staff and 
discuss the most effective way to do that.
    Mr. Sablan. Okay, thank you.
    Ms. Fong. And if you have anything else to offer, Gil, 
please comment.
    Mr. Harden. Yes, I was just going to offer that we can 
first take a look at the 28 complaints that are in our sample 
just to confirm where they are and if there are any complaints 
from the Northern Mariana Islands, and also reach out and have 
a discussion about concerns with complaints in that area.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 66.]
    Mr. Sablan. Yes. Mr. Harden, when you are looking for it, 
look for the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, because we are 
an outpost that are several times removed from the region 
office. But thank you for that. I appreciate it.
    And so, Inspector General, in your testimony, you state 
that the OASCR does not evaluate and process all complaints for 
USDA, and it relies on the assistance of two organizations, FNS 
and HUD, these two organizations completed 59 percent of USDA's 
civil rights complaints during the period that your OIG 
evaluated and processed complaints more quickly than OASCR, 
more than 600 days and more than 200 days on average 
respectively in Fiscal Year 2019, as compared to 799 days on 
average for all complaints. Why do you believe that FNS and HUD 
processed complaints more quickly than OASCR?
    And are there lessons from the processes that could be 
applied to OASCR's process itself?
    Ms. Fong. Well, I think you make a very interesting point, 
that the complaints handled by FNS and HUD were handled in a 
more timely manner than some of the others. I think what we 
would be concerned about is that none of those timeframes 
really comport with the timeframes that the agency was holding 
itself to, and were much too lengthy. But Gil may have some 
further insight on that.
    Mr. Harden. I agree, it is a very interesting question that 
I would have to go back and talk to the team and see if we have 
any information that would inform discussion in that area, and 
if we do, we can get back to the Congressman, either way, 
whether we do or we don't.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 67.]
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you again for that.
    Madam Chairwoman, I have no other questions. I thank the 
witness and I yield my time. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Sablan.
    I am looking. I don't see any of my Republican colleagues, 
so I will now recognize, I see Mr. Rush has joined us. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes 
if you have questions.
    Mr. Rush, you are muted.
    Mr. Rush. I am unmuted now.
    The Chairwoman. Yes. Please begin. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am so delighted to 
be here with you this morning, and thank you for today's 
oversight hearing.
    This oversight hearing is critical for ensuring that the 
civil rights complaints brought by farmers are taken seriously, 
that they are met in a timely manner, and that they are 
resolved in such a way that Black and minority farmers receive 
both the justice and the assistance that they need in order to 
prosper.
    I am somewhat, I am very disheartened, Madam Chairwoman, by 
how often the Federal Government and the Department of 
Agriculture are falling short over the years at the expense of 
Black farmers, their livelihood, their property, and their 
trust. At the same time, I am also hopeful that under the 
leadership of the Biden Administration and the bright spotlight 
provided by the Office of Inspector General, we can regain the 
public's confidence.
    Madam Chairwoman, I am a descendant. My grandfather was a 
Georgia farmer on the farm, and my grandfather's farm was--we 
lost the farm under what I think are some very, very 
questionable circumstances.
    My question is to Ms. Fong. Ms. Fong, can you expand on how 
the USDA is addressing their history of failing to review 
complaints in a timely manner. What initial steps should the 
Department take to increase buy-in from minority farmers?
    Ms. Fong. Yes, I think it is critical that the Department 
exercise leadership in this arena, and we have made a number of 
recommendations where the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights could exercise leadership to start addressing some 
of these longstanding issues. It was very good to hear from 
Chairman Bishop about the resources that he hopes Congress will 
appropriate to enable OASCR to have the staff that it needs to 
move forward. And I think we have a commitment from the current 
leadership of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights to take action on all of our recommendations, and that 
is a very encouraging sign.
    Mr. Rush. Ms. Fong, I have also heard multiple reports of 
outright hostility at local ag field offices toward Black 
farmers. Did the OIG's report drill down into the geographic 
distribution of complaints, and if so, were there any specific 
recommendations that were made by state or regional offices? 
And if not, is that something that will be possible for the 
Department to research and issue a report on? I think we might 
create a bright light on the attitudinal obstacles to fairness 
that Black farmers, particularly, are experiencing at the local 
level.
    Ms. Fong. That is a very interesting question. I don't know 
if in the sample of cases that we looked at in our audit if we 
have geographical data on the distribution. I think we could 
certainly take a look at that and get back to you and your 
staff on that to see if we have data by state or region. And I 
think you also raised a very interesting question looking 
forward as we plan our future work, whether there is any way to 
address that question if the data exists. So, we will think 
about that and get back to your staff on that.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 66.]
    Mr. Rush. Last thing, quickly. What is the appeal process 
for rulings by field offices?
    Ms. Fong. The appeal process for--I think that would lie 
with the program agencies. My office, what we do is we audit 
and we investigate allegations of wrongdoing or fraud, and 
people are free to come to us at any time. We have public 
hotlines and intake mechanisms, and if there are issues that we 
see, we will either investigate or audit them, or we will work 
with the agencies on that.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You have been 
magnificent. Thank you so very much.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you so much for your questions, 
Representative Rush.
    I now recognize the--oh, I am sorry. Seeing none of my 
Republican colleagues on the platform, I will now recognize the 
gentlelady from North Carolina, Representative Adams. You have 
5 minutes for questions.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairwoman Hayes and Ranking Member 
Bacon, for hosting the hearing today, and to Inspector General 
Fong, thank you for your testimony as well.
    The USDA's history of discrimination, discriminatory 
actions against employees and program participants, 
particularly socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, is 
well-documented. It is critical that USDA employees and 
participants in USDA programs have confidence in the 
Department's ability to properly resolve complaints in a timely 
manner.
    So, my question has to do with processing. Processing times 
for complaints steadily increased from Fiscal Year 2017, 571 
days, to Fiscal Year 2018, 594 days, Fiscal Year 2019, 799 
days. What do you believe were the factors behind these 
increases?
    Ms. Fong. Well, when we did our work and we talked with the 
employees of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights, they identified insufficient resources as a key reason 
for the delays, insufficient staff resources, the need for a 
really good IT system, and I think that's probably a good place 
to start in terms of addressing the issues.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. So, the decreasing staff levels during the 
last Administration, was that, in your opinion, a contributing 
force?
    Ms. Fong. We did not specifically address that issue, but 
the fact that the staff of that office indicated that it was a 
force would seem to be credible.
    Ms. Adams. Okay.
    Ms. Fong. And, any office that loses staff is going to lose 
capacity to do what it needs to do.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. So, do you have any thoughts about why the 
action was not taken at USDA as the processing time increased 
year after year after year to address the issue?
    Ms. Fong. I don't know, and part of it may be, and Gil, 
please comment on this. Part of it may be that the data may not 
have been either available or wasn't being reviewed to really 
identify the fact that these delays were growing.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. So, let me ask, has OIG looked at the 
impact to the civil rights apparatus in the Department since 
the Trump Administration ended the assessment process, and why 
has the Department conducted or why hasn't the Department 
conducted any compliance reviews since 2017?
    Ms. Fong. Yes, that is one of our findings and the source 
of our recommendations. We recommended that the Office of Civil 
Rights really missed an opportunity here by not conducting 
those assessments and compliance reviews. That would be a 
tremendous source of data for OASCR to determine whether its 
programs are working or not, and we recommend that they find a 
way to obtain and do that kind of oversight.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Your office reviewed a sample of 48 case 
files, 28 of which were part of the 911 complaints closed 
between October 1, 2016, and June 30 of 2019. What kinds of 
cases were these? Race, gender, disability, discrimination, and 
what agencies? Was it Farm Service, Food and Nutrition, were 
these 48 cases for?
    Ms. Fong. I do not have that data specifically. Gil, would 
you like to comment, or should we get that information for you?
    Mr. Harden. What I was going to ask is if you would allow 
us to pull that data from our work. We can give you a very 
specific answer as to what made up the cases that we looked at.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 65.]
    Ms. Adams. Okay, fine.
    Mr. Harden. We can get back to you on that.
    Ms. Adams. Okay, if you would do that.
    Your office identified five settlements, six findings of 
discrimination in the sample of cases. What kinds of cases, in 
terms of race, gender, disability, discrimination--were these?
    Mr. Harden. And similarly, I would like to gather the 
specific information on that and get that back to you. The 
report itself focuses on the process as opposed to the 
individual cases, so I don't have that right in front me.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 65.]
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate 
your responses.
    Madam Chairwoman, I am going to yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Adams.
    Seeing none of my Republican colleagues on the platform, I 
now recognize the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes. Mr. 
Lawson, if you would like to ask your questions?
    Mr. Lawson. Am I unmuted? Can you hear me?
    The Chairwoman. We can hear you, sir. We can hear you, sir.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 
Ms. Fong, welcome too. Let me see if I can put my glasses on 
here.
    Ms. Fong, my statement is: according to 2017 Census of 
Agriculture, my district in Florida, District 5 ranked 29th out 
of 435 Congressional districts in the population of self-
reported Black farmers. Therefore, the adequate processing of 
civil rights complaints is a major priority for me.
    The question is, are the actions outlined in your 
recommendation where the Office of Inspector General has 
identified a role for Congress in addressing some of the 
actions in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights issues, have these been taken care of? You mentioned 
something about it earlier, but I just want to know what has 
been done in the--with the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights 
on these issues?
    Ms. Fong. Yes. We, as you point out, we made a number of 
recommendations to the Assistant Secretary's office. They have 
reviewed those recommendations and given thought to how to 
address them, and I am pleased to testify that very recently, 
their office has agreed to take responsive action on all of the 
recommendations we have made. They have set different 
timeframes for doing that, but they have agreed to take action.
    And so, we look forward to seeing the action that they 
take.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. Ms. Fong, in your testimony you mentioned 
that in 2021, the audit followed up on five recommendations for 
the 2012 and 2008 audit reports. Although corrective action was 
taken by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights, 
the OASCR, to address these recommendations, weaknesses still 
exist. Is there any reason why so many of those recommendations 
would still exist?
    Ms. Fong. I will offer some general comments, and then Gil 
may have some additional insights.
    We have, over the course of the last 20 or 30 years, made a 
significant number of recommendations. The problems remain, and 
I think if we look at the course of the program over the years, 
at times there is progress and then at other times, due to 
change in priorities or change in focus, other priorities take 
precedence, and then we come back in and review it again. We 
have done reviews every few years. I think the current report 
documents the current state of affairs, and I am looking 
forward to working with the Assistant Secretary's office as 
they make progress in addressing our newest set of 
recommendations.
    Gil, is there anything that you might want to add to that?
    Mr. Harden. Yes, I would just build on comments that you 
have made throughout the hearing that this has been a sensitive 
area and one that we have worked on with the Department for 20+ 
years. It has gone through a rise and fall in terms of things 
were implemented and there may have been some backsliding. 
Because of this issue, that is why the Office of Inspector 
General does periodically review this area, because we have 
seen that history and we want to continue to keep it in the 
forefront to make sure that they have a very good quality 
program.
    Mr. Lawson. Thanks for that information.
    One other thing I would like to ask, do you feel that you 
are adequately staffed? Because I know that Congressman Bishop 
kind of mentioned something like that in the appropriations 
process, in order to get a lot of these things resolved. Do you 
feel like the Department [inaudible] can you speak on that?
    Ms. Fong. Okay. I will just say a few things.
    I appreciate Rep. Sanford Bishop's information today. It 
was very helpful, and with respect to the resources that he 
hopes that Congress will appropriate to the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary, I think that could go a long way to 
addressing some of the recommendations we have made.
    Until it actually--the funds are actually appropriated and 
the Office has a chance to invest in the resources it needs and 
they can actually set their goals and objectives and their 
measures, and we see how they do at meeting their program 
intent, then I think we will be able to see how that is going.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay, thank you.
    Madam Chairwoman, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Lawson.
    Seeing no other Republican colleagues on the platform, I 
now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Just a few things. First of all, I am very happy to hear--
thank you for joining us today. I am very happy to hear that 
this position will soon be filled on a permanent basis. I am 
deeply concerned by the fact that this position has not been 
filled, especially as we have heard at this hearing, there are 
so many challenges with addressing civil rights complaints. So, 
I am happy that we are moving forward in that direction.
    There have been troubling reports about the failure to 
adequately investigate discrimination complaints. In fact, 
several OASCR employees have alleged that there is a focus on 
closing complaints to meet processing timeframes, rather than 
investigating and assessing the substance of complaints. The 
report also found that OASCR did not adequately support or 
process half of the final agency decisions sampled by OIG.
    My question, I guess I have changed my question based on 
what Representative Adams asked and then subsequently Mr. 
Lawson. It seems so obvious that if there is a decrease in 
staffing and that there is an increase in the times to process, 
Ms. Fong, you said that you didn't specifically address 
staffing or look at that. I don't understand that. If you 
didn't address staffing, then what did you address? I read 
through [the report] and one of the recommendations was to 
develop and implement a strategy to routinely evaluate and 
address OASCR staffing and funding resources to ensure program 
complaints are processed in a timely manner. If staffing levels 
wasn't one of the things that was considered in that 
recommendation, I guess my question is how did you come to that 
conclusion?
    Ms. Fong. I think I will defer to Gil on that, because he 
has probably got a more precise formulation on it.
    Mr. Harden. Yes. It is not that we didn't consider 
staffing. I guess the way that I would say it is that I am not 
in a position and my team is not in a position to say you need 
x number of staffing. One of the things that fed into that 
recommendation was a recognition on the Assistant Secretary of 
Civil Rights Office's part. If they needed to look at their 
staffing levels and they had made a commitment internally to 
themselves to do that and then they did not act on that. And 
so, when we came in and saw that they didn't process things 
timely, they had very outdated guidance that they were 
following and it was inconsistent, that was just another piece 
that they need to internally look at to see where they needed 
to be as experts in the field as to what should happen.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you. Is there a plan to look into any 
of the allegations involving failure to adequately investigate 
discrimination complaints as opposed to just closing them out 
in the essence of time?
    Mr. Harden. I do not have anything specific that I am 
working on at this point in time. I know that later this year 
we are wanting to look at, and some of that is driven by 
priorities and risk and the different things that the 
Department does. I don't mean to do that as a push away answer, 
but we also want to look at the processing of EEO complaints. I 
know that when we have looked at settlement agreements in the 
past we raised similar questions, and had recommendations 
because they were not adequately supported.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    I am also deeply concerned about the effects of 
reorganization on capacity. In March of 2018, former Secretary 
Perdue published a notice announcing a realignment of OASCR, 
which would consolidate civil rights resources at the mission 
area level through reducing staffing and functions. OIG 
submitted a comment that it planned to consider looking at the 
effectiveness of this realignment as part of its future audit 
planning.
    Based on that review, how did the 2018 realignment impact 
the effectiveness and efficiency of USDA's civil rights 
activities, namely the processing of complaints?
    Mr. Harden. I would have to go back and look at the--go 
ahead, Phyllis.
    Ms. Fong. Go ahead, Gil.
    Mr. Harden. No, I would have to go back and look at the 
timing of when we made that comment and if we were already 
looking at--if we were in the midst of the review that was 
reported on that September. We would be talking about a future 
review, and so, I would say that that may still be on the table 
to look at.
    Ms. Fong. And let me just add to Gil's comments. My 
recollection at the time was that there was an interest in 
having us look at the proposed reorganization and do an audit 
of that, and it wasn't ready or ripe for audit work. And so, 
what we were trying to communicate was that we would look at 
the results of the reorganization, the impact on program 
activities, and whether or not there is an effective delivery 
of programs. And in effect, that is what this audit is doing. 
The reorganization took effect, and then we did our review and 
looked at several years of data, and we found a number of 
issues, as reported in our report. Which, due to the change in 
priority and the reorganization, led to OASCR's admission that 
their strategic plan was no longer effective, that they were no 
longer going to do oversight and compliance reviews and agency 
head reviews, and a number of other things like that, which I 
think answers the question [of] what happened as a result of 
the reorganization.
    The Chairwoman. Well, thank you for that answer. My time 
has expired, but I will make sure I follow up to get some of 
the answers to these questions, because it is clear that there 
is a challenge with investigating civil rights complaints, and 
we have the information, and, as we plan to go forward, we have 
to come up with some solutions to close these loops and address 
these problems. It is unacceptable that this has gone on for 
this long with no clear end in sight.
    I think that is all we have for Member questions. Before we 
adjourn today, I invite the Ranking Member, Mr. Bacon, to share 
any closing comments that you may have.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I have no further 
questions. I appreciate, Inspector General Fong, your comments 
today, and being with us. Thank you.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Bacon, and thank you to Ms. 
Fong and Mr. Harden for joining us today. Our Committee deeply 
values OIG's important work and the insight it provides, and I 
particularly want to thank you for your continued work to 
oversee and improve the civil rights complaint process at USDA.
    Thank you as well to our Members who joined us here today. 
I am hopeful that today's hearing will lead us towards 
productive solutions in this critical area. I am committed to 
ensuring that those participating and applying to USDA programs 
have confidence that they will be treated fairly, and, in the 
unfortunate event that a civil rights violation does occur, 
that they have appropriate and timely recourse. Thank you all 
again for your time and attention to this matter.
    Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's 
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive 
additional materials and supplementary written responses from 
the witness to any questions posed by a Member.
    This hearing of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, 
and Department Operations is adjourned. Thank you all for your 
time.
    [Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
  Submitted Report by Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress 
                            from Connecticut


USDA Oversight of Civil Rights Complaints






Audit Report 60601-0001-21

September 2021

Office of Inspector General
Important Notice
    This report contains sensitive information that has been redacted 
for public release due to concerns about the risk of circumvention of 
the law.
USDA Oversight of Civil Rights Complaints
Audit Report 60601-0001-21
    OIG evaluated OASCR's oversight of the civil rights complaints 
process.
Objective
    We evaluated OASCR's controls over the civil rights complaints 
process to ensure that program complaints are processed in accordance 
with requirements and timely and efficiently resolved. We also followed 
up on prior audit recommendations from Government Accountability Office 
Audit GAO-09-62 and Office of Inspector General Audit 60601-0001-23 
related to the program complaint process.
Reviewed
    We reviewed 28 of the 911 complaints that OASCR closed between 
October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019.
Recommends
    We made 21 recommendations, including: (1) updating guidance to 
improve complaint resolution timeliness, (2) [Redacted] (3) reviewing 
processes to ensure sufficient documentation and support, (4) requiring 
agencies and OASCR to review and assess compliance with USDA civil 
rights regulations and policies, and (5) reviewing and updating the 
strategic plan.
What OIG Found
    The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) is responsible for making 
final determinations on complaints of discrimination filed by any 
persons who believe they have been subjected to prohibited 
discrimination in a USDA program.
    We concluded that, overall, OASCR needs to develop a stronger 
internal control environment over its civil rights program complaints 
processing to ensure that complaints are timely and appropriately 
handled, and that OASCR achieves established goals and objectives. 
First, OASCR did not timely process civil rights program complaints. 
Specifically, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, OASCR averaged 799 days to 
process program complaints compared to the 180 day standard. 
Furthermore, two other agencies that OASCR coordinated with to resolve 
complaints took more than 220 days and more than 600 days, 
respectively, to process complaints.
    [Redacted] We also determined that 9 of 28 complaint determinations 
and closures were not adequately supported and processed. Additionally, 
OASCR missed an opportunity to track and measure USDA's progress in 
achieving the Department's civil rights goals and objectives. Finally, 
these issues could have been identified and better rectified had OASCR 
used its strategic plan to measure or assess its progress toward 
established goals and objectives relating to program complaints.
    We accepted management decision on 10 of the 21 recommendations. 
Further action from the agency is needed before management decision can 
be reached on the remaining recommendations.


  Date: September 22, 2021
  Audit Number: 60601-0001-21
  To: Monica Rainge, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
  Attn: Winona L. Scott, Associate Assistant Secretary for Civil 
            Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 
            Name
            
            
  From: Gil H. Harden, Assistant Inspector General for Audit
  Subject: USDA Oversight of Civil Rights Complaints

    This report presents the results of the subject review. Your 
written response to the official draft is included in its entirety at 
the end of the report. We have incorporated excerpts from your 
response, and the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) position, into 
the relevant sections of the report. Based on your written response, we 
are accepting management decision for 10 of the 21 audit 
recommendations in the report. However, we are unable to reach 
management decision on Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 
16 and 20. The information needed to reach management decision is set 
forth in the OIG Position section following the recommendation.
    In accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a 
reply within 60 days describing the corrective actions taken or 
planned, and timeframes for implementing the recommendations for which 
management decisions have not been reached. Please note that the 
regulation requires management decision to be reached on all 
recommendations within 6 months from report issuance, and final action 
needs to be taken within 1 year of each management decision to prevent 
being listed in the Department's annual Agency Financial Report. Please 
follow your internal agency procedures in forwarding final action 
correspondence to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
    We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by 
members of your staff during our audit fieldwork and subsequent 
discussions. This report contains publicly available information and 
only publicly available information will be posted to our website 
(http://www.usda.gov/oig) in the near future.
Table of Contents
Background and Objectives
Finding 1: OASCR Needs to Timely Process Civil Rights Program 
Complaints

    Recommendation 1
    Recommendation 2
    Recommendation 3
    Recommendation 4

Finding 2: OASCR Needs to Strengthen Oversight of Civil Rights 
Complaint Processing by FNS and Rural Development

    Recommendation 5
    Recommendation 6
    Recommendation 7
    Recommendation 8

Finding 3: [Redacted]

    Recommendation 9
    Recommendation 10
    Recommendation 11
    Recommendation 12
    Recommendation 13

Finding 4: OASCR Needs to Strengthen Its Procedures to Ensure Complaint 
Determinations and Closures Are Adequately Supported and Processed

    Recommendation 14
    Recommendation 15
    Recommendation 16

Finding 5: OASCR Needs to Strengthen its Oversight Efforts of USDA 
Agencies

    Recommendation 17
    Recommendation 18
    Recommendation 19

Finding 6: OASCR Needs to Assess Progress Towards Established Goals and 
Objectives

    Recommendation 20
    Recommendation 21

Scope and Methodology
Abbreviations
Exhibit A: Summary of OASCR's Performance Indicators and Strategies
Agency's Response
Background and Objectives
Background
    The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) is responsible for making 
final determinations on complaints of discrimination filed by any 
person or group of persons who believe they have been subjected to 
prohibited discrimination in a USDA program.\1\ The Secretary of 
Agriculture established the position of the Assistant Secretary for 
Civil Rights to comply with the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Discrimination in Federal programs is prohibited by a number of 
statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
 2000(d) et seq.), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. No. 93-
112), and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 (ECOA) (15 U.S.C.  
1691 et seq.). Program discrimination complaints are governed by 7 Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR), pt. 15. ECOA prohibits creditors from 
discriminating against applicants with respect to any aspect of a 
credit transaction[.]
    \2\ Pub. L. No. 107-171, 116 Stat. 518. Prior to establishing the 
position of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and OASCR, USDA's 
Office of Civil Rights processed complaints of discrimination under the 
leadership of Departmental Administration. The first USDA Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights was sworn in during April 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2018, OASCR realigned and reorganized to streamline the 
delivery of program complaint services at the mission area level and 
ensure USDA projects a unified voice on all civil rights issues 
affecting program recipients, customers, and applicants. Within OASCR, 
the Center for Civil Rights Enforcement supports OASCR's mission 
largely through its program directorates--the Program Complaints 
Division (PCD) \3\ and the Program Adjudication Division (PAD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ In 2009, the Intake and Investigations Divisions were combined 
into one division, PCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Complaint Process
    The program complaint process begins in PCD's Intake Division, 
which receives complaints from persons alleging discrimination in 
USDA's Federally conducted or assisted programs.\4\ PCD determines 
which Federal civil rights laws, regulations, and policies the 
complaint pertains to, and chooses a course of action as discussed 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Federally conducted programs and activities are program 
services, benefits, or resources delivered directly to the public by 
USDA. Federally assisted programs involve Federal financial assistance 
to a recipient, who in turn provides the benefit or service to the 
beneficiary.

  Administrative Closure
          OASCR can administratively close a complaint at any stage in 
        the process if it determines that procedural grounds exist 
        warranting administrative closure, such as: untimely filing of 
        a complaint, lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, 
        failure of the complainant to pursue the complaint, settlement, 
        or voluntary withdrawal. If PCD's Investigations Division 
        proposes to close a complaint administratively, the 
        investigator will prepare a recommendation for closure (RFC), 
        which is then provided to the Adjudication Division to approve 
        and close the complaint.
  Programmatic Referral
          If the complaint states an issue pertaining to a USDA agency, 
        but does not include a jurisdictional basis of discrimination 
        covered under the civil rights statutes, the complaint is 
        forwarded to the respective agency for review and processing as 
        a programmatic referral.
  Investigation
          If a complaint is accepted for investigation,\5\ PCD's Intake 
        Division converts the case file to a complaint and issues an 
        acceptance letter to the complainant conveying the issues OASCR 
        will investigate based on the allegations. PCD's Investigation 
        Division then obtains an agency position statement \6\ and 
        conducts an investigation to gather the facts and evidence that 
        will be used in OASCR's determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ To be accepted, the complaint must: (1) be timely, (2) pertain 
to a USDA program, and (3) state an issue and basis of discrimination 
under OASCR's jurisdiction with the dates of each alleged incident.
    \6\ For accepted complaints in conducted programs, the agency 
position statement is a written statement providing the agency's 
position that binds the agency responding to the allegations made by 
the complainant in the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The assigned investigator determines the facts and evidence 
        surrounding the complaint and establishes a fact-based and 
        evidence-supported record of the accepted allegations. After 
        the investigation has been completed, the investigator prepares 
        a report of investigation (ROI).
          After PCD transmits the ROI to PAD, the assigned adjudicator 
        within PAD reviews the ROI, analyzes the evidence, applies the 
        applicable laws, and drafts a final agency decision (FAD) on 
        whether discrimination was present.\7\ If OASCR determines that 
        discrimination occurred--or if the issue is resolved through a 
        settlement--the Compliance Division monitors to ensure all 
        parties comply with the agreements and implement corrective 
        actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ An FAD is a written statement signed by the Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights setting forth the issues and allegations, related 
facts, evidence, findings, and legal conclusions identified by OASCR in 
response to a complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Complaints Relating to the Food and Nutrition Service and Rural 
        Development-Assisted Programs
    Through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), USDA established 
agreements to coordinate civil rights program complaint processing with 
the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the United States Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).\8\ According to the MOU with 
FNS, OASCR refers any program complaints relating to FNS programs to 
FNS officials to evaluate and process the complaints. A similar MOU 
with HUD states that USDA will refer any complaints alleging a 
potential Fair Housing Act (FHA) violation in an assisted program to 
HUD.\9\ Investigations and resolutions of FHA-related complaints are 
coordinated with HUD, with Rural Development serving as an intermediary 
between OASCR and HUD. Although program complaint processing was 
coordinated with these agencies, OASCR retains responsibility, 
oversight, and final authority for these complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The MOU with FNS was established in December 2014. The MOU with 
HUD was established in July 1998.
    \9\ Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the 
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C.  3601-3619). Under the 
MOU, when USDA receives a claim or complaint alleging a violation of 
FHA, USDA forwards a copy to HUD for determination of jurisdiction and 
further processing over the FHA-related allegation. HUD is responsible 
for enforcing FHA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Complaints Management System
    OASCR processes all program complaints in its Program Complaints 
Management System (PCMS). PCMS is a web-based database that allows 
OASCR to track, process, and manage complaints. Users can process, 
store, and view complaints, including case events, contact information, 
electronic documents, and any other associated correspondence. PCMS 
allows each user to be given a role with specific permissions regarding 
data entry, updating, deleting, and queries. OASCR also uses PCMS to 
develop internal and external reports, including OASCR's annual farm 
bill report to Congress, regarding civil rights complaints, 
resolutions, and actions.
Prior Audits
    In 2012, we reported that OASCR needed to strengthen its procedures 
for settlement agreements so that it could support its decisions, 
process cases timely, and report them accurately. Specifically, we 
determined that:

   OASCR needed to develop operating procedures that would 
        allow it to complete cases in a timely manner;

   data contained in PCMS did not accurately depict the 
        Department's activities regarding complaints that resulted in 
        settlement agreements; and

   OASCR's official case files did not always contain the 
        documentation needed to support the decisions made by its 
        officials when reaching settlement agreements in civil rights 
        cases.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Audit Report 60601-0001-23, Report Review of the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' Oversight of Agreements Reached 
in Program Complaints, Aug. 2012.

    To address these concerns, we issued a total of five 
recommendations. We determined that all five recommendations made in 
this report were related to our current audit objective. Although OASCR 
agreed to take corrective action to address all five prior Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) recommendations in August 2012, we note in the 
findings of this report that control weaknesses continue to exist.
    In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 
OASCR needed to address several fundamental concerns about resolving 
discrimination complaints. Specifically:

   OASCR lacked specified time frames and management controls 
        for resolving complaints;

   OASCR lacked credible data on the numbers, status, and 
        management of complaints;

   GAO questioned the quality of complaint investigations;

   GAO questioned the integrity of final decision preparation;

   Much of the data that USDA reported to Congress and the 
        public on the participation of minority farmers in USDA 
        programs was unreliable, according to USDA; and

   OASCR's strategic planning did not address key steps needed 
        to ensure USDA provided fair and equitable services to all 
        customers and upheld the civil rights of its employees.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ GAO, Recommendations and Options to Address Management 
Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
GAO-09-62 (Oct. 2008).

    We determined that three of six recommendations made in this report 
were related to our current audit objective. Although OASCR agreed to 
take corrective action to address GAO's concerns in October 2008, we 
note in the findings of this report that control weaknesses continue to 
exist.
Objectives
    Our objective was to evaluate OASCR's oversight of the civil rights 
complaints process. Specifically, we evaluated OASCR's controls to 
ensure that program complaints are processed in accordance with 
applicable regulations, policies, and procedures and resolved in a 
timely and efficient manner. Additionally, we followed up on prior 
audit recommendations related to the program complaint process.
    Due to the age of the prior audit recommendations provided by OIG 
and GAO, we did not report on the follow up of prior audit 
recommendations separately in a specific finding or section of this 
report. Rather, similar issues identified within prior audit reporting 
and addressed by prior audit recommendations were incorporated into our 
current findings and recommendations where applicable. (See Findings 1, 
2, 4, and 6.)
Finding 1: OASCR Needs to Timely Process Civil Rights Program 
        Complaints
    OASCR did not timely process civil rights program complaints.\12\ 
In FY 2019, OASCR processed program complaints within 799 days on 
average--significantly in excess of its 180-day goal stated within 
Departmental guidance.\13\ Furthermore, OASCR's processing time of 799 
days greatly exceeded even its more liberal 540-day goal stated in its 
internal pilot policy.\14\ This occurred because the Departmental 
guidance is inconsistent and outdated--and does not accurately reflect 
best practices or OASCR staffing limitations. OASCR officials noted 
that limited staffing has caused delays in processing program 
complaints. When faced with lengthy timeframes to process their 
complaints, individuals who have a legitimate claim of discrimination 
and would otherwise be eligible for USDA programs may not continue to 
pursue their complaint or not file a complaint at all. This, in turn, 
diminishes public confidence that the Department can appropriately and 
expeditiously resolve complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Similarly, in 2012, OIG recommended that OASCR develop 
operating procedures that would allow it to complete cases in a timely 
manner. See Audit Report 60601-0001-23, Report Review of the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' Oversight of Agreements 
Reached in Program Complaints, Aug. 2012.
    \13\ USDA, Procedures for Processing Program Complaints and 
Conducting Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Conducted Programs 
and Activities, Departmental Manual (DM) 4330-001 (Oct. 18, 2000); and 
USDA Departmental Regulation 4330-002, Nondiscrimination in Programs 
and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from USDA (Mar. 
3, 1999).
    \14\ USDA OASCR, 2013 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights Policy Memorandum (Sept. 18, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal regulation states that agencies shall establish and publish 
guidelines and procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of 
complaints.\15\ Accordingly, two Departmental directives--issued in 
1999 and 2000--established 180-day timeframes for processing program 
complaints.\16\ In September 2013, OASCR expanded this timeframe to 540 
days on a pilot basis through an internal policy memorandum that was 
never made public.\17\ OASCR still operates under the 2013 pilot 
timeframes and has not updated the two Departmental directives that 
officially outline the timeframes for processing program complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Department of Justice 28 CFR  42.408.
    \16\ USDA, Procedures for Processing Program Complaints and 
Conducting Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Conducted Programs 
and Activities, DM 4330-001 (Oct. 18, 2000); and USDA Departmental 
Regulation 4330-002, Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities 
Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from USDA (Mar. 3, 1999).
    \17\ USDA OASCR, 2013 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights Policy Memorandum (Sept. 18, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We concluded that OASCR does not timely resolve program complaints 
in compliance with Federal and Departmental guidance. From October 1, 
2016, through June 30, 2019, USDA processed 911 program complaints. Of 
the 911 complaints, we non-statistically sampled 28 and determined that 
24 program complaints (more than 85 percent) took longer than 180 days 
to process--the timeframe established in the Departmental directives. 
Furthermore, 19 of the 28 program complaints (more than 67 percent) 
took longer than the 540 days outlined in OASCR's 2013 internal policy 
memorandum. The 28 program complaints in our sample had an average 
processing time of over 630 days, and in FY 2019, OASCR processed 
program complaints within 799 days on average.
    Of the 24 program complaints that took longer than 180 days to 
process, ten had considerable periods when progress halted between 
steps in the process. This occurred because OASCR officials had not 
assigned the complaints to an investigator or adjudicator, or the 
individual assigned was not yet ready to work on the complaint due to a 
backlog of complaints. This led to further delays. For example, of the 
830 days it took OASCR to process one complaint, more than 330 days 
elapsed between PCD receiving the agency position statement and the 
next step in the process--completing the investigative plan. Once PCD 
completed the investigation and forwarded it to PAD, the complaint sat 
idle for more than 180 days before an adjudicator was assigned to the 
complaint. We identified multiple, similar instances with complaints 
that ranged from 645 to 1,024 days to process. Furthermore, as Figure 1 
below demonstrates, OASCR's average processing time for program 
complaints increased between FY 2017 and FY 2019.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ According to data from PCMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Average OASCR Program Complaint Processing Time, FYs 2017-
        2019
        
        
    This occurred because guidance concerning timeframes for resolving 
program complaints is inconsistent and does not reflect best practices 
for prompt complaint resolution. First, Departmental and agency 
guidance provided different timeframes for processing program 
complaints. For example, the Departmental manual states that a FAD will 
be issued within 180 days of OASCR's receipt of the program 
complaint.\19\ However, the Departmental regulation states that a 
program complaint investigation, which occurs prior to the issuance of 
an FAD, will be finalized within 180 days following complaint 
acceptance.\20\ Furthermore, the 2013 internal policy memorandum states 
that a program complaint should be processed within 540 days from 
OASCR's receipt of the program complaint. To illustrate the 
inconsistencies even more, a 2014 MOU between OASCR and FNS requires 
that FNS process all accepted program complaints within 180 days. (See 
Finding 2.) In our view, inconsistent and conflicting timeframes lead 
to unclear expectations for personnel processing program complaints and 
for complainants filing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ USDA, Procedures for Processing Program Complaints and 
Conducting Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Conducted Programs 
and Activities, DM 4330-001 (Oct. 18, 2000).
    \20\ USDA Departmental Regulation (DR) 4330-002, Nondiscrimination 
in Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from 
USDA (Mar. 3, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OASCR officials explained that they were operating exclusively 
under the 540-day timeframe established in the 2013 policy memorandum--
not the 180-day timeframe set forth in the Departmental manual. 
However, we question whether the 540-day timeframe serves as a suitable 
best practice for the Department. OASCR officials could not provide 
support for how they determined 540 days to be an adequate timeframe. 
Federal regulations require agencies to establish and make public in 
their guidelines procedures for the ``prompt [emphasis added] 
processing and disposition of civil rights program complaints.'' \21\ 
During the course of our audit, OASCR officials agreed that 540 days is 
a lengthy time to process program complaints. OASCR should consider 
assessing its program complaint process, benchmarking with similar 
departments, documenting its assessment, and sharing its decision with 
the public of what may be a reasonable complaint processing time for 
USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Department of Justice 28 CFR  42.408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also consider the 2013 pilot guidance temporary and not a long-
term replacement for permanent Departmental guidance because OASCR did 
not update and make available to the public its directive outlining 
timeframes for processing program complaints. The Departmental 
directives establishing civil rights complaint processing timeframes 
are in effect until canceled.\22\ Because there was no evidence that 
OASCR officials canceled the directives, OASCR would be expected to 
follow them. Additionally, because the directives are publicly 
available on USDA's website, the public may reasonably expect that USDA 
officials are following the 180-day timeframes when processing program 
complaints. OASCR's decision to operate differently than established 
timeframes outlined in guidance would further diminish public 
confidence that USDA is carrying out its responsibility to process 
complaints in a timely manner. Processing times of such a lengthy 
nature could discourage complainants from following up on their 
complaint, or simply not file a complaint at all. Any delay in 
resolving complaints could potentially lead to the exclusion of 
otherwise eligible individuals from rightfully benefitting from USDA 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ USDA Departmental Regulation 0100-001, Department Directive 
System (Sept. 2011). Although this directive was updated in January 
2018, the September 2011 Departmental Regulation was the policy in 
effect at the time OASCR issued its 2013 policy memorandum expanding 
its timeframes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because these directives are 20 years old, they should be assessed 
to determine if revisions and updates are needed. OASCR officials 
acknowledged that the outdated directives are still enforceable, and 
added that they are in the process of updating them. This is a 
necessary step, and we encourage OASCR officials to strategically 
assess how best to meet requirements for prompt complaint resolution. 
OASCR officials previously committed to performing such an assessment, 
but did not conduct it. Specifically, the 2013 policy memorandum states 
that an analysis would be conducted to determine the success rate of 
the new timeframes and whether to keep them or adjust them based on the 
results. However, OASCR officials stated they were unaware of any 
analysis or report on the results of the pilot guidance. Such an 
assessment becomes even more crucial considering OASCR's current 
difficulties with staffing levels. OASCR officials stated that 
insufficient staffing was the primary cause of the prolonged complaint 
processing. Specifically, delays in assigning program complaints to 
personnel were a direct result of low staffing levels combined with 
backlogged inventory.
    We similarly concluded that OASCR needs to take steps to assess its 
staffing levels in order to appropriately and timely resolve program 
complaints. OASCR's FY 2016-2020 Strategic Plan includes a goal to 
``strengthen resource management'' by annually establishing core 
requirements for staffing and funding of all organizational functions 
and annually obtaining adequate resources to address program complaints 
immediately upon receipt. However, OASCR had not adequately addressed 
this goal within its strategic plan. (See Finding 6.) When we asked 
OASCR officials if they had completed an assessment that looked at 
staffing levels, they provided a June 2020 approved staffing list of 
full-time employees that would be added to each division. According to 
this document, OASCR would add one full-time employee to PCD and one to 
PAD. Based on previous staff reductions and the current complaint 
processing time, this minimal increase in staffing levels does not 
appear to address the actual needs of these divisions.\23\ 
Additionally, because the document did not offer any justification as 
to why only two employees would be added, we do not consider this list 
an adequate assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ PAD had six adjudicators in FY 2018 and had only four 
adjudicators in FY 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We acknowledge the challenges of processing program complaints in a 
timely manner with limited staffing resources. As such, we recommend 
that OASCR implement a strategy to routinely evaluate and address its 
staffing and funding resources to improve the timeliness of processing 
complaints. This evaluation should not be limited to staff and funding, 
but can include alternative ways to improve timeliness, such as 
updating the information technology (IT) system. Given its current 
staffing levels, we also recommend that OASCR strategically assess and 
determine its timeframe to better fit best practices and staffing 
levels. Specifically, to ensure program complaints are processed in a 
prompt and timely manner, OASCR needs to evaluate, develop, and 
implement complaint processing timeframes and establish a success rate. 
In our view, the new timeframe should be comparable to guidance and 
goals of similar Federal agencies responsible for processing civil 
rights program complaints. These steps would set a standard by which 
OASCR could operate its program complaint processing in a more 
efficient manner. However, until new timeframes have been developed and 
implemented, OASCR should adhere to the 180-day timeframe established 
within the Departmental guidance.
Recommendation 1
    Evaluate the timeframe to process program complaints and, based on 
this analysis, develop and implement timeframes and a success rate to 
ensure program complaints are processed in a prompt and timely manner.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  In FY 20, OASCR designed and implemented a pilot 
                program to expand effectiveness of policies that ensure 
                compliance with, and enforcement of, USDA's prohibition 
                against discrimination in its conducted programs or 
                activities of recipients of Federal financial 
                assistance from USDA. Under the pilot, the Alternative 
                Dispute Resolution (ADR) process moved from post 
                acceptance to pre-acceptance of a complaint. 
                Additionally, agencies have 30 days to attempt 
                resolution by counseling the complaint. OASCR will 
                finalize and fully implement this process at the 
                beginning of FY 22.
                  Additionally, OASCR will reevaluate the timeframes to 
                process program complaints by September 30, 2021. As 
                suggested in the audit findings, OASCR will evaluate 
                the timeframes based on historical average processing 
                times and current staffing levels. OASCR will also 
                query other Federal agencies regarding complaint 
                processing times, best practices, and quantitative 
                metrics for measuring success.

          OASCR provided a completion date of September 30, 2021, for 
        this action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation 2
    Based on the analysis performed in Recommendation 1, update 
Departmental guidance outlining timeframes for processing program 
complaints. Once updated, publish the Departmental guidance on OASCR's 
public website.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  In June of FY 21, OASCR will conduct a 6-month review 
                and update of Departmental Manual 4330-001 to ensure 
                consistent and adequate language is provided within all 
                Departmental Directives. As OASCR informed OIG during 
                the Exit Conference, Departmental Regulation 4330-002 
                and 4330-003 have been updated and are going through 
                Departmental clearance, which is outside of the purview 
                of OASCR. OASCR is anticipating clearance of the 
                updated guidance by the end of this fiscal year.
                  The latest known iterations of the updates of DR-
                4330-002 and DR-4330-003 (circulated on February 4, 
                2021) do not include timeframes for complaint 
                processing. The prior language in DR-4330-002 providing 
                a 180-day timeframe for a civil rights investigation to 
                be conducted was removed from the updated regulation.
  OIG Position
          We do not accept management decision for this recommendation. 
        We agree with OASCR's proposed corrective action to conduct a 
        6-month review and update of the Departmental Manual 4330-001 
        to ensure consistent and adequate language is provided within 
        all Departmental Directives. However in its response, OASCR did 
        not state whether the Departmental guidance will: (1) include 
        new timeframes for processing program complaints, based on the 
        analysis performed in Recommendation 1, and (2) be published on 
        OASCR's website once the guidance is updated. To achieve 
        management decision, OASCR needs to update its Departmental 
        guidance with new timeframes to process program complaints, 
        publish the updated Departmental guidance on OASCR's public 
        website, and provide an estimated completion date for these 
        actions.
Recommendation 3
    Develop and implement a strategy to routinely evaluate and address 
OASCR's staffing and funding resources to ensure that program 
complaints are processed in a timely manner.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  The OASCR Program Directorate routinely evaluates 
                staffing needs to ensure timely processing of program 
                complaints. Each budget formulation cycle, OASCR 
                management provides proposed justifications for 
                increases in staffing and funding based upon a need for 
                improved efficiency, change in demand, policy direction 
                changes, improved customer service and reduced risks. 
                OASCR has a limited discretional budget from which to 
                add additional resources. OASCR is optimistic Congress 
                will favorably approve a request to increase the 
                office's appropriated funding for FY2022 by September 
                30, 2021.
  OIG Position
          We do not accept management decision for this recommendation. 
        As noted in our report, this evaluation should not be limited 
        to proposing additional staffing and funding, but should also 
        include identifying alternative strategies to improve 
        timeliness, such as evaluating if efficiencies can be achieved 
        through updates to their IT system. To achieve management 
        decision, OASCR needs to develop and implement a strategy to 
        routinely evaluate and address OASCR's staffing and funding 
        limitations to ensure that program complaints are processed in 
        a timely manner. In addition, OASCR needs to provide an 
        estimated completion date for this action.
Recommendation 4
    Adhere to the 180-day timeframe established within the Departmental 
guidance until new timeframes have been developed and implemented.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  Without a significant increase in staffing, OASCR 
                will not maintain a 180-day timeframe for all phases of 
                program complaint processing to include Intake, 
                Investigation, and Adjudication. OASCR acknowledges the 
                inconsistent language regarding timeframes between the 
                Departmental Manual (stating that a Final Agency 
                Decision will be issued within 180 days of OASCR's 
                receipt of the program complaint) and the Departmental 
                Regulation (stating that a program complaint 
                investigation, which occurs prior to the issuance of a 
                Final Agency Decision, will be finalized within 180 
                days following complaint acceptance).
  OIG Position
          We do not accept management decision for this recommendation. 
        In Recommendation 1, OASCR committed to evaluating the 180-day 
        timeframe and establish a timeframe to process complaints that 
        are more suitable to the resources they have available by 
        September 30, 2021. However, until those actions are complete, 
        OASCR leadership should instruct its personnel to work toward 
        adhering to Departmental guidance, to the extent possible or at 
        a minimum, to process program complaints more timely. To 
        achieve management decision, OASCR needs to instruct its 
        personnel to adhere to Departmental guidance, to the extent 
        possible, to process program complaints more timely until new 
        timeframes have been developed and implemented. In addition, 
        OASCR needs to provide an estimated completion date for this 
        action.
Finding 2: OASCR Needs to Strengthen Oversight of Civil Rights 
        Complaint Processing by FNS and Rural Development
    Based on established agreements, FNS and HUD process certain civil 
rights program complaints.\24\ However, similar to Finding 1, these 
agencies did not timely resolve program complaints.\25\ Specifically, 
between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, FNS took an average of more 
than 220 days and HUD took an average of more than 600 days to process 
complaints referred to them by OASCR--including two cases that were not 
resolved until after 1,700 days. This occurred because OASCR did not 
implement or update effective processes to monitor and track the 
referred complaints. Without adequate oversight, OASCR cannot ensure 
that agencies promptly or appropriately resolve complaints in 
compliance with relevant directives and guidance. When complaints are 
not resolved timely, complainants potentially miss opportunities to 
participate in or receive program benefits, which in turn can diminish 
the public's confidence in USDA programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ HUD receives relevant USDA civil rights complaints through 
Rural Development.
    \25\ Similarly, in 2012, OIG identified the issue of OASCR untimely 
processing program complaints and recommended that OASCR develop 
operating procedures that would allow it to complete cases in a timely 
manner. See Audit Report 60601-0001-23, Report Review of the Office of 
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' Oversight of Agreements 
Reached in Program Complaints, Aug. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USDA entered into agreements to coordinate program complaint 
processing activities with FNS and HUD for select areas of purview.\26\ 
According to the agreement with FNS, OASCR refers any program 
complaints relating to FNS programs to FNS officials to evaluate and 
process the complaints within 180 days.\27\ Similarly, USDA's agreement 
with HUD states that USDA will refer any complaints relating to 
potential FHA violations to HUD,\28\ with Rural Development serving as 
an intermediary between OASCR and HUD. However, USDA's agreement with 
HUD did not include any complaint processing timeframes. This 
coordination allows subject matter experts to process complaints 
pertaining to their respective areas. From the beginning of FY 2017 to 
June 30, 2019, USDA closed a total of 911 program complaints. FNS 
processed, investigated, and closed 332 of the 911 program complaints. 
Additionally, OASCR referred 208 of the 911 program complaints to HUD 
for processing during this time. Therefore, more than 59 percent of all 
civil rights program complaints closed during this time were processed 
under the agreements with FNS and HUD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ USDA entered into its agreement with FNS in December 2014 and 
with HUD in July 1998.
    \27\ This 2014 MOU between OASCR and FNS expired in December 2019. 
However, both parties agreed to extend the terms and conditions of the 
agreement until June 2021.
    \28\ Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the 
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C.  3601-3619). Under the 
Act, HUD is required to complete its investigation of any alleged 
discriminatory housing violations within 100 days of the filing of the 
complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although OASCR coordinates complaint processing with FNS and HUD, 
OASCR retains responsibility, oversight, and final authority for these 
complaints. Therefore, as part of these agreements, OASCR is required 
to conduct audits, reviews, and evaluations of FNS. The agreements also 
state that OASCR must have annual meetings with HUD, maintain a 
cumulative list of FHA-related allegations, and monitor the status of 
these complaints. These oversight activities help ensure that all 
complaints are handled and resolved in accordance with statutory, 
regulatory, and policy requirements.
    During our audit period, we determined that FNS and HUD did not 
timely resolve complaints.\29\ OASCR's agreement states that FNS must 
process, investigate, and resolve referred program complaints within 
180 days. However, according to PCMS, FNS processed and resolved its 
complaints, on average, within 222 days--one complaint took 1,777 days 
to resolve.\30\ Unlike its agreement with FNS, USDA's agreement with 
HUD does not include any timeframes for resolving program complaints. 
However, we still identified complaints that were not resolved 
timely.\31\ According to PCMS, these complaints were resolved on 
average within 604 days--and one complaint was not resolved for 1,722 
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Our audit period was between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 
2019.
    \30\ FNS closed 332 complaints between October 1, 2016, and June 
30, 2019.
    \31\ OIG concluded that complaints referred to HUD were not 
resolved timely based on timeframes OASCR established for similar 
complaints (such as 180 days and 540 days. See Finding 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In our view, FNS' processing times could improve with OASCR 
oversight. OASCR is responsible for ensuring that all program 
complaints are resolved in accordance with requirements--including 
promptness.\32\ However, OASCR stopped conducting audits, reviews, and 
evaluations of FNS in October 2017--the same year that OASCR also 
discontinued assessments of agency heads and compliance reviews for all 
USDA agencies. (See Finding 6.) According to an OASCR official, rather 
than implement a formal oversight mechanism, OASCR informally met with 
the FNS civil rights director in conjunction with OASCR's monthly 
meetings that are attended by all other Departmental civil rights 
directors. However, the OASCR official was not able to provide evidence 
of discussions specifically related to oversight of FNS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 28 CFR  42.408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USDA's ability to accurately and timely resolve complaints 
involving housing-related programs and activities is dependent on Rural 
Development's processes. OASCR does not communicate directly with HUD. 
Rather, Rural Development's Civil Rights Office acts as an intermediary 
between OASCR and HUD. OASCR officials acknowledged that processing 
times for these complaints were untimely due to its lack of oversight 
of Rural Development. To improve processing and complaint resolution, 
OASCR officials told us they implemented quarterly meetings in 2017 
with Rural Development and obtained quarterly status reports of the 
civil rights complaints USDA had referred to HUD. While we agree that 
this line of communication and these reports are important oversight 
tools, it is still insufficient on its own; as Figure 2 indicates, we 
did not see considerable improvement in processing times for complaints 
referred to HUD through Rural Development after OASCR officials 
implemented the quarterly status updates.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ According to data from PCMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2. Average Processing Time for Complaints Referred to HUD 
        Through Rural Development, FYs 2017-2019
        
        
    We understand that some complaints are more complex and may take 
longer to resolve--particularly with an inter-departmental arrangement. 
Based on OASCR's results of the analysis recommended in Finding 1, 
OASCR should update the complaint processing timeframes in the 
agreements with FNS and HUD to accommodate challenges in timely 
resolving complaints. Additionally, the agreement with HUD should 
specify OASCR's responsibilities to oversee Rural Development's role in 
processing complaints. In the event of any revised timeframe, OASCR 
should resume its oversight role as established in the agreement by 
reviewing FNS' and HUD's complaint processing through audits, reviews, 
or evaluations. OASCR's oversight of complaint resolution is critical 
to ensuring that complaints are resolved in accordance with 
Departmental and Federal requirements. Additionally, with regular 
oversight, OASCR should be able to identify developing issues better--
such as untimely resolution--and work with FNS, HUD, and Rural 
Development to take corrective action.
    FNS and HUD processed more than 59 percent of all USDA civil rights 
complaints (540 of 911) during the period of our audit. In light of 
this high volume, there is a strong need for OASCR to oversee FNS', 
HUD's, and Rural Development's civil rights processing activities in a 
more formal manner. Ultimately, OASCR is responsible for ensuring 
equitable and fair treatment in USDA programs. When complaints are not 
resolved timely, complainants potentially miss opportunities to 
participate in or receive program benefits, which in turn can diminish 
the public's confidence in USDA programs and the Department's 
commitment to resolve complaints in a timely manner. By establishing 
timeframes in the agreements and implementing effective controls over 
FNS', Rural Development's, and HUD's complaint processing 
responsibilities, OASCR can help ensure complaints are handled 
appropriately and timely.
Recommendation 5
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with FNS with 
timeframes for processing complaints based on OASCR's analysis (see 
Recommendation 1) to ensure program complaints are processed in a 
timely manner.
  Agency Response
          As part of its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR provided a copy 
        of the revised MOU, dated June 2, 2021. However, since the MOU 
        is voluminous, we will not be including it in the agency 
        response section of this report.
          OASCR provided a completion date of June 2, 2021, for this 
        action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation 6
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with HUD with 
timeframes for processing complaints based on OASCR's analysis (see 
Recommendation 1) to ensure program complaints are processed in a 
timely manner.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  The current MOU with HUD was executed on July 11, 
                1998. USDA and OASCR have undergone significant 
                organizational changes since that time, which 
                necessitates revisiting the HUD MOU. OASCR will 
                implement a process to exact timely completed housing 
                complaints referred to HUD and update the MOU 
                accordingly.

          OASCR provided an estimated completion date of September 30, 
        2022, for this action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation 7
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with FNS to 
implement effective controls over FNS, such as conducting audits or 
compliance reviews, on a recurring basis to evaluate FNS' complaint 
process and improve the timeliness of complaints referred to FNS.
  Agency Response
          As part of its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR provided a copy 
        of the revised MOU, dated June 2, 2021. However, since the MOU 
        is voluminous, we will not be including it in the agency 
        response section of this report.
          OASCR provided a completion date of June 2, 2021, for this 
        action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation 8
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with HUD to 
implement effective controls over Rural Development, such as conducting 
audits or compliance reviews of Rural Development, on a recurring basis 
to evaluate Rural Development's complaint process and improve the 
timeliness of complaints referred to Rural Development.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  During the timeframe reviewed by OIG, OASCR's Program 
                Complaints Division (PCD) monitored HUD referred 
                complaints with limited accountability in 
                communications with Rural Development (RD). In FY 2019, 
                PCD shifted priorities and established a quarterly 
                review with RD of all complaints maintained with HUD. 
                PCD provides an excel report of HUD referred complaints 
                from PCMS to the RD Civil Rights Director who in turn 
                updates the status of HUD complaints.
                  OASCR's beginning FY 2020 HUD referral inventory 
                (PCMS Fact-Finding) was 94 complaints (Average Age 388 
                days). Over the last year this inventory has been 
                reduced by \1/3\ (60). The average age of these 
                complaints is 297 days (<1yr) and continues to decrease 
                each month. OASCR will continue to monitor and 
                prioritize communication with RD for accountability 
                purposes. While PCD has not been tasked with monitoring 
                the status of HUD complaints, it will ensure these 
                matters are handled timely and in accordance with the 
                MOU requirements. In addition, OASCR will collaborate 
                with the Rural Development Civil Rights Director to 
                amend the existing MOU to be compliant with processing 
                and data entry requirements for housing complaints.
  OIG Position
          We agree with the actions taken by PCD to monitor and 
        prioritize communication with Rural Development but are unable 
        to accept management decision at this time. As noted in our 
        report, this line of communication and these reports are 
        important oversight tools, but they are still insufficient on 
        their own. The agreement with HUD should specify OASCR's 
        oversight responsibilities of Rural Development's role to 
        process complaints, including actions OASCR intends to 
        implement to evaluate Rural Development's complaint process and 
        improve the timeliness of complaints referred to Rural 
        Development. To achieve management decision, OASCR needs to 
        amend the existing MOU with HUD and document its oversight 
        controls of Rural Development's complaint process within the 
        MOU. These controls can include actions to audit Rural 
        Development to ensure complaints are processed timely and 
        accurately. In addition, OASCR needs to provide an estimated 
        completion date for this action.
Finding 3: [Redacted]
    [Redacted].*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the redactions encompass pages 17-23, as well as 
footnotes 34-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding 4: OASCR Needs to Strengthen Its Procedures to Ensure Complaint 
        Determinations and Closures Are Adequately Supported and 
        Processed
    OASCR did not ensure that complaint determinations and closures 
were adequately supported and processed for 9 of the 28 complaints of 
discrimination we reviewed in our sample.50-51  This 
occurred because, although OASCR performs second-level reviews at 
several stages in the complaints process, Departmental guidance did not 
include adequate procedures to document the results of these reviews. 
Therefore, OASCR officials cannot demonstrate that they have provided 
effective oversight to ensure that complaint determinations and 
closures are appropriate, which can erode public trust in USDA's 
complaint resolution process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ As part of our sample, we reviewed 48 total case files--28 of 
which OASCR closed. FNS processed 19 case files, and OASCR determined 1 
case file was a programmatic referral.
    \51\ In 2012, OIG found a similar issue. Specifically, OASCR's 
official case files did not always contain the documentation needed to 
support the decisions made by its officials when reaching settlement 
agreements in civil rights cases. See Audit Report 60601-0001-23, 
Report Review of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights' Oversight of Agreements Reached in Program Complaints, Aug. 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OASCR is responsible for investigating, making determinations for 
all discrimination complaints, and notifying the complainant of their 
final determination.\52\ OASCR's PCD receives complaints from persons 
alleging discrimination in USDA programs, and, based on Federal civil 
rights laws and regulations, PCD will determine whether to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ 7 CFR  2.25(a) and 7 CFR  15d(5).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   administratively close the complaint,

   refer the matter to the respective agency for review and 
        processing as a programmatic referral, or

   investigate the issues raised in the allegation of 
        discrimination.

    When a complaint is accepted, an investigation will result in 
either an ROI or RFC.\53\ For matters that are investigated, 
investigators gather facts and evidence--which are compiled into the 
case file--and summarize the results of the investigation in an ROI. 
Once the Investigations Division Chief reviews and approves the ROI for 
completeness, the ROI is forwarded to the Adjudication personnel to 
develop its FAD as to whether discrimination occurred based on the 
merits of the allegations. (See the Background section of this report 
for a more detailed explanation of OASCR's discrimination complaint 
processing.) For each allegation, Adjudication personnel must weigh the 
information contained in the ROI and develop a FAD of whether 
discrimination occurred based solely on the record of evidence and 
facts presented in the ROI. Therefore, the ROI must support the FAD's 
analysis and conclusions.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to close a 
case before completing an investigation, such as when a complainant 
voluntary withdraws or fails to pursue the complaint.
    \54\ USDA, Procedures for Processing Program Complaints and 
Conducting Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Conducted Programs 
and Activities, DM 4330-001 (Oct. 18, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, our analysis disclosed that actions pertaining to 9 of the 
28 complaints of discrimination in our sample were not adequately 
supported or processed.\55\ For these nine complaints, we identified 
issues with five FADs and four administrative closures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Of the 28 complaints of discrimination in our sample, ten 
resulted in a FAD and 18 were administrative closures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Final Agency Decisions
          We concluded that OASCR did not adequately support or process 
        five of the ten FADs in our sample in accordance with 
        Departmental guidance. For example, for two of the five FADs, 
        we determined the analysis OASCR personnel performed to support 
        its determinations was incorrect, specifically documentation 
        did not support the conclusion noted in the FAD. In each of the 
        two instances we identified, OASCR performed multiple second-
        level reviews of the FAD. However, the reviews did not identify 
        the erroneous analysis performed. When we discussed these 
        errors with OASCR officials, they acknowledged the errors in 
        the analysis. However, OASCR concluded that there was 
        sufficient evidence to support the overall determinations, when 
        considered in totality. We acknowledge that OASCR based its 
        determinations on the totality of evidence and make no 
        assessment to the correctness of OASCR's determinations. 
        However, OASCR must also ensure that the analyses that justify 
        determinations are accurately presented and supported by the 
        ROI, as required.
          Second, OASCR inadequately processed three of the five FADs. 
        For example, in some instances, we discovered that OASCR 
        allowed the introduction of new issues at the adjudication 
        stage that were not cleared as part of OASCR's investigation. 
        We acknowledge that internal procedures allow the Adjudication 
        staff to return a case file for supplemental investigative work 
        on a case-by-case basis. However, to ensure the integrity of 
        its determinations are not questioned, it is important that 
        OASCR adequately process its complaints and collect sufficient 
        evidence to support agency determinations. As such, when a new 
        issue is introduced, OSCAR should return the complaint to the 
        Investigations Division to investigate the complaint and obtain 
        sufficient facts and evidence. By allowing Investigations staff 
        the opportunity to ensure sufficient evidence has been 
        collected to support both the complainant and the agency, OASCR 
        can ensure its processes maintain the appearance and actuality 
        of neutrality, independence, and objectivity.
  Administrative Closures
          We also determined that 4 of 18 administrative closures were 
        not adequately supported or processed. Specifically, we noted 
        that key documentation included in the case file was incorrect 
        or missing. These discrepancies were missed, even though they 
        should have been identified during the second-level review of 
        the case files. For example, while discussing one case file 
        with officials, OASCR acknowledged that personnel used the 
        wrong letter template when notifying the complainant and that 
        the error should have been identified during the second-level 
        review of the RFC. However, in this second-level review, PAD is 
        only required to review the recommendation for closure to 
        evaluate if PAD agreed with the decision to close the 
        complaint. OASCR officials agreed that the statements used to 
        support its determinations needed to be adequately supported by 
        the evidence in the case file so that their decisions are not 
        challenged or questioned.

    These issues occurred due to the lack of consistency and depth of 
the second-level reviews being performed. OASCR has procedures to 
conduct second-level reviews at each stage of the complaint process to 
ensure complaints are adequately supported and processed.\56\ OASCR 
instituted these reviews based on recommendations from previous OIG 
reports.\57\ However, it was unclear: (1) whether OASCR consistently 
implemented these reviews, (2) how OASCR documented the reviews, or (3) 
how effective the reviews have been. To address these shortcomings, 
OASCR needs to evaluate its current review process and procedures 
performed within the case files to: (1) identify and address why 
reviews are not discovering the discrepancies noted within this 
finding, and (2) ensure OASCR properly processes case files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Intake staff review the complaint determinations, 
Investigations staff review Investigation Plans, ROIs and 
recommendations for closure, Adjudication staff and OASCR leadership 
review determinations and findings, and at times, the Office of the 
General Counsel (OGC) reviews OASCR's findings and FADs at OASCR's 
request.
    \57\ Audit Report 60601-0001-23, Report Review of the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' Oversight of Agreements Reached 
in Program Complaints, Aug. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A prior GAO audit recommended that OASCR obtain an expert, 
independent, and objective legal examination of the basis, quality, and 
adequacy of a sample of USDA's prior investigations and decisions on 
civil rights complaints, along with suggestions for improvement.\58\ In 
response, USDA created a task force in 2009 that reviewed a large 
number of previous case files; this task force identified that further 
processing was warranted for about 3,800 complaints.59-60  
While the task force's large-scale quality control review evaluated 
cases at that time, OASCR should incorporate ongoing, periodic quality 
control reviews of a sample of case files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Recommendations and 
Options to Address Management Deficiencies in the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, GAO-09-62 (Oct. 2008).
    \59\ GAO, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Progress Toward 
Implementing GAP's Civil Rights Recommendations, GAO-12-976R (Aug. 29, 
2012).
    \60\ The 2009 task force reviewed more than 17,000 program 
complaints filed with OASCR from FYs 2000-2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We recommend that OASCR evaluate the procedures for documenting 
reviews performed at each stage of the complaint process to ensure 
facts and events are presented accurately and appropriately. 
Considering USDA's long history of discrimination complaints, it is 
critical that OASCR adequately support its determinations.\61\ When 
OASCR administratively closes a case file without proper documentation 
to support the action taken, complainants may not receive the 
appropriate consideration from the Department on their complaint of 
discrimination. By improving OASCR's review process to ensure 
documentation appropriately justifies the actions taken, OASCR can 
better build up public trust and ensure that complainants are given 
fair consideration in the resolution of their complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Audit Report 60601-0001-23, Report Review of the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' Oversight of Agreements Reached 
in Program Complaints, Aug. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation 14
    Evaluate procedures for documenting reviews performed at each stage 
of the complaint process to ensure facts and events are presented 
accurately and appropriately.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  Unlike other Federal agencies, USDA provides 
                approximately 300 programs to the public ranging from 
                nutrition, farm subsidies, rural housing and utilities, 
                forest management, conservation practices, etc. It is 
                OASCR's responsibility to ensure these programs are not 
                administered discriminately and are accessible to all--
                not to supplant or supersede calculations and/or 
                technical determinations made by agency subject matter 
                experts. Currently, division specific checklists are 
                utilized throughout the Program Directorate (see 
                attached PAD Checklist). However, these checklists are 
                utilized on an individualized case by case basis for 
                each specialist prior to producing a work product. The 
                proposed checklist would identify what should be 
                included in each acceptance letter, ROI, and FAD for an 
                end user to audit annually. The checklists are 
                currently in place for manual implementation of data 
                integrity verification. This process will also be 
                automated within CRMS to support accuracy and 
                consistency and both the checklist and CRMS will be 
                implemented by September 30, 2021.

          OASCR provided a completion date of September 30, 2021, for 
        this action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation 15
    Revise internal procedures to require that case files are returned 
to Investigations to document the review of the ROI by PCD for 
sufficient facts and evidence collected by Investigations when a new 
issue is introduced after the investigation is completed and the ROI 
has been approved.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  At present, OASCR has determined if additional issues 
                are identified during the course of the investigation, 
                the Program Complaints Division will issue an amended 
                acceptance letter. In accordance with Departmental 
                Manual 4330-001, the Program Adjudication Division will 
                make determinations with respect to each allegation 
                identified in the Report of Investigation. If the 
                Program Adjudication Division determines the ROI 
                contains sufficient facts/evidence to introduce a new 
                issue, the Program Adjudication Division will seek 
                concurrence from the Program Complaints Division 
                Director. If there are insufficient facts/evidence to 
                address the new issue, the Program Adjudication 
                Division will return the complaint to the Program 
                Complaints Division for a supplemental investigation.
  OIG Position
          We do not accept management decision for this recommendation. 
        We agree with OASCR's proposed corrective actions to work with 
        and seek concurrence from the PCD Director when a new issue is 
        introduced after the investigation is completed and the ROI has 
        been approved.
          However, OASCR needs to document the actions taken by PAD 
        when additional issues are introduced at the Adjudication 
        stage. To achieve management decision, OASCR needs to revise 
        its internal procedures to document its process when a new 
        issue is introduced after the investigation is completed and 
        the ROI has been approved and provide a proposed completion 
        date for this action.
Recommendation 16
    Establish and maintain a system of quality control that is designed 
to periodically review a sample of case files to ensure evidence to 
support OASCR's determinations and closures is adequate, accurate, and 
documented.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  OASCR accepts this recommendation. A second-level 
                review of data is currently conducted by each division. 
                To further ensure the complaints are being processed as 
                efficiently as possible, a comprehensive ``end-of-
                case'' checklist will be developed, and a random 
                sampling of cases will occur on an annual basis, 
                starting in the 4th quarter of this fiscal year. OASCR 
                will incorporate an in-depth quality control system 
                into its process pending additional staffing resources 
                allocated to the Program Directorate. OASCR management 
                provided proposed justifications for increases in 
                staffing and funding based upon a need for improved 
                efficiency, change in demand, policy direction changes, 
                improved customer service and reduced risks in the FY 
                2023 budget cycle.
                  OASCR prefers keeping the review process within the 
                organization as to limit ceding any delegated 
                authority. However, the independent review process 
                could be delegated to the new Equity Commission to be 
                done quarterly.
  OIG Position
          Although OASCR agrees with this recommendation, we are unable 
        to accept management decision at this time. We agree with 
        OASCR's proposed actions to develop a comprehensive ``end-of-
        case'' checklist, and periodically review a sample of case 
        files to further ensure the complaints are being processed as 
        efficiently as possible. However, OASCR needs to provide more 
        clarity as to how it will improve its review process to ensure 
        proper documentation adequately supports OASCR's 
        determinations. To achieve management decision, OASCR needs to 
        implement a strategy to establish and maintain a system of 
        quality control to ensure evidence to support OASCR's 
        determinations and closures is adequate, accurate, and 
        documented and provide an estimated completion date for this 
        action.
Finding 5: OASCR Needs to Strengthen its Oversight Efforts of USDA 
        Agencies
    OASCR missed an opportunity to track and measure USDA's civil 
rights progress. There are two oversight tools to help assess agencies' 
compliance with civil rights requirements: agency head assessments and 
compliance reports. These require input from both agencies and OASCR. 
However, these reviews were not being completed. This occurred because 
OASCR directed USDA agencies to stop completing required reports and 
stopped reviewing agency compliance reports due to limited resources, 
but did not implement alternative controls. These civil rights reports 
are intended to provide OASCR with vital data concerning whether 
agencies are fairly and equally administering USDA programs. Without 
them, OASCR cannot effectively fulfill its oversight role, or identify 
and correct areas of concern in how USDA agencies handle civil rights 
issues.
    Federal regulations require that OASCR oversee USDA agencies' 
efforts to conduct USDA programs fairly and equally by monitoring two 
reports--agency head assessments and agency compliance reports. OASCR 
is required to review agencies' annual civil rights performance plan 
and accomplishment reports and rate their accomplishments through an 
agency head assessment. In addition, OASCR is required to review 
agencies' compliance reviews and issue compliance reports that monitor 
agency compliance efforts.\62\ These assessments, when implemented 
properly, are designed to help OASCR determine if agencies are adhering 
to the Department's civil rights regulations and policies.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ 7 CFR  15(d).
    \63\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these requirements, OASCR did not fulfill its oversight 
responsibilities to ensure that agencies were fairly and equally 
administering USDA programs.
  Agency Head Assessment
          Agencies are required annually to review their civil rights 
        activities and accomplishments by assessing objectives such as 
        accountability, and non-discriminatory program delivery, and 
        submitting a civil rights performance plan and accomplishment 
        report to OASCR. The report establishes civil rights goals, 
        objectives, and measurable outcomes which agencies use to 
        assess their activities. OASCR is then required to review 
        agencies' reports and assessments before providing agencies 
        with a civil rights accomplishment rating. Both agencies' and 
        OASCR's reviews constitute the agency head assessment.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Agencies' civil rights performance plan and accomplishment 
        reports are divided into goals, performance objectives, and 
        related indicators--or actions that agencies should take to 
        measure progress towards each objective and address USDA's 
        regulations, policies, and strategic goals. This report 
        provides agencies with measurable milestones that can help them 
        accomplish their goals--such as timely resolution. See below 
        for an example of a goal, performance objective, and related 
        indicator.
        
        
  Compliance Reports
          Like agency head assessments, compliance reports need to 
        occur at both the agency and Departmental level. Unlike the 
        agency head assessments, which evaluate the agency's overall 
        compliance with civil rights requirements, compliance reports 
        focus on targeted, potential areas of concern at the local 
        office level. First, according to Departmental regulations, 
        agencies must conduct compliance reviews to ensure that they 
        are managing and administering programs and activities without 
        discrimination.\65\ Second, Federal regulation states that 
        OASCR must: (1) oversee the compliance reviews and evaluations, 
        and issue compliance reports that monitor compliance efforts, 
        and (2) monitor all findings of non-compliance to ensure they 
        are corrected.\66\ Similarly, OASCR must conduct its own 
        compliance reviews of agencies and their programs and 
        activities, and monitor compliance review activity within 
        agencies.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ USDA, Procedures for Processing Discrimination Complaints and 
Conducting Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Conducted Programs 
and Activities, DM 4330-0001 (Oct. 18, 2000).
    \66\ 7 CFR  5(d).
    \67\ USDA, Procedures for Processing Discrimination Complaints and 
Conducting Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Conducted Programs 
and Activities, DM 4330-0001 (Oct. 18, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          We identified deficiencies during the period of our review at 
        both the agency and OASCR level. First, we determined that 
        agencies did not always take the necessary action to submit 
        reviews; and second, OASCR did not track whether agencies were 
        conducting compliance reviews. For example, agencies did not 
        submit proposed compliance review schedules--a preliminary step 
        in the compliance report process--the majority of the time. 
        However, even when agencies did submit schedules, OASCR did not 
        follow up with agencies to determine if the agencies had 
        conducted the scheduled reviews. In addition, OASCR has not 
        conducted its own compliance reviews or issued any compliance 
        reports since 2017. Although OASCR officials stated that they 
        would develop standard operating procedures and begin 
        conducting compliance reviews in calendar year (CY) 2020, as of 
        February 2021, OASCR had not conducted any compliance reviews.

    This occurred because, in October 2017, in an effort to reduce 
redundancies and inefficiencies, OASCR directed agencies to stop 
conducting agency head assessments. OASCR also ended its review of 
agency compliance reports. According to an FNS official, completing the 
agency head assessment was ``extremely resource-intensive,'' and OASCR 
wanted to allow agencies to focus their efforts on achieving civil 
rights compliance rather than reporting on it. OASCR officials also 
stated that the compliance reviews required considerable resources and 
time but agreed that, in some capacity, OASCR needs to conduct 
compliance reviews. OASCR officials stated that, because OASCR already 
reviewed existing reports such as the MD-715,\68\ Form 462,\69\ and No 
FEAR reports,\70\ it was assessing the agencies' compliance and 
performance. However, because these existing reports only assess 
agencies' internal employment civil rights activities performance, they 
are not a replacement for assessing agencies' program civil rights 
practices with external stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ EEOC Management Directive 715 requires each agency to report 
annually on the status of activities pursuant to its equal employment 
opportunity program.
    \69\ EEOC Form 462 provides data to produce an annual report on the 
Federal workforce that includes, among other data, information on 
Federal equal employment opportunity complaints and alternative dispute 
resolution activities.
    \70\ This is an annual report mandated by Pub. L. No. 107-174, 
Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation 
Act of 2002 (NO FEAR Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While we acknowledge time and resource constraints, OASCR needs to 
identify alternative methods and implement these critical oversight 
controls over USDA agencies. Ultimately, OASCR is responsible for 
overseeing USDA agencies' efforts to conduct USDA programs fairly and 
equally. Agency-submitted assessments and reports contain valuable 
performance information that OASCR could have used to ensure agencies 
are achieving program goals and objectives set by the Department's 
civil rights regulations and policies. If OASCR does not require 
agencies to assess and report on their civil rights compliance, the 
responsibility for gathering oversight information falls upon OASCR. 
However, if OASCR were to require agencies to submit civil rights 
reports and assessments, OASCR could develop a methodology to regularly 
review agencies based on program complaints, settlements or findings of 
discrimination, and other risk factors identified in agency 
assessments. OASCR officials agreed that it was necessary to implement 
an effective method to assess agencies' compliance with program civil 
rights activities.
    Ultimately, by effectively implementing oversight controls, such as 
agency head assessments and compliance reviews, OASCR can move from a 
reactive to a proactive position in addressing potential civil rights 
violations. For example, OASCR's compliance division currently is 
required to follow up on corrective actions after individual complaints 
are resolved. By assessing agencies' civil rights activities 
performance, in addition to individual allegations presented in 
complaints, OASCR could further evaluate and monitor other civil rights 
processing activities to see if this was a widespread or repeated 
occurrence and potentially prevent future non-compliances. Furthermore, 
with information collected from agency head assessments and compliance 
reviews, OASCR can provide the Department with valuable information to 
help USDA take steps towards improving civil rights activities, when 
necessary.
Recommendation 17
    Require agencies to assess their program effectiveness and 
compliance with the Department's civil rights regulations and policies 
and, furthermore, oversee these agency assessments.
  Agency Response
          It its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  From 2005 to 2017, OASCR conducted annual assessments 
                of agency civil rights performance to determine the 
                effectiveness and adherence to the Department's civil 
                rights policies and regulations by each USDA agency in 
                accordance with 7 CFR Part 15d (Nondiscrimination in 
                programs or activities conducted by the USDA and 
                Departmental Regulation 4300-010, Civil Rights 
                Accountability Policy and Procedures). In 2017, the 
                Office of the Secretary directed OASCR to end the 
                annual assessment process so as to allow USDA agencies 
                to focus on their civil rights efforts. OASCR is 
                revising the agency head assessment request to be less 
                cumbersome and focused on civil rights accomplishments 
                and challenges within the agencies. OASCR will 
                implement this new process by September 30, 2021.

          OASCR provided a completion date of September 30, 2021, for 
        this action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation 18
    Develop new controls to review the agency assessments and identify 
factors that could warrant further review of agencies and their civil 
rights practices.
  Agency Response
          It its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  OASCR will ensure any new agency assessment procedure 
                incorporates quality and quality review methodologies.

          Based on its response for Recommendation 17, OASCR provided a 
        completion date of September 30, 2021, for this action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation based 
        on OASCR's response for Recommendation 17.
Recommendation 19
    Develop and implement a process to select USDA agencies and program 
offices for compliance reviews (on a recurring basis) based on program 
complaint activity, settlements or findings of discrimination, and 
other risk factors identified in agency assessments.
  Agency Response
          It its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  OASCR led a task force designed to amend USDA's 
                Departmental Regulation (DR) which provides guidance 
                and instructions on Civil Rights Compliance Reviews. 
                The team consisted of representation from Mission 
                Areas, agencies, and key staff offices. The DR 
                specifically establishes USDA's policies and procedures 
                for conducting civil rights compliance reviews of all 
                USDA Federally conducted and Federally assisted 
                programs and employment activities. The DR has been 
                submitted to the Department for review and clearance. 
                Once cleared by the Department, the following criteria 
                will be required of OASCR, Mission Areas, agencies, and 
                staff offices.
                  CCRO will reignite its compliance review program by 
                serving as embeds with mission area and agency civil 
                rights directors. One compliance review with the Food 
                and Nutrition Service will be completed by September 
                30, 2021. The decision to conduct a compliance review 
                will be based on neutral criteria or evidence of a 
                violation.

          OASCR provided a completion date of September 30, 2021, for 
        this action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Finding 6: OASCR Needs to Assess Progress Towards Established Goals and 
        Objectives
    Although OASCR developed its Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020, it did 
not use the plan to measure or assess its progress toward established 
goals and objectives relating to program complaints.\71\ This occurred 
because OASCR management did not establish specific ways to: (1) 
monitor performance measures and indicators, (2) perform periodic 
reviews and regularly update the plan, and (3) report on actual 
performance compared to its goals and objectives. Using the performance 
measures provided in the strategic plan could have helped OASCR avoid 
shortcomings identified in this report. Because OASCR has not 
established measurable and implementable measures, OASCR officials 
cannot determine whether they are achieving intended goals and 
objectives. This further hinders OASCR's ability to make well-informed 
decisions and improve the program complaint process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ USDA OASCR, Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires agencies 
to develop a strategic plan, set performance goals, and annually report 
on actual performance compared to goals.\72\ GPRA also requires 
agencies to use performance indicators to measure or assess progress 
toward established goals. Similarly, GAO states that management should 
establish activities to monitor performance measures and 
indicators.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 
103-62, 107 Stat. 287 and 288.
    \73\ GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
GAO-14-704G (Sept. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OASCR's Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020 encourages periodic performance 
review sessions as an essential part of strategic planning--at least 
quarterly. Management can use the results of these performance reviews 
to assess and analyze how the agency is doing and, if necessary, make 
decisions and reprioritize due to changing resources, evolving 
stakeholder needs, or other new realities.
    In 2008, GAO reported that OASCR's strategic planning was limited 
and did not address key steps needed to achieve its mission. According 
to GAO, results-oriented organizations follow three key steps in their 
strategic planning: (1) they define a clear mission and desired 
outcomes, (2) they measure performance to gauge progress, and (3) they 
use performance information for identifying performance gaps and making 
program improvements. Accordingly, GAO recommended that OASCR develop a 
results-oriented, Department-level strategic plan for civil rights that 
unifies USDA's approach with OASCR. GAO specified that the plan should 
be transparent about USDA's efforts to address stakeholder 
concerns.74-75 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ GAO, Recommendations and Options to Address Management 
Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
GAO-09-62 (Oct. 2008).
    \75\ Following the 2008 GAO Report, OASCR developed the Strategic 
Plan FY 2011-2015. We did not include this strategic plan in our review 
because it was outside the scope of our audit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response, OASCR developed a strategic plan that provides goals, 
outcomes, and performance indicators that monitor the programs, 
policies, and services that OASCR administers in an effort to produce 
results and improve the organization's performance. In addition, the 
performance indicators measure performance against the strategies for 
each outcome, and inform management whether it is achieving the desired 
result. OASCR's Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020 included three strategic 
goals, two of which were relevant to our audit:

          Goal 1. Improve civil rights complaints processing for 
        internal and external customers in keeping with Federal laws, 
        mandates, and Departmental Regulations and guidelines.
          Goal 3. Demonstrate effective engagement within USDA by 
        ensuring all USDA employees have the necessary resources to 
        support the civil rights of all employees and customers of 
        USDA.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ For the purpose of this finding, we will only report on 
outcomes and performance indicators relative to the program civil 
rights complaint processing. We plan to conduct a similar review of 
OASCR's EEO civil rights complaint process in the near future.

    We concluded that OASCR did not use the plan as a tool to measure 
or assess progress towards Goals 1 and 3 and their respective 
objectives, performance indicators, and strategies. Specifically, OASCR 
did not adequately address 13 of the 14 performance measures to measure 
or assess progress toward established goals. (For a full list and 
explanation, see Exhibit A.) OASCR personnel explained the processes 
they have in place that could be used to satisfy performance measures 
and indicators in the strategic plan. However, after reviewing these 
processes, we found that they did not completely address indicators and 
strategies to achieve specific goals. Overall, the issues we identified 
in this report could have been mitigated had OASCR used its strategic 
plan to monitor progress and to establish strong internal controls.
  Timeframes for Civil Rights Complaint Processing
          In Goal 1 of its strategic plan, OASCR established a 
        performance indicator, baseline, and target data for the number 
        of days to process program complaints at each stage in the 
        process: intake, investigation, and adjudication. The expected 
        outcome was that timeframes for civil rights complaint 
        processing be consistent with statutory and regulatory 
        requirements. However, as identified in Findings 1 and 2 of 
        this report, both OASCR and agencies it coordinated with to 
        process complaints did not meet these timeframes.
          [Redacted]
  Program Complaint Processing Audits
          Goal 1 of OASCR's strategic plan also established a 
        performance indicator to implement a program complaint 
        processing audit in the fourth quarters of FYs 2017 and 2019. 
        OASCR instructed the staff units (Intake, Investigations, and 
        Adjudication Divisions) to use a checklist to conduct a self-
        assessment of all cases on an on-going basis. However, OASCR 
        did not consolidate the results from each checklist into one 
        overall report. As a result, we determined that the checklists 
        alone had not constituted a program complaint processing audit. 
        If OASCR had appropriately conducted program complaint 
        processing audits, OASCR might have been better positioned to 
        address the issues we identified in Finding 4.
  Compliance Reviews
          Within Goal 3 of the strategic plan, OASCR established a 
        performance indicator to complete 24 compliance reviews in, or 
        by, 2020. As stated in Finding 5, OASCR did not conduct any 
        compliance reviews since 2017.

    OASCR has not prioritized the strategic plan as a resource in 
developing strong internal controls, since officials stated that the 
strategic plan was outdated due to a 2018 reorganization and changing 
priorities. We acknowledge that OASCR's priorities may have changed, 
and its strategic plan became outdated. In this instance, officials 
should have reprioritized and revised the plan accordingly to include 
performance measures to assist the agency in meeting desired outcomes. 
OASCR should regularly review its strategic plan and update it to 
reflect the current environment and its priorities.
    OASCR officials further added that the goals were incorporated into 
their everyday processes. However, OASCR management did not establish 
specific ways to: (1) monitor performance measures and indicators, (2) 
perform periodic reviews and regularly update the plan, and (3) report 
on actual performance compared to its goals and objectives. Until OASCR 
utilizes the strategic plan as a tool to regularly monitor and achieve 
its goals, it may not accurately measure its performance, identify 
points of concern, and strategically develop a course of action to 
address these issues. A results-oriented strategic plan provides a road 
map that clearly describes what an organization is attempting to 
achieve. It can also serve as a focal point for communication with 
Congress and the public about what OASCR and USDA agencies have 
accomplished. By implementing the goals, objectives, and performance 
indicators in a plan, OASCR can monitor measurable outcomes, identify 
points of weakness, and develop courses of action to address identified 
issues.
Recommendation 20
    Develop and implement a process to perform periodic reviews of the 
strategic plan and regularly update the strategic plan.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  OASCR has revised its strategic plan for FY 2020-2024 
                to reflect the goals and priorities of the current 
                political leadership. The Deputy Assistant Secretary 
                for Civil Rights and the Associate ASCR are involved in 
                the drafting of the USDA Strategic Plan to include a 
                civil rights/racial equity goal. OASCR Strategic Plan 
                must link to the new USDA plan scheduled for release Q2 
                of FY 2022 before OASCR can release its separate 
                strategic plan.
  OIG Position
          We do not accept management decision for this recommendation. 
        We acknowledge that OASCR revised its strategic plan for FY 
        2020-2024 to reflect the goals and priorities of the current 
        political leadership. However, in its response, OASCR did not 
        mention how it planned to regularly review its strategic plan 
        and update it, if necessary, to reflect the current environment 
        and its priorities, as noted in our report. To achieve 
        management decision, OASCR needs to develop and implement a 
        process (guidance) that describes how OASCR will perform 
        periodic reviews of each strategic plan they establish and 
        regularly update them, if necessary, based on the changing 
        environment and priorities. In addition, OASCR needs to provide 
        an estimated completion date for this action.
Recommendation 21
    Establish a mechanism to measure performance against established 
goals and report on actual program activity performance data.
  Agency Response
          In its June 11, 2021, response, OASCR stated:

                  The revised OASCR Strategic Plan will include key 
                performance measures and objectives linking directly to 
                programmatic activity. In addition, by September 30, 
                2021, OASCR, will launch a Civil Rights dashboard to 
                provide real-time data to the Secretary on employment 
                and program complaint activity.

          OASCR provided a completion date of September 30, 2021, for 
        this action.
  OIG Position
          We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Scope and Methodology
    We conducted an audit of OASCR's civil rights program complaint 
process. We performed fieldwork from June 2019 through April 2021 at 
OASCR's offices in Washington, D.C. During this time, we met with OASCR 
leadership officials and staff within PCD, PAD, the Center for Civil 
Rights Operations, the Program Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Data 
and Records Management Division, the Center for Civil Rights 
Enforcement, the Program Planning and Accountability Division, and the 
Compliance Division.
    According to PCMS records, OASCR closed 2,321 correspondences and 
911 complaints between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019.\77\ We non-
statistically selected a total of 20 correspondences and 28 complaints 
to review based on: (1) correspondence and complainant category 
types,\78\ and (2) the percentage the category type represented in the 
universe.\79\ Based on the sampling methodology, we would have only 
included minimal settlements and zero findings of discrimination. 
However, to review the entire program complaint process, we included 
all findings of discrimination that occurred during our scope 
period.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ When a complainant submits a complaint of discrimination, 
OASCR produces a correspondence number for the incoming communication. 
For those accepted as complaints, it is converted to a complaint and 
assigned a complaint number for further processing.
    \78\ The 13 categories for correspondences include: closed data 
entry error, closed duplicate, closed failure to pursue, closed failure 
to state a claim, closed issue in court, closed non-jurisdictional 
correspondence, closed referral to other government agency, closed res 
judicata, closed resolved, closed untimely, closed withdrawn, 
programmatic referral, and save correspondence entered. The 15 
categories for complaints include: duplicate record, failure to 
cooperate, failure to pursue, failure to pursue closed letter/
withdrawal, failure to state a claim, filed in court, finding, HUD 
decision, lack of jurisdiction, no finding, programmatic referral, 
referral to other government agency, settlement, untimely filing, and 
withdrawal.
    \79\ For instance, programmatic referrals represented 44 percent of 
the universe of correspondences closed during our scope. We then 
applied this percentage to 20, the total number determined for the 
sample, to select how many from each category to review. Therefore, we 
determined that we would review nine programmatic referrals (44 percent 
 20).
    \80\ Within our sample, there were five settlements and six 
findings closed between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To accomplish our audit objectives, we:

   Reviewed applicable regulations and guidance established for 
        OASCR's program complaint process.

   Reviewed prior audit reports from GAO and OIG and identified 
        recommendations relative to our current audit work.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ GAO, Recommendations and Options to Address Management 
Deficiencies in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
GAO-09-62 (Oct. 2008); and OIG Audit Report 60601-0001-23, Report 
Review of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights' 
Oversight of Agreements Reached in Program Complaints, Aug. 2012.

   Obtained and reviewed OASCR's most recent Strategic Plan FY 
        2016-2020 to determine whether OASCR established performance 
        measures related to areas covered by the engagement, and to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        determine if goals were met and adequately supported.

   Obtained and reviewed documentation to support OASCR's 
        implementation of performance measures from Strategic Plan FY 
        2016-2020.

   Interviewed OASCR staff regarding the administration and 
        oversight of the program complaints process.

   Interviewed OASCR staff to obtain an understanding of their 
        roles and responsibilities as they relate to the program 
        complaint process at all three stages: intake, investigation, 
        and adjudication.

   Identified and evaluated key controls to ensure program 
        complaints were processed in compliance with program 
        requirements at all three stages: intake, investigation, and 
        adjudication.

   Developed a pro forma to review and test OASCR's controls to 
        ensure that program complaints were processed in accordance 
        with the requirements outlined in DM4330-0001,\82\ DR4330-
        0002,\83\ and OASCR standard operating procedures for our 
        sampled complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ USDA, Procedures for Processing Program Complaints and 
Conducting Civil Rights Compliance Reviews in USDA Conducted Programs 
and Activities, DM 4330-001 (Oct. 2000).
    \83\ USDA Departmental Regulation 4330-002, Nondiscrimination in 
Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from 
USDA (Mar. 1999).

   Identified and evaluated OASCR MOUs with FNS, HUD, and OGC 
        to determine whether controls were in place to ensure program 
        complaints are processed timely and accurately and in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        accordance with Departmental guidance.

   [Redacted].

    To assess the reliability of data, we interviewed agency officials 
knowledgeable about OASCR's information system to process program 
complaints. Through these interviews, we gained an understanding of the 
existence, relationship, impact, and pervasiveness of the information 
system. We accessed PCMS to obtain documentation such as complaint 
forms, acknowledgement letters, acceptance letters, agency position 
statement letters, ROIs, FADs, and closure letters in order to review 
program complaint case files. We assessed the reliability of data by 
replicating the OASCR-provided universe with a universe obtained from 
PCMS by OIG. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 
purposes of this report. Because evaluating the effectiveness of PCMS 
was not one of our engagement objectives, we did not review, analyze, 
or verify the system's general and application controls.
    We conducted this audit 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 
objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.

                              Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR                                Code of Federal Regulations
[Redacted]                         [Redacted]
CY                                 calendar year
DM                                 Departmental Manual
DR                                 Departmental Regulation
ECOA                               Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974
EEO                                equal employment opportunity
FAD                                final agency decision
FedRAMP                            Federal Risk and Authorization
                                    Management Program
FHA                                Fair Housing Act
FNS                                Food and Nutrition Service
FY                                 fiscal year
GAO                                Government Accountability Office
GPRA                               Government Performance and Results
                                    Act
HUD                                United States Department of Housing
                                    and Urban Development
IT                                 information technology
MOU                                Memorandum of Understanding
NIST                               National Institute of Standards and
                                    Technology
OASCR                              Office of the Assistant Secretary for
                                    Civil Rights
OGC                                Office of the General Counsel
OIG                                Office of Inspector General
OMB                                Office of Management and Budget
PAD                                Program Adjudication Division
PCD                                Program Complaints Division
PCMS                               Program Complaints Management System
PIA                                privacy impact assessment
PII                                personally identifiable information
PTA                                privacy threshold analysis
RFC                                recommendation for closure
ROI                                report of investigation
USDA                               United States Department of
                                    Agriculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       Exhibit A: Summary of OASCR's Performance Indicators and Strategies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This exhibit summarizes the action taken by OASCR to address its performance indicators and strategies
 included in its Strategic Plan for FY 2016-2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.                    Performance Measures \84\            Adequately                 OIG Conclusion
                                                           Implemented?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Goal 1: Improve civil rights complaints processing for internal and external customers in keeping with
 Federal laws, mandates, and Departmental Regulations and guidelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                Performance Indicator: 1.1 Develop     No                 OASCR did not conduct a program
                  and implement a 5-year Internal                           complaint processing audit in the
                  Audit plan within the Office of                           fourth quarters of 2017 and 2019.
                  Adjudication. This includes: 1.1.3                        OASCR was unable to demonstrate that
                  Implement a Program Complaint                             they conducted quarterly quality
                  Processing Audit in the 4th quarters                      control assessments of PCMS. See
                  of 2017 and 2019. 1.1.4 Conduct                           Findings 3 and 4.
                  quality control assessments in PCMS
                  quarterly.
\84\ Each
 performance
 measure is
 listed in
 order as it
 appears in
 OASCR's
 Strategic Plan
 FY 2016-2020.
 OASCR's
 Strategic Plan
 FY 2016-2020
 included three
 strategic
 goals, two of
 which were
 relevant to
 our audit. For
 the purpose of
 this report,
 we will only
 report on
 outcomes and
 performance
 indicators
 relative to
 program
 complaint
 processing.
2                Performance Indicator: 1.4 Build       No                 OASCR documentation supports the DOJ
                  Coalitions with Stakeholders to                           Title IX, Title VI, and the Civil
                  Improve Complaint Processes. This                         Rights Directors meetings. However,
                  includes: 1.4.1 Conduct Civil Rights                      there was no evidence to support
                  Directors Meetings quarterly, 1.4.2                       that these meetings occurred
                  Conduct Agency Partnership Meetings                       consistently between FYs 2016-2020.
                  quarterly, and 1.4.3 Implement                            OASCR officials stated that they
                  Agency Liaison Initiatives monthly.                       never implemented the quarterly
                                                                            agency partnership meetings during
                                                                            the time period of the strategic
                                                                            plan. There is also no evidence to
                                                                            support that OASCR implemented
                                                                            monthly agency liaison initiatives.
3                Performance Indicator: 1.5 Expand      No                 OASCR officials provided us with
                  Internal Professional Development                         training agendas; however, the
                  and Training. This includes 1.5.1                         agendas do not specify which OASCR
                  Mandate annual specialized training                       personnel participated in these
                  on case law updates, recent case                          trainings or that these trainings
                  decisions, evidence gathering,                            were conducted quarterly. OASCR
                  technology advances and information                       officials stated that personnel have
                  security annually, and 1.5.2                              taken barrier analyses training, but
                  Identify career paths and                                 these trainings have not been
                  progressions, and developmental                           consistent. OASCR officials could
                  opportunities to transition staff                         not provide a documented mandate for
                  from entry to middle and middle to                        annual, specialized training on case
                  senior level positions annually.                          law updates, recent case decisions,
                                                                            evidence gathering, technology
                                                                            advances and information security.
                                                                            Although OASCR officials mentioned
                                                                            developmental opportunities for
                                                                            staff, OASCR does not have a formal
                                                                            process in place to track this on an
                                                                            annual basis.
4                Performance Indicator: 1.6 Strengthen  No                 OASCR could not provide supporting
                  Resource Management. This includes                        documentation to show what they
                  1.6.1 Establish core requirements                         implemented consistently to
                  for staffing and funding of all OA                        strengthen resource management.
                  functions annually, and 1.6.2 Obtain
                  adequate resources to address
                  complaints immediately upon receipt
                  annually.
5                Performance Indicator: Number and      No                 Although OASCR established and
                  percent reduction in complaint                            tracked target number of days for
                  processing time. OASCR established                        each step in the complaint process
                  target number of days for 2016-2020                       in an effort to reduce complaint
                  for each step in the program                              processing time, OASCR did not
                  complaint process: Programs Intake,                       provide supporting documentation
                  Programs Investigation and Programs                       showing a reduction in complaint
                  Adjudication.\85\                                         processing time. In addition, as
                                                                            reported in Finding 1, OASCR has not
                                                                            met its 180-day processing
                                                                            requirement and the complaint
                                                                            processing time has been increasing
                                                                            since FY 2017.
\85\ Numbers 5
 and 6 in the
 exhibit do not
 include
 performance
 indicator
 numbers, as
 they were the
 only
 performance
 indicators
 under a
 particular
 outcome and
 therefore not
 numbered.
6                Performance Indicator: Number and      Yes                According to annual farm bill
                  percent of reduction in the                               reports, OASCR decreased its
                  inventory of complaints.                                  inventory of open complaints from
                                                                            549 to 392 between FY 2016 and FY
                                                                            2019.\86\
\86\ Food,
 Conservation,
 and Energy Act
 of 2008
 Section 14010
 Report of
 Civil Rights
 Complaints,
 Resolutions,
 and Actions
 for Fiscal
 Year 2019,
 dated
 September
 2020, was the
 most recent
 report
 available.
7                Performance Indicator: 4.1 Commit      No                 OASCR dedicated seven positions in
                  sufficient staff resources to update                      the Compliance Division to update
                  OASCR Departmental rules,                                 and revise USDA and civil rights
                  guidelines, and regulations; 4.2                          Departmental regulations, policies,
                  Create and post manuals on OASCR                          and Executive Orders, as well as
                  website; and 4.3 Review and update                        updated templates. However, we
                  templates for the Age Discrimination                      determined that Departmental
                  Act, No FEAR Act, and annual farm                         directives related to processing
                  bill reports.                                             program complaints have not been
                                                                            updated or published [publicly]
                                                                            since October 2000. See Finding 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Goal 3: Demonstrate effective engagement within USDA by ensuring all USDA employees have the necessary
 resources to support the civil rights of all employees and customers of USDA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8                Performance Strategy: 2.4: Develop     No                 OASCR did not develop a technology
                  technology solution for monitoring                        solution for monitoring and tracking
                  and tracking settlement agreements,                       settlement agreements, compliance
                  compliance reviews, EEOC Orders,                          reviews, EEOC orders, orders in-
                  Orders in-agency issued FADs with                         agency issued FADs with findings of
                  findings of discrimination, and                           discrimination, and number of
                  number of employees who received                          employees who received agency/office
                  agency/office civil rights training.                      civil rights training as it relates
                                                                            to program complaints.
9                Performance Strategy: 2.5: Recognize   No                 OASCR did not examine best practices
                  agencies and offices with minimal                         for supporting civil rights and fair
                  number of EEO and program complaints                      treatment.
                  and examine their best practices for
                  supporting civil rights and fair
                  treatment.
10               Performance Strategy: 2.7 Develop      No                 OASCR confirmed that they have not
                  reporting mechanism for agencies and                      completely developed reporting
                  offices with higher number of EEO/                        mechanisms for agencies with higher
                  program complaints and noncompliance                      program complaints.
                  with settlement agreements and EEOC
                  Orders.
11               Performance Indicator: 2.1 Complete    No                 OASCR officials stated that they did
                  24 compliance reviews in (or by)                          not conduct any compliance reviews
                  2020.                                                     since 2017. See Finding 5.
12               Performance Indicator: 3.1 Complete    No                 OASCR officials stated that they did
                  internal audit of annual EEO/program                      not conduct an internal audit of
                  evaluations, and establish planning                       annual EEO/program evaluations or
                  priorities to eliminate systemic                          establish planning priorities to
                  barriers, trends, and programmatic                        eliminate systemic barriers, trends,
                  challenges; 3.2 Assign Data &                             and programmatic challenges.
                  Records Management Department
                  responsibility to produce/conduct
                  program participant civil rights
                  surveys; and 3.3 Review and analyze
                  survey response from USDA customers
                  within 1 week.
13               Performance Indicator: 4.1 Select      No                 In response to this indicator, OASCR
                  task groups to revise departmental                        provided a status of eight
                  civil rights regulations by 2017;                         Departmental civil rights
                  4.2 Create bulletins for OASCR staff                      regulations that indicated that one
                  regarding possible changes to                             regulation was revised in April
                  legislative rulings.                                      2018, one was scheduled to be
                                                                            rescinded in the fourth quarter of
                                                                            2019, five were scheduled to be
                                                                            revised in 2020 and one in 2021.
14               Performance Indicator: 8.1 Develop,    No                 OASCR officials stated that they did
                  institutionalize, and lead an                             not implement a process to review,
                  ongoing annual process to review,                         analyze, and report on lessons
                  analyze, and report on ``lessons                          learned from program complaints
                  learned'' from (a) EEO complaints,                        closed during the year because past
                  and (b) program complaints, closed                        leadership did not require that it
                  during the year. This should include                      be done.
                  identification of recurring themes
                  underlying the analysis of
                  complaints, results of
                  investigations (which often turn up
                  areas for improvement in
                  communications, training, and other
                  areas even when there is no finding
                  of discrimination, and certainly do
                  so when there is such a finding),
                  and recommendations for improving
                  practices to avoid such complaints
                  in the future. These reports should
                  be distributed on the intranet to
                  all employees, and to all USDA
                  senior officials and managers; 8.2
                  Create two reports one for program
                  complaints and the other for
                  employment complaints that list
                  complaints by state, agency, issue,
                  and basis, which will be submitted
                  to the Office of the Secretary
                  monthly, quarterly, and annually,
                  highlighting significant
                  accomplishments in complaint
                  processing and resolution,
                  compliance, policy and training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency's Response--OASCR's Response to Audit Report


  To: Gil H. Harden, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of 
            the Inspector General
  From: Monica Armster Rainge, /S/ Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil 
            Rights
  Subject: Response to OIG Audit on ``USDA Oversight of Civil Rights 
            Complaints, 60601-00012.''

    This letter responds to your request for management's response to 
the audit recommendations in the draft audit report No. 60601-0001-21.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appreciates the Office of 
Inspection General's (OIG) review of the civil rights complaint process 
within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR). 
This report, which reviews OASCR's program complaint activity from 
October 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019, will help inform and guide our 
work moving forward.
    As you noted in your report, there were many significant changes to 
the program complaint process as it relates to OASCR from FY October 1, 
2016-June 30, 2019, and although you identified some issues, OASCR has 
taken action to rectify many issues identified.
    Again, we thank OIG for your attention to the matter of OASCR's 
program complaint process. These recommendations, in part, underscore 
the work underway at USDA to enhance, modernize, and provide meaningful 
assistance to OASCR and USDA as a whole.
    If you have any questions or need additional information, please 
contact my office at (202) 720-3808.
Attachment(s)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Response To Audit 
        Number: 60601-0001-21 Executive Summary
What OIG Found
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) is responsible for making final 
determinations on complaints of discrimination filed by any persons who 
believe they have been subjected to prohibited discrimination in a USDA 
program.
    We concluded that, overall, OASCR needs to develop a stronger 
internal control environment over its civil rights program complaints 
processing to ensure that complaints are timely and appropriately 
handled, and that OASCR achieves established goals and objectives. 
First, OASCR did not timely process civil rights program complaints. 
Specifically, in Fiscal Year 2019, OASCR averaged 799 days to process 
program complaints compared to the 180-day standard. Furthermore, two 
other agencies that OASCR coordinated with to resolve complaints took 
more than 220 days and more than 600 days respectively to process 
complaints.
    [Redacted] . . . We also determined that 9 of 28 complaint 
determinations and closures were not adequately supported and 
processed.
    Additionally, OASCR missed an opportunity to track and measure 
USDA's progress in achieving the Department's civil rights goals and 
objectives. Finally, these issues could have been identified and better 
rectified had OASCR used its strategic plan to measure or assess its 
progress toward established goals and objectives relating to program 
complaints.
OASCR'S Response
    OASCR has historically responded favorably to most OIG audits as a 
way to improve the organization's efficiency and effectiveness in 
meeting its mission goals and objectives. The responses below provide 
OIG with progress made by OASCR during the time in question while 
identifying challenges in meeting specific internal control objectives.
Finding 1: ASCR Needs to Timely Process Civil Rights Program Complaints
    OASCR did not timely process civil rights program complaints. In 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, OASCR processed program complaints within 799 
days on average--significantly in excess of its 180-day goal stated 
within Departmental guidance. Furthermore, OASCR's processing time of 
799 days greatly exceeded even its more liberal 540-day goal stated in 
its internal pilot policy. This occurred because the Departmental 
guidance is inconsistent and outdated--and does not accurately reflect 
best practices or OASCR staffing limitations. OASCR officials noted 
that limited staffing has caused delays in processing program 
complaints. When faced with lengthy timeframes to process their 
complaints, individuals who have a legitimate claim of discrimination 
and would otherwise be eligible for USDA programs may not continue to 
pursue their complaint or not file a complaint at all. This, in turn, 
diminishes public confidence that the Department can appropriately and 
expeditiously resolve complaints.
    Federal regulation states that agencies shall establish and publish 
guidelines and procedures for the prompt processing and disposition of 
complaints. Accordingly, two Departmental directives--issued in 1999 
and 2000--established 180-day timeframes for processing program 
complaints. In September 2013, OASCR expanded this timeframe to 540 
days on a pilot basis through an internal policy memorandum that was 
never made public. OASCR still operates under the 2013 pilot timeframes 
and has not updated the two Departmental directives that officially 
outline the timeframes for processing program complaints.
    We concluded that OASCR does not timely resolve program complaints 
in compliance with Federal and Departmental guidance. From October 1, 
2016, through June 30, 2019, USDA processed 911 program complaints. Of 
the 911 complaints, we non-statistically sampled 28 and determined that 
24 program complaints (more than 85 percent), took longer than 180 days 
to process--the timeframe established in the Departmental directives. 
Furthermore, 19 of the 28 program complaints (more than 67 percent) 
took longer than the 540 days outlined in OASCR's 2013 internal policy 
memorandum. The 28 program complaints in our sample had an average 
processing time of over 630 days, and in FY 2019, OASCR processed 
program complaints within 799 days on average.
    Of the 24 program complaints that took longer than 180 days to 
process, ten had considerable periods when progress halted between 
steps in the process. This occurred because OASCR officials had not 
assigned the complaints to an investigator or adjudicator, or the 
individual assigned was not yet ready to work on the complaint due to a 
backlog of complaints. This led to further delays. For example, of the 
830 days it took OASCR to process one complaint, more than 330 days 
elapsed between PCD receiving the agency position statement and the 
next step in the process--completing the investigative plan. Once PCD 
completed the investigation and forwarded it to PAD, the complaint sat 
idle for more than 180 days before an adjudicator was assigned to the 
complaint. We identified multiple, similar instances with complaints 
that ranged from 645 to 1,024 days to process. Furthermore, as Figure 1 
below demonstrates, OASCR's average processing time for program 
complaints increased between FY 2017 and FY 2019.
    This occurred because guidance concerning timeframes for resolving 
program complaints is inconsistent and does not reflect best practices 
for prompt complaint resolution. First, Departmental and agency 
guidance provided different timeframes for processing program 
complaints. For example, the Departmental manual states that a FAD will 
be issued within 180 days of OASCR's receipt of the program complaint. 
However, the Departmental regulation states that a program complaint 
investigation, which occurs prior to the issuance of an FAD, will be 
finalized within 180 days following complaint acceptance. Furthermore, 
the 2013 internal policy memorandum states that a program complaint 
should be processed within 540 days from OASCR's receipt of the program 
complaint. To illustrate the inconsistencies even more, a 2014 MOU 
between OASCR and FNS requires that FNS process all accepted program 
complaints within 180 days. (See Finding 2.) In our view, inconsistent 
and conflicting timeframes lead to unclear expectations for personnel 
processing program complaints and for complainants filing them.
    OASCR officials explained that they were operating exclusively 
under the 540-day timeframe established in the 2013 policy memorandum--
not the 180-day timeframe set forth in the Departmental manual. 
However, we question whether the 540-day timeframe serves as a suitable 
best practice for the Department. OASCR officials could not provide 
support for how they determined 540 days to be an adequate timeframe. 
Federal regulations require agencies to establish and make public in 
their guideline's procedures for the ``prompt [emphasis added] 
processing and disposition of civil rights program complaints.'' During 
the course of our audit, OASCR officials agreed that 540 days is a 
lengthy time to process program complaints. OASCR should consider 
assessing its program complaint process, benchmarking with similar 
departments, documenting its assessment, and sharing its decision with 
the public of what may be a reasonable complaint processing time for 
USDA.
    We also consider the 2013 pilot guidance temporary and not a long-
term replacement for permanent Departmental guidance because OASCR did 
not update and make available to the public its directive outlining 
timeframes for processing program complaints. The Departmental 
directives establishing civil rights complaint processing timeframes 
are in effect until canceled. Because there was no evidence that OASCR 
officials canceled the directives, OASCR would be expected to follow 
them. Additionally, because the directives are publicly available on 
USDA's website, the public may reasonably expect that USDA officials 
are following the 180-day timeframes when processing program 
complaints. OASCR's decision to operate differently than established 
timeframes outlined in guidance would further diminish public 
confidence that USDA is carrying out its responsibility to process 
complaints in a timely manner. Processing times of such a lengthy 
nature could discourage complainants from following up on their 
complaint, or simply not file a complaint at all. Any delay in 
resolving complaints could potentially lead to the exclusion of 
otherwise eligible individuals from rightfully benefitting from USDA 
programs.
    Because these directives are 20 years old, they should be assessed 
to determine if revisions and updates are needed. OASCR officials 
acknowledged that the outdated directives are still enforceable, and 
added that they are in the process of updating them. This is a 
necessary step, and we encourage OASCR officials to strategically 
assess how best to meet requirements for prompt complaint resolution. 
OASCR officials previously committed to performing such an assessment, 
but did not conduct it. Specifically, the 2013 policy memorandum states 
that an analysis would be conducted to determine the success rate of 
the new timeframes and whether to keep them or adjust them based on the 
results. However, OASCR officials stated they were unaware of any 
analysis or report on the results of the pilot guidance. Such an 
assessment becomes even more crucial considering OASCR's current 
difficulties with staffing levels.
    OASCR officials stated that insufficient staffing was the primary 
cause of the prolonged complaint processing. Specifically, delays in 
assigning program complaints to personnel were a direct result of low 
staffing levels combined with backlogged inventory.
    We similarly concluded that OASCR needs to take steps to assess its 
staffing levels in order to appropriately and timely resolve program 
complaints. OASCR's FY 2016-2020 Strategic Plan includes a goal to 
``strengthen resource management'' by annually establishing core 
requirements for staffing and funding of all organizational functions 
and annually obtaining adequate resources to address program complaints 
immediately upon receipt. However, OASCR had not adequately addressed 
this goal within its strategic plan. (See Finding 6.) When we asked 
OASCR officials if they had completed an assessment that looked at 
staffing levels, they provided a June 2020 approved staffing list of 
full-time employees that would be added to each division. According to 
this document, OASCR would add one full-time employee to PCD and one to 
PAD. Based on previous staff reductions and the current complaint 
processing time, this minimal increase in staffing levels does not 
appear to address the actual needs of these divisions. Additionally, 
because the document did not offer any justification as to why only two 
employees would be added, we do not consider this list an adequate 
assessment.
    We acknowledge the challenges of processing program complaints in a 
timely manner with limited staffing resources. As such, we recommend 
that OASCR implement a strategy to routinely evaluate and address its 
staffing and funding resources to improve the timeliness of processing 
complaints. This evaluation should not be limited to staff and funding, 
but can include alternative ways to improve timeliness, such as 
updating the information technology (IT) system. Given its current 
staffing levels, we also recommend that OASCR strategically assess and 
determine its timeframe to better fit best practices and staffing 
levels. Specifically, to ensure program complaints are processed in a 
prompt and timely manner, OASCR needs to evaluate, develop, and 
implement complaint processing timeframes and establish a success rate. 
In our view, the new timeframe should be comparable to guidance and 
goals of similar Federal agencies responsible for processing civil 
rights program complaints. These steps would set a standard by which 
OASCR could operate its program complaint processing in a more 
efficient manner. However, until new timeframes have been developed and 
implemented, OASCR should adhere to the 180-day timeframe established 
within the Departmental guidance.
OIG Recommendation 1
    Evaluate the timeframe to process program complaints and, based on 
this analysis, develop and implement timeframes and a success rate to 
ensure program complaints are processed in a prompt and timely manner.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 1
    In FY 20, OASCR designed and implemented a pilot program to expand 
effectiveness of policies that ensure compliance with, and enforcement 
of, USDA's prohibition against discrimination in its conducted programs 
or activities of recipients of Federal financial assistance from USDA. 
Under the pilot, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process moved 
from post acceptance to pre-acceptance of a complaint. Additionally, 
agencies have 30 days to attempt resolution by counseling the 
complaint.
    Previously, ADR was offered after complaint acceptance and 
contributed significantly to increased timeframes for complaint 
processing by 205 days between FY 2019 and FY 2020. The chart below 
highlights the reduction in average processing time based on this 
process improvement. OASCR will finalize and fully implement this 
process at the beginning of FY 22.
    Additionally, OASCR will reevaluate the timeframes to process 
program complaints by the end of calendar year 2021. As suggested in 
the audit findings, OASCR will evaluate the timeframes based on 
historical average processing times and current staffing levels. OASCR 
will also query other Federal agencies regarding complaint processing 
times, best practices, and quantitative metrics for measuring success. 
Though USDA is a large Federal agency with significantly different and 
wider ranging programs than other Federal agencies, OASCR has 
determined such efforts are appropriate. It is noteworthy that OASCR 
has significantly reduced the inventory of discrimination complaints 
from FY 2016-FY 2020.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      # of complaints
       Fiscal Year            USDA APT (days)     pending OASCR decision
                                                             *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             2016                       654                     476
             2017                       571                     366
             2018                       594                     333
             2019                       799                     309
             2020                       545                     238
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note: there is no corresponding table note to the ``*''
  annotation.

OIG Recommendation 2
    Based on the analysis performed in Recommendation 1, update 
Departmental guidance outlining timeframes for processing program 
complaints. Once updated, publish the Departmental guidance on OASCR's 
public website.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 2
    In June of FY 21, OASCR will conduct a 6-month review and update of 
Departmental Manual 4330-001 to ensure consistent and adequate language 
is provided within all Departmental Directives. As OASCR informed OIG 
during the Exit Conference, Departmental Regulation 4330-002 and 4330-
003 have been updated and are going through Departmental clearance, 
which is outside of the purview of OASCR. OASCR is anticipating 
clearance of the updated guidance by the end of this fiscal year.
    The latest known iterations of the updates of DR-4330-002 and DR-
4330-003 (circulated on February 4, 2021) do not include timeframes for 
complaint processing. The prior language in DR-4330-002 providing a 
180-day timeframe for a civil rights investigation to be conducted was 
removed from the updated regulation.
OIG Recommendation 3
    Develop and implement a strategy to routinely evaluate and address 
OASCR's staffing and funding resources to ensure that program 
complaints are processed in a timely manner.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 3
    The OASCR Program Directorate routinely evaluates staffing needs to 
ensure timely processing of program complaints. Each budget formulation 
cycle, OASCR management provides proposed justifications for increases 
in staffing and funding based upon a need for improved efficiency, 
change in demand, policy direction changes, improved customer service 
and reduced risks. OASCR has a limited discretional budget from which 
to add additional resources. OASCR is optimistic Congress will 
favorably approve a request to increase the office's appropriated 
funding for FY 2022.
OIG Recommendation 4
    Adhere to the 180-day timeframe established within the Departmental 
guidance until new timeframes have been developed and implemented.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 4
    Without a significant increase in staffing, OASCR will not maintain 
a 180-day timeframe for all phases of program complaint processing to 
include Intake, Investigation, and Adjudication. OASCR acknowledges the 
inconsistent language regarding timeframes between the Departmental 
Manual (stating that a Final Agency Decision will be issued within 180 
days of OASCR's receipt of the program complaint) and the Departmental 
Regulation (stating that a program complaint investigation, which 
occurs prior to the issuance of a Final Agency Decision, will be 
finalized within 180 days following complaint acceptance).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pg. 15 of DR-4330-002, (f)(4) Investigations, establishes 180 
days for CR to conduct an investigation. It does not provide a 
timeframe for Adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Audit 09-62 
made a recommendation for OASCR to prepare and implement an improvement 
plan for resolving discrimination complaints that sets time frame goals 
and provides management controls for resolving complaints from 
beginning to end based on this inconsistency.
    In the processing of EEO complaints there are finite types of 
personnel issues that are adjudicated. The Program Adjudication 
Division is expected to synthesize, analyze, and adjudicate complaints 
in all of the approximately 300 programs offered by the USDA to the 
public. These programs range from nutrition, farm subsidies, rural 
housing and utilities, forest management, and conservation practices, 
to name a few. Considering the alleged weaknesses identified in Finding 
4, drastically reducing the timeframe from 135 days to 60 days would 
likely cause a decrease in the qualitative analysis of Final Agency 
Decisions.
    Currently, each Adjudicator receives 30 days to produce a written 
work product in each complaint. The draft is peer reviewed, reviewed by 
the Team Lead, and reviewed and signed by the Division Director. 
Additionally, all findings of discrimination are reviewed and signed by 
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
    For employment complaint processing, USDA/OASCR staff only conducts 
legal sufficiency reviews of ROIs, resulting from investigations 
completed by contractors. Furthermore, Federal employees are compelled 
to respond timely to inquiries/affidavits. Unlike employment staff, 
USDA Program Investigators are required to conduct inquiries and obtain 
affidavits from external stakeholders, who are not compelled by EEO 
timelines. Additionally, USDA investigators are responsible for 
completing an investigation, drafting the ROIs, as well as review of 
ROIs to meet legal sufficiency standards. Program investigations often 
requires a more extensive implementation in review of practices, 
policies, and regulations involving multifaceted USDA programs 
available to the public.
Finding 2: OASCR Needs to Strengthen Oversight of Civil Rights 
        Complaint Processing by FNS and Rural Development
    Based on established agreements, FNS and HUD process certain civil 
rights program complaints. However, similar to Finding 1, these 
agencies did not timely resolve program complaints. Specifically, 
between October 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019, FNS took an average of more 
than 220 days and HUD took an average of more than 600 days to process 
complaints referred to them by OASCR--including two cases that were not 
resolved until after 1,700 days. This occurred because OASCR did not 
implement or update effective processes to monitor and track the 
referred complaints. Without adequate oversight, OASCR cannot ensure 
that agencies promptly or appropriately resolve complaints in 
compliance with relevant directives and guidance. When complaints are 
not resolved timely, complainants potentially miss opportunities to 
participate in or receive program benefits, which in turn can diminish 
the public's confidence in USDA programs.
    USDA entered into agreements to coordinate program complaint 
processing activities with FNS and HUD for select areas of purview. 
According to the agreement with FNS, OASCR refers any program 
complaints relating to FNS programs to FNS officials to evaluate and 
process the complaints within 180 days. Similarly, USDA's agreement 
with HUD states that USDA will refer any complaints relating to 
potential FHA violations to HUD, with Rural Development serving as an 
intermediary between OASCR and HUD. However, USDA's agreement with HUD 
did not include any complaint processing timeframes. This coordination 
allows subject matter experts to process complaints pertaining to their 
respective areas. From the beginning of FY 2017 to June 30, 2019, USDA 
closed a total of 911 program complaints. FNS processed, investigated, 
and closed 332 of the 911 program complaints. Additionally, OASCR 
referred 208 of the 911 program complaints to HUD for processing during 
this time. Therefore, more than 59 percent of all civil rights program 
complaints closed during this time were processed under the agreements 
with FNS and HUD.
    Although OASCR coordinates complaint processing with FNS and HUD, 
OASCR retains responsibility, oversight, and final authority for these 
complaints. Therefore, as part of these agreements, OASCR is required 
to conduct audits, reviews, and evaluations of FNS. The agreements also 
state that OASCR must have annual meetings with HUD, maintain a 
cumulative list of FHA-related allegations, and monitor the status of 
these complaints. These oversight activities help ensure that all 
complaints are handled and resolved in accordance with statutory, 
regulatory, and policy requirements.
    During our audit period, we determined that FNS and HUD did not 
timely resolve complaints. OASCR's agreement states that FNS must 
process, investigate, and resolve referred program complaints within 
180 days. However, according to PCMS, FNS processed and resolved its 
complaints, on average, within 222 days--one complaint took 1,777 days 
to resolve.
    Unlike its agreement with FNS, USDA's agreement with HUD does not 
include any timeframes for resolving program complaints. However, we 
still identified complaints that were not resolved timely. According to 
PCMS, these complaints were resolved on average within 604 days--and 
one complaint was not resolved for 1,722 days.
    In our view, FNS' processing times could improve with OASCR 
oversight. OASCR is responsible for ensuring that all program 
complaints are resolved in accordance with requirements--including 
promptness. However, OASCR stopped conducting audits, reviews, and 
evaluations of FNS in October 2017--the same year that OASCR also 
discontinued assessments of agency heads and compliance reviews for all 
USDA agencies. (See Finding 6.) According to an OASCR official, rather 
than implement a formal oversight mechanism, OASCR informally met with 
the FNS civil rights director in conjunction with OASCR's monthly 
meetings that are attended by all other Departmental civil rights 
directors. However, the OASCR official was not able to provide evidence 
of discussions specifically related to oversight of FNS.
    USDA's ability to accurately and timely resolve complaints 
involving housing-related programs and activities is dependent on Rural 
Development's processes. OASCR does not communicate directly with HUD. 
Rather, Rural Development's Civil Rights Office acts as an intermediary 
between OASCR and HUD. OASCR officials acknowledged that processing 
times for these complaints were untimely due to its lack of oversight 
of Rural Development. To improve processing and complaint resolution, 
OASCR officials told us they implemented quarterly meetings in 2017 
with Rural Development and obtained quarterly status reports of the 
civil rights complaints USDA had referred to HUD. While we agree that 
this line of communication and these reports are important oversight 
tools, it is still insufficient on its own; as Figure 2 indicates, we 
did not see considerable improvement in processing times for complaints 
referred to HUD through Rural Development after OASCR officials 
implemented the quarterly status updates. We understand that some 
complaints are more complex and may take longer to resolve--
particularly with an inter-departmental arrangement. Based on OASCR's 
results of the analysis recommended in Finding 1, OASCR should update 
the complaint processing timeframes in the agreements with FNS and HUD 
to accommodate challenges in timely resolving complaints.
    Additionally, the agreement with HUD should specify OASCR's 
responsibilities to oversee Rural Development's role in processing 
complaints. In the event of any revised timeframe, OASCR should resume 
its oversight role as established in the agreement by reviewing FNS' 
and HUD's complaint processing through audits, reviews, or evaluations. 
OASCR's oversight of complaint resolution is critical to ensuring that 
complaints are resolved in accordance with Departmental and Federal 
requirements. Additionally, with regular oversight, OASCR should be 
able to identify developing issues better--such as untimely 
resolution--and work with FNS, HUD, and Rural Development to take 
corrective action.
    FNS and HUD processed more than 59 percent of all USDA civil rights 
complaints (540 of 911) during the period of our audit. In light of 
this high volume, there is a strong need for OASCR to oversee FNS', 
HUD's, and Rural Development's civil rights processing activities in a 
more formal manner. Ultimately, OASCR is responsible for ensuring 
equitable and fair treatment in USDA programs. When complaints are not 
resolved timely, complainants potentially miss opportunities to 
participate in or receive program benefits, which in turn can diminish 
the public's confidence in USDA programs and the Department's 
commitment to resolve complaints in a timely manner. By establishing 
timeframes in the agreements and implementing effective controls over 
FNS', Rural Development's, and HUD's complaint processing 
responsibilities, OASCR can help ensure complaints are handled 
appropriately and timely.
OIG Recommendation 5
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with FNS with 
timeframes for processing complaints based on OASCR's analysis (see 
Recommendation 1) to ensure program complaints are processed in a 
timely manner.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 5
    OASCR updated and executed the Memorandum of Understanding with FNS 
on June 2, 2021 (See attached FNS MOU--OIG Exhibit 1).
OIG Recommendation 6
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with HUD with 
timeframes for processing complaints based on OASCR's analysis (see 
Recommendation 1) to ensure program complaints are processed in a 
timely manner.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 6
    The current MOU with HUD (attached OIG Exhibit 2) was executed on 
July 11, 1998. USDA and OASCR have undergone significant organizational 
changes since that time which necessitate revisiting the HUD MOU. OASCR 
will implement a process to exact timely completed housing complaints 
referred to HUD and update the MOU accordingly.
OIG Recommendation 7
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with FNS to 
implement effective controls over FNS, such as conducting audits or 
compliance reviews, on a recurring basis to evaluate FNS' complaint 
process and improve the timeliness of complaints referred to FNS.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 7
    See attached FNS MOU[.]
OIG Recommendation 8
    Revise and update the Memorandum of Understanding with HUD to 
implement effective controls over Rural Development, such as conducting 
audits or compliance reviews of Rural Development, on a recurring basis 
to evaluate Rural Development's complaint process and improve the 
timeliness of complaints referred to Rural Development.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 8
    During the timeframe reviewed by OIG, OASCR's Program Complaints 
Division (PCD) monitored HUD referred complaints with limited 
accountability in communications with Rural Development (RD). In FY 
2019, PCD shifted priorities and established a quarterly review with RD 
of all complaints maintained with HUD. PCD provides an excel report of 
HUD referred complaints from PCMS to the RD Civil Rights Director who 
in turn updates the status of HUD complaints.
    OASCR's beginning FY 2020 HUD referral inventory (PCMS Fact-
Finding) was 94 complaints (Average Age 388 days). Over the last year 
this inventory has been reduced by \1/3\ (60). The average age of these 
complaints is 297 days (<1yr) and continues to decrease each month. 
OASCR will continue to monitor and prioritize communication with RD for 
accountability purposes. While PCD has not been tasked with monitoring 
the status of HUD complaints it will ensure these matters are handled 
timely and in accordance with the MOU requirements. In addition, OASCR 
will collaborate with the Rural Development Civil Rights Director to 
amend the existing MOU to be compliant with processing and data entry 
requirements for housing complaints.
Finding 3: [Redacted]
    [Redacted].*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the redactions encompass pages 10-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding 4: OASCR Needs to Strengthen Its Procedures to Ensure Complaint 
        Determinations and Closures Are Adequately Supported and 
        Processed
    OASCR did not ensure that complaint determinations and closures 
were adequately supported and processed for 9 of the 28 complaints of 
discrimination we reviewed in our sample.50-51 ** This 
occurred because, although OASCR performs second-level reviews at 
several stages in the complaints process, Departmental guidance did not 
include adequate procedures to document the results of these reviews. 
Therefore, OASCR officials cannot demonstrate that they have provided 
effective oversight to ensure that complaint determinations and 
closures are appropriate, which can erode public trust in USDA's 
complaint resolution process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** Editor's note: the OASCR submitted document contained OIG's 
original footnote references, it has been reproduced herein as 
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OASCR is responsible for investigating, making determinations for 
all discrimination complaints, and notifying the complainant of their 
final determination.\52\ ** OASCR's PCD receives complaints from 
persons alleging discrimination in USDA programs, and, based on Federal 
civil rights laws and regulations, PCD will determine whether to:

  1.  administratively close the complaint,

  2.  refer the matter to the respective agency for review and 
            processing as a programmatic referral, or

  3.  investigate the issues raised in the allegation of 
            discrimination.

    When a complaint is accepted, an investigation will result in 
either an ROI or recommendation for closure. For matters that are 
investigated, investigators gather facts and evidence--which are 
compiled into the case file--and summarize the results of the 
investigation in an ROI. Once the Investigations Division Chief reviews 
and approves the ROI for completeness, the ROI is forwarded to the 
Adjudication personnel to develop its FAD as to whether discrimination 
occurred based on the merits of the allegations. (See the Background 
section of this report for a more detailed explanation of OASCR's 
discrimination complaint processing.) For each allegation, Adjudication 
personnel must weigh the information contained in the ROI and develop a 
FAD of whether discrimination occurred based solely on the record of 
evidence and facts presented in the ROI. Therefore, the ROI must 
support the FAD's analysis and conclusions.
    However, our analysis disclosed that actions pertaining to 9 of the 
28 complaints of discrimination in our sample were not adequately 
supported or processed. For these nine complaints, we identified issues 
with five FADs and four administrative closures.
Final Agency Decisions
    We concluded that OASCR did not adequately support or process five 
of the ten FADs in our sample in accordance with Departmental guidance. 
For example, for two of the five FADs, we determined the analysis OASCR 
personnel performed to support its determinations was incorrect, 
specifically documentation did not support the conclusion noted in the 
FAD. In each of the two instances we identified, OASCR performed 
multiple second-level reviews of the FAD. However, the reviews did not 
identify the erroneous analysis performed. When we discussed these 
errors with OASCR officials, they acknowledged the errors in the 
analysis. However, OASCR concluded that there was sufficient evidence 
to support the overall determinations, when considered in totality. We 
acknowledge that OASCR based its determinations on the totality of 
evidence and make no assessment to the correctness of OASCR's 
determinations. However, OASCR must also ensure that the analyses that 
justify determinations are accurately presented and supported by the 
ROI, as required.
    Second, OASCR inadequately processed three of the five FADs. For 
example, in some instances, we discovered that OASCR allowed the 
introduction of new issues at the adjudication stage that were not 
cleared as part of OASCR's investigation. We acknowledge that internal 
procedures allow the Adjudication staff to return a case file for 
supplemental investigative work on a case-by-case basis. However, to 
ensure the integrity of its determinations are not questioned, it is 
important that OASCR adequately process its complaints and collect 
sufficient evidence to support agency determinations. As such, when a 
new issue is introduced, OSCAR should return the complaint to the 
Investigations Division to investigate the complaint and obtain 
sufficient facts and evidence.
    By allowing Investigations staff the opportunity to ensure 
sufficient evidence has been collected to support both the complainant 
and the agency, OASCR can ensure its processes maintain the appearance 
and actuality of neutrality, independence, and objectivity.
Administrative Closures
    We also determined that 4 of 18 administrative closures were not 
adequately supported or processed. Specifically, we noted that key 
documentation included in the case file was incorrect or missing. These 
discrepancies were missed, even though they should have been identified 
during the second-level review of the case file. OASCR acknowledged 
that personnel used the wrong letter template when notifying the 
complainant and that the error should have been identified during the 
second-level review of the recommendation for closure. However, in this 
second-level review, PAD is only required to review the recommendation 
for closure to evaluate if PAD agreed with the decision to close the 
complaint. OASCR officials agreed that the statements used to support 
its determinations needed to be adequately supported by the evidence in 
the case file so that their decisions are not challenged or questioned.
    These issues occurred due to the lack of consistency and depth of 
the second-level reviews being performed. OASCR has procedures to 
conduct second-level reviews at each stage of the complaint process to 
ensure complaints are adequately supported and processed. OASCR 
instituted these reviews based on recommendations from previous OIG 
reports. However, it was unclear: (1) whether OASCR consistently 
implemented these reviews, (2) how OASCR documented the reviews, or (3) 
how effective the reviews have been. To address these shortcomings, 
OASCR needs to evaluate its current review process and procedures 
performed within the case files to: (1) identify and address why 
reviews are not discovering the discrepancies noted within this 
finding, and (2) ensure OASCR properly processes case files.
    A prior GAO audit recommended that OASCR obtain an expert, 
independent, and objective legal examination of the basis, quality, and 
adequacy of a sample of USDA's prior investigations and decisions on 
civil rights complaints, along with suggestions for improvement. In 
response, USDA created a task force in 2009 that reviewed a large 
number of previous case files; this task force identified that further 
processing was warranted for about 3,800 complaints. While the task 
force's large-scale quality control review evaluated cases at that 
time, OASCR should incorporate ongoing, periodic quality control 
reviews of a sample of case files.
    We recommend that OASCR evaluate the procedures for documenting 
reviews performed at each stage of the complaint process to ensure 
facts and events are presented accurately and appropriately. 
Considering USDA's long history of discrimination complaints, it is 
critical that OASCR adequately support its determinations. When OASCR 
administratively closes a case file without proper documentation to 
support the action taken, complainants may not receive the appropriate 
consideration from the Department on their complaint of discrimination. 
By improving OASCR's review process to ensure documentation 
appropriately justifies the actions taken, OASCR can better build up 
public trust and ensure that complainants are given fair consideration 
in the resolution of their complaints.
OIG Recommendation 14
    Evaluate procedures for documenting reviews performed at each stage 
of the complaint process to ensure facts and events are presented 
accurately and appropriately.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 14
    Unlike other Federal agencies, USDA provides approximately 300 
programs to the public ranging from nutrition, farm subsidies, rural 
housing and utilities, forest management, conservation practices, etc. 
It is OASCR's responsibility to ensure these programs are not 
administered discriminately and are accessible to all--not to supplant 
or supersede calculations and/or technical determinations made by 
Agency subject matter experts. Currently, division specific checklists 
are utilized throughout the Program Directorate (see attached PAD 
Checklist). However, these checklists are utilized on an individualized 
case by case basis for each specialist prior to producing a work 
product. The proposed checklist would identify what should be included 
in each acceptance letter, ROI, and FAD for an end user to audit 
annually. The checklists are currently in place for manual 
implementation of data integrity verification. This process will also 
be automated within CRMS to support accuracy and consistency.
OIG Recommendation 15
    Revise internal procedures to require that case files are returned 
to Investigations to document the review of the ROI by PCD for 
sufficient facts and evidence collected by Investigations when a new 
issue is introduced after the investigation is completed and the ROI 
has been approved.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 15
    At present, OASCR has determined if additional issues are 
identified during the course of the investigation, the Program 
Complaints Division will issue an amended acceptance letter. In 
accordance with Departmental Manual 4330-001, the Program Adjudication 
Division will make determinations with respect to each allegation 
identified in the Report of Investigation. If the Program Adjudication 
Division determines the ROI contains sufficient facts/evidence to 
introduce a new issue, the Program Adjudication Division will seek 
concurrence from the Program Complaints Division Director. If there are 
insufficient facts/evidence to address the new issue, the Program 
Adjudication Division will return the complaint to the Program 
Complaints Division for a supplemental investigation.
OIG Recommendation 16
    Establish and maintain a system of quality control that is designed 
to periodically review a sample of case files to ensure evidence to 
support OASCR's determinations and closures is adequate, accurate, and 
documented.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 16
    OASCR accepts this recommendation. A second level review of data is 
currently conducted by each division. To further ensure the complaints 
are being processed as efficiently as possible, a comprehensive ``end-
of-case'' checklist will be developed, and a random sampling of cases 
will occur on an annual basis, starting in the 4th quarter of this 
fiscal year. OASCR will incorporate an in-depth quality control system 
into its process pending additional staffing resources allocated to the 
Program Directorate. OASCR management provided proposed justifications 
for increases in staffing and funding based upon a need for improved 
efficiency, change in demand, policy direction changes, improved 
customer service and reduced risks in the FY 2023 budget cycle.
    OASCR prefers keeping the review process within the organization as 
to limit ceding any delegated authority. However, the independent 
review process could be delegated to the new Equity Commission to be 
done quarterly.
Finding 5: OASCR Needs to Strengthen its Oversight Efforts of USDA 
        Agencies
    OASCR missed an opportunity to track and measure USDA's civil 
rights progress. There are two oversight tools to help assess agencies' 
compliance with civil rights requirements: agency head assessments and 
compliance reports. These require input from both agencies and OASCR. 
However, these reviews were not being completed. This occurred because 
OASCR directed USDA agencies to stop completing required reports and 
stopped reviewing agency compliance reports due to limited resources, 
but did not implement alternative controls. These civil rights reports 
are intended to provide OASCR with vital data concerning whether 
agencies are fairly and equally administering USDA programs. Without 
them, OASCR cannot effectively fulfill its oversight role, or identify 
and correct areas of concern in how USDA agencies handle civil rights 
issues.
    Federal regulations require that OASCR oversee USDA agencies' 
efforts to conduct USDA programs fairly and equally by monitoring two 
reports--agency head assessments and agency compliance reports. OASCR 
is required to review agencies' annual civil rights performance plan 
and accomplishment reports and rate their accomplishments through an 
agency head assessment. In addition, OASCR is required to review 
agencies' compliance reviews and issue compliance reports that monitor 
agency compliance efforts. These assessments, when implemented 
properly, are designed to help OASCR determine if agencies are adhering 
to the Department's civil rights regulations and policies.
    Despite these requirements, OASCR did not fulfill its oversight 
responsibilities to ensure that agencies were fairly and equally 
administering USDA programs.
Agency Head Assessment
    Agencies are required annually to review their civil rights 
activities and accomplishments by assessing objectives such as 
accountability, diversity, and non-discriminatory program delivery, and 
submitting a civil rights performance plan and accomplishment report to 
OASCR. The report establishes civil rights goals, objectives, and 
measurable outcomes which agencies use to assess their activities. 
OASCR is then required to review agencies' reports and assessments 
before providing agencies with a civil rights accomplishment rating. 
Both agencies' and OASCR's reviews constitute the agency head 
assessment.
    Agencies' civil rights performance plan and accomplishment reports 
are divided into goals, performance objectives, and related 
indicators--or actions that agencies should take to measure progress 
towards each objective and address USDA's regulations, policies, and 
strategic goals. This report provides agencies with measurable 
milestones that can help them accomplish their goals--such as timely 
resolution. See below for an example of a goal, performance objective, 
and related indicator.
Compliance Reports
    Like agency head assessments, compliance reports need to occur at 
both the agency and Departmental level. Unlike the agency head 
assessments, which evaluate the agency's overall compliance with civil 
rights requirements, compliance reports focus on targeted, potential 
areas of concern at the local office level. First, according to 
Departmental regulations, agencies must conduct compliance reviews to 
ensure that they are managing and administering programs and activities 
without discrimination. Second, Federal regulation states that OASCR 
must: (1) oversee the compliance reviews and evaluations, and issue 
compliance reports that monitor compliance efforts, and (2) monitor all 
findings of non-compliance to ensure they are corrected. Similarly, 
OASCR must conduct its own compliance reviews of agencies and their 
programs and activities, and monitor compliance review activity within 
agencies.
    We identified deficiencies during the period of our review at both 
the agency and OASCR level. First, we determined that agencies did not 
always take the necessary action to submit reviews; and second, OASCR 
did not track whether agencies were conducting compliance reviews. For 
example, agencies did not submit proposed compliance review schedules--
a preliminary step in the compliance report process--the majority of 
the time. However, even when agencies did submit schedules, OASCR did 
not follow up with agencies to determine if the agencies had conducted 
the scheduled reviews. In addition, OASCR has not conducted its own 
compliance reviews or issued any compliance reports since 2017. 
Although OASCR officials stated that they would develop standard 
operating procedures and begin conducting compliance reviews in CY 
2020, as of February 2021, OASCR had not conducted any compliance 
reviews.
    This occurred because, in October 2017, in an effort to reduce 
redundancies and inefficiencies, OASCR directed agencies to stop 
conducting agency head assessments. OASCR also ended its review of 
agency compliance reports. According to an FNS official, completing the 
agency head assessment was ``extremely resource-intensive,'' and OASCR 
wanted to allow agencies to focus their efforts on achieving civil 
rights compliance rather than reporting on it. OASCR officials also 
stated that the compliance reviews required considerable resources and 
time but agreed that, in some capacity, OASCR needs to conduct 
compliance reviews. OASCR officials stated that because OASCR already 
reviewed existing reports such as the MD-715, Form 462, and No FEAR 
reports, it was assessing the agencies' compliance and performance. 
However, because these existing reports only assess agencies' internal 
employment civil rights activities performance, they are not a 
replacement for assessing agencies' program civil rights practices with 
external stakeholders.
    While we acknowledge time and resource constraints, OASCR needs to 
identify alternative methods and implement these critical oversight 
controls over USDA agencies. Ultimately, OASCR is responsible for 
overseeing USDA agencies' efforts to conduct USDA programs fairly and 
equally. Agency-submitted assessments and reports contain valuable 
performance information that OASCR could have used to ensure agencies 
are achieving program goals and objectives set by the Department's 
civil rights regulations and policies. If OASCR does not require 
agencies to assess and report on their civil rights compliance, the 
responsibility for gathering oversight information falls upon OASCR. 
However, if OASCR were to require agencies to submit civil rights 
reports and assessments, OASCR could develop a methodology to regularly 
review agencies based on program complaints, settlements or findings of 
discrimination, and other risk factors identified in agency 
assessments. OASCR officials agreed that it was necessary to implement 
an effective method to assess agencies' compliance with program civil 
rights activities.
    Ultimately, by effectively implementing oversight controls, such as 
agency head assessments and compliance reviews, OASCR can move from a 
reactive to a proactive position in addressing potential civil rights 
violations. For example, OASCR's compliance division currently is 
required to follow up on corrective actions after individual complaints 
are resolved. By assessing agencies' civil rights activities 
performance, in addition to individual allegations presented in 
complaints, OASCR could further evaluate and monitor other civil rights 
processing activities to see if this was a widespread or repeated 
occurrence and potentially prevent future non-compliances. Furthermore, 
with information collected from agency head assessments and compliance 
reviews, OASCR can provide the Department with valuable information to 
help USDA take steps towards improving civil rights activities, when 
necessary.
OIG Recommendation 17
    Require agencies to assess their program effectiveness and 
compliance with the Department's civil rights regulations and policies 
and, furthermore, oversee these agency assessments.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 17
    From 2005 to 2017, OASCR conducted annual assessments of agency 
civil rights performance to determine the effectiveness and adherence 
to the Department's civil rights policies and regulations by each USDA 
agency in accordance with 7 CFR Part 15d (Nondiscrimination in programs 
or activities conducted by the USDA and Departmental Regulation 4300-
010, Civil Rights Accountability Policy and Procedures). In 2017, the 
Office of the Secretary directed OASCR to end the annual assessment 
process so as to allow USDA agencies to focus on their civil rights 
efforts. OASCR is revising the agency head assessment request to be 
less cumbersome and focused on civil rights accomplishments and 
challenges within the agencies.
OIG Recommendation 18
    Develop new controls to review the agency assessments and identify 
factors that could warrant further review of agencies and their civil 
rights practices.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 18
    OASCR will ensure any new agency assessment procedure incorporates 
quality and quality review methodologies.
OIG Recommendation 19
    Develop and implement a process to select USDA agencies and program 
offices for compliance reviews (on a recurring basis) based on program 
complaint activity, set elements or findings of discrimination, and 
other risk factors identified in agency assessments.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 19
    OASCR led a task force designed to amend USDA's Departmental 
Regulation (DR) which provides guidance and instructions on Civil 
Rights Compliance Reviews. The team consisted of representation from 
Mission Areas, agencies, and key staff offices. The DR specifically 
establishes USDA's policies and procedures for conducting civil rights 
compliance reviews of all USDA federally conducted and federally 
assisted programs and employment activities. The DR has been submitted 
to the Department for review and clearance. Once cleared by the 
Department the following criteria will be required of OASCR, Mission 
Areas, agencies and staff offices:
    CCRO will reignite its compliance review program by serving as 
embeds with mission area and agency civil rights directors. The 
decision to conduct a compliance review will be based on neutral 
criteria or evidence of a violation. Criteria to be considered in a 
compliance review include:

  1.  Issues identified for special attention in strategic plans, 
            annual work plans, plans of operations, etc.;

  2.  Issues frequently identified as problems faced by program 
            applicants and participants;

  3.  Geographic areas where problems have been identified or 
            geographic areas in which there has been little compliance 
            activity;

  4.  Issues raised in complaints or identified during examination of 
            complaints that could not be fully covered within the scope 
            of the complaint examination process;

  5.  Issues or problems raised by community groups, advocates, 
            Congressional inquiries, and fact-finding examinations;

  6.  Issues flagged by the agency head or regional and state 
            leadership officials;

  7.  Issues and problems identified by other Federal, state, or local 
            civil rights agencies;

  8.  Routine review cycle driven by the need to review all programs 
            and activities on a regular schedule; and

  9.  Required as a result of terms required in a settlement agreement 
            or a finding of discrimination.

    In addition, the DR requires the ASCR, amongst other actions, to:

  1.  Require Mission Areas, agencies, and staff offices to provide an 
            annual listing of proposed fiscal year compliance reviews 
            and/or desk audits. This listing will be provided to OASCR 
            no later than October 31st each fiscal year;

  2.  Select by November 30th of each fiscal year two or three Mission 
            Areas, agencies, or staff offices' compliance activity to 
            monitor and provide oversight; and

  3.  Conduct a Mission Area, agency, or staff office compliance 
            review, desk audit or fact-finding review based on current 
            events, issues identified through Civil Rights Impact 
            Analysis, Congressional reviews or items identified in the 
            criteria cited above.
Finding 6: OASCR Needs to Assess Progress Towards Established Goals and 
        Objectives
    Although OASCR developed its Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020, it did 
not use the plan to measure or assess its progress toward established 
goals and objectives relating to program complaints. This occurred 
because OASCR management did not establish specific ways to: (1) 
monitor performance measures and indicators, (2) perform periodic 
reviews and regularly update the plan, and (3) report on actual 
performance compared to its goals and objectives. Using the performance 
measures provided in the strategic plan could have helped OASCR avoid 
shortcomings identified in this report. Because OASCR has not 
established measurable and implementable measures, OASCR officials 
cannot determine whether they are achieving intended goals and 
objectives. This further hinders OASCR's ability to make well-informed 
decisions and improve the program complaint process.
    The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires agencies 
to develop a strategic plan, set performance goals, and annually report 
on actual performance compared to goals. GPRA also requires agencies to 
use performance indicators to measure or assess progress toward 
established goals. Similarly, GAO states that management should 
establish activities to monitor performance measures and indicators.
    OASCR's Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020 encourages periodic performance 
review sessions as an essential part of strategic planning--at least 
quarterly. Management can use the results of these performance reviews 
to assess and analyze how the agency is doing and, if necessary, make 
decisions and reprioritize due to changing resources, evolving 
stakeholder needs, or other new realities.
    In 2008, GAO reported that OASCR's strategic planning was limited 
and did not address key steps needed to achieve its mission. According 
to GAO, results-oriented organizations follow three key steps in their 
strategic planning: (1) they define a clear mission and desired 
outcomes, (2) they measure performance to gauge progress, and (3) they 
use performance information for identifying performance gaps and making 
program improvements. Accordingly, GAO recommended that OASCR develop a 
results-oriented, Department-level strategic plan for civil rights that 
unifies USDA's approach with OASCR. GAO specified that the plan should 
be transparent about USDA's efforts to address stakeholder concerns.
    In response, OASCR developed a strategic plan that provides goals, 
outcomes, and performance indicators that monitor the programs, 
policies, and services that OASCR administers in an effort to produce 
results and improve the organization's performance. In addition, the 
performance indicators measure performance against the strategies for 
each outcome, and inform management whether it is achieving the desired 
result. OASCR's Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020 included three strategic 
goals, two of which were relevant to our audit:

          Goal 1. Improve civil rights complaints processing for 
        internal and external customers in keeping with Federal laws, 
        mandates, and Departmental Regulations and guidelines.
          Goal 3. Demonstrate effective engagement within USDA by 
        ensuring all USDA employees have the necessary resources to 
        support the civil rights of all employees and customers of 
        USDA.

    We concluded that OASCR did not use the plan as a tool to measure 
or assess progress towards Goals 1 and 3 and their respective 
objectives, performance indicators, and strategies.
    Specifically, OASCR did not adequately address 13 of the 14 
performance indicators and strategies to measure or assess progress 
toward established goals. (For a full list and explanation, see Exhibit 
A.) OASCR personnel explained the processes they have in place that 
could be used to satisfy performance measures and indicators in the 
strategic plan. However, after reviewing these processes, we found that 
they did not completely address indicators and strategies to achieve 
specific goals. Overall, the issues we identified in this report could 
have been mitigated had OASCR used its strategic plan to monitor 
progress and to establish strong internal controls.
Timeframes for Civil Rights Complaint Processing
    In Goal 1 of its strategic plan, OASCR established a performance 
indicator, baseline, and target data for the number of days to process 
program complaints at each stage in the process: intake, investigation, 
and adjudication. The expected outcome was that timeframes for civil 
rights complaint processing be consistent with statutory and regulatory 
requirements. However, as identified in Findings 1 and 2 of this 
report, both OASCR and agencies it coordinated with to process 
complaints did not meet these timeframes.
    [Redacted].
Program Complaint Processing Audits
    Goal 1 of OASCR's strategic plan also established a performance 
indicator to implement a program complaint processing audit in the 
fourth quarters of FYs 2017 and 2019.
    OASCR instructed the staff units (Intake, Investigations, and 
Adjudication Divisions) to use a checklist to conduct a self-assessment 
of all cases on an on-going basis. However, OASCR did not consolidate 
the results from each checklist into one overall report. As a result, 
we determined that the checklists alone had not constituted a program 
complaint processing audit. If OASCR had appropriately conducted 
program complaint processing audits, OASCR might have been better 
positioned to address the issues we identified in Finding 4.
Compliance Reviews
    Within Goal 3 of the strategic plan, OASCR established a 
performance indicator to complete 24 compliance reviews in, or by, CY 
2020. As stated in Finding 5, OASCR did not conduct any compliance 
reviews since 2017.
    OASCR has not prioritized the strategic plan as a resource in 
developing strong internal controls, since officials stated that the 
strategic plan was outdated due to a 2018 reorganization and changing 
priorities. We acknowledge that OASCR's priorities may have changed, 
and its strategic plan became outdated. In this instance, officials 
should have reprioritized and revised the plan accordingly to include 
performance measures to assist the agency in meeting desired outcomes. 
OASCR should regularly review its strategic plan and update it to 
reflect the current environment and its priorities.
    OASCR officials further added that the goals were incorporated into 
their everyday processes. However, OASCR management did not establish 
specific ways to: (1) monitor performance measures and indicators, (2) 
perform periodic reviews and regularly update the plan, and (3) report 
on actual performance compared to its goals and objectives. Until OASCR 
utilizes the strategic plan as a tool to regularly monitor and achieve 
its goals, it may not accurately measure its performance, identify 
points of concern, and strategically develop a course of action to 
address these issues. A results-oriented strategic plan provides a road 
map that clearly describes what an organization is attempting to 
achieve. It can also serve as a focal point for communication with 
Congress and the public about what OASCR and USDA agencies have 
accomplished. By implementing the goals, objectives, and performance 
indicators in a plan, OASCR can monitor measurable outcomes, identify 
points of weakness, and develop courses of action to address identified 
issues.
OIG Recommendation 20
    Develop and implement a process to perform periodic reviews of the 
strategic plan and regularly update the strategic plan.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 20
    OASCR has revised its strategic plan for FY 2020-2024 to reflect 
the goals and priorities of the current political leadership. The 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and the Associate ASCR are 
involved in the drafting of the USDA Strategic Plan to include a civil 
rights/racial equity goal. OASCR Strategic Plan must link to the new 
USDA plan scheduled for release Q2 of FY 2022 before OASCR can release 
its separate strategic plan.
OIG Recommendation 21
    Establish a mechanism to measure performance against established 
goals and report on actual program activity performance data.
OASCR Response to Recommendation 21
    The revised OASCR Strategic Plan will include key performance 
measures and objectives linking directly to programmatic activity. In 
addition, by the end of FY 2021 OASCR, will launch a Civil Rights 
dashboard to provide real-time data to the Secretary on employment and 
program complaint activity.

    Learn more about USDA OIG

          Visit our website: www.usda.gov/oig/index.htm
          Follow us on Twitter: @OIGUSDA

    How to Report Suspected Wrongdoing in USDA Programs Fraud, Waste, 
and Abuse

          File complaint online: www.usda.gov/oig/hotline.htm

    Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. ET

          In Washington, D.C. 202-690-1622
          Outside D.C. 800-424-9121
          TDD (Call Collect) 202-690-1202

    Bribes or Gratuities

    202-720-7257 (24 hours)

          In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. 
        Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 
        policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 
        institutions participating in or administering USDA programs 
        are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, 
        national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including 
        gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 
        marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a 
        public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or 
        retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 
        activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to 
        all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 
        program or incident.
          Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 
        communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 
        print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact 
        the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-
        2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 
        Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information 
        may be made available in languages other than English.
          To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA 
        Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 
        How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA 
        office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the 
        letter all of the information requested in the form. To request 
        a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 
        completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department 
        of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
        Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-
        9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 
        [email protected].
          USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
                                 ______
                                 
  Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector 
  General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General
Insert 1
          Ms. Adams. Okay. Your office reviewed a sample of 48 case 
        files, 28 of which were part of the 911 complaints closed 
        between October 1, 2016, and June 30 of 2019. What kinds of 
        cases were these? Race, gender, disability, discrimination, and 
        what agencies? Was it Farm Service, Food and Nutrition, were 
        these 48 cases for?
          Ms. Fong. I do not have that data specifically. Gil, would 
        you like to comment, or should we get that information for you?
          Mr. Harden. What I was going to ask is if you would allow us 
        to pull that data from our work. We can give you a very 
        specific answer as to what made up the cases that we looked at.

    We non-statistically selected a total of 28 complaints to review 
based on complainant category types \1\ and the percentage the category 
type represented in the universe. In summary, we sampled a total of 28 
complaints from the following agencies: Food and Nutrition Service (4), 
Forest Service (2), Farm Service Agency (5), Natural Resource 
Conservation Service (3), and Rural Development (14). As requested, the 
basis for complaint is described below for each complaint:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The 15 categories for complaints include: duplicate record, 
failure to cooperate, failure to pursue, failure to pursue closed 
letter/withdrawal, failure to state a claim, filed in court, finding, 
HUD decision, lack of jurisdiction, no finding, programmatic referral, 
referral to other government agency, settlement, untimely filing, and 
withdrawal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sample #               Agency                   Protected Bases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1   Food and Nutrition Service   Disability
          2   Food and Nutrition Service   Age
          3   Food and Nutrition Service   Disability
          4   Food and Nutrition Service   Sex, Age, Color
          5   Forest Service               Race, National Origin
          6   Forest Service               Disability
          7   Farm Service Agency          Race
          8   Farm Service Agency          Race
          9   Farm Service Agency          Age
         10   Farm Service Agency          Disability, Race, Sex
         11   Farm Service Agency          Retaliation
         12   Natural Resources            Race, Sex, Color, National
               Conservation Service         Origin
         13   Natural Resources            Race, Sex, Age
               Conservation Service
         14   Natural Resources            Disability, Retaliation
               Conservation Service
         15   Rural Development            Disability
         16   Rural Development            Disability
         17   Rural Development            Income Derived
         18   Rural Development            Race, Color, National Origin
         19   Rural Development            Disability, Age
         20   Rural Development            Race
         21   Rural Development            Race
         22   Rural Development            Race
         23   Rural Development            Sex
         24   Rural Development            Disability
         25   Rural Development            National Origin
         26   Rural Development            Disability
         27   Rural Development            Disability, Marital Status
         28   Rural Development            Race
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert 2
          Ms. Adams. . . .
          Your office identified five settlements, six findings of 
        discrimination in the sample of cases. What kinds of cases, in 
        terms of race, gender, disability, discrimination--were these?
          Mr. Harden. And similarly, I would like to gather the 
        specific information on that and get that back to you. The 
        report itself focuses on the process as opposed to the 
        individual cases, so I don't have that right in front me.

    The kinds of cases as bases for the five settlements were:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sample #                          Protected Bases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         15   Disability
         18   Race, Color, National Origin
         22   Race
         23   Sex
         24   Disability
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The kinds of cases as far as bases for the six findings were:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sample #                          Protected Bases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          1   Disability
          3   Disability
          5   Race, National Origin
          7   Race
          8   Race
         14   Disability, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insert 3
          Mr. Rush. Ms. Fong, I have also heard multiple reports of 
        outright hostility at local ag field offices toward Black 
        farmers. Did the OIG's report drill down into the geographic 
        distribution of complaints, and if so, were there any specific 
        recommendations that were made by state or regional offices? 
        And if not, is that something that will be possible for the 
        Department to research and issue a report on? I think we might 
        create a bright light on the attitudinal obstacles to fairness 
        that Black farmers, particularly, are experiencing at the local 
        level.
          Ms. Fong. That is a very interesting question. I don't know 
        if in the sample of cases that we looked at in our audit if we 
        have geographical data on the distribution. I think we could 
        certainly take a look at that and get back to you and your 
        staff on that to see if we have data by state or region. And I 
        think you also raised a very interesting question looking 
        forward as we plan our future work, whether there is any way to 
        address that question if the data exists. So, we will think 
        about that and get back to your staff on that.

    When conducting our audit, the objective was to assess OASCR's 
oversight of the civil rights complaint process. Specifically, we 
evaluated OASCR's controls to ensure that program complaints were 
processed in accordance with applicable regulations, policies, and 
procedures and resolved in a timely and efficient manner. Additionally, 
we followed up on prior audit recommendations related to the program 
complaint process. To address our objectives, we non-statistically 
selected a total of 20 correspondences and 28 complaints to review 
based on: (1) correspondence and complainant category types and (2) the 
percentage the category type represented in the universe. Since the 
geographic location was not part of our sampling decision, we did not 
make a determination of the geographic distribution of complaints for 
the entire universe. Likewise, we did not provide any specific 
recommendations to state or regional offices. However, the states 
involved included: Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, 
Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West 
Virginia.
Insert 4
          Mr. Sablan. . . .
          Inspector General Fong, I will eventually reach out to your 
        office for an issue with operations in my district in the 
        Northern Mariana Islands, and it is sometimes a difficult 
        relationship with the region office in Hawaii, but for today, 
        in your report on the USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary 
        for Civil Rights, OASCR, would you confirm whether civil rights 
        complaints from the U.S. Territories were examined?
          Ms. Fong. I do not know the answer to that, whether we had 
        any of those complaints in our sample. If I had to say, I would 
        say that USDA's jurisdiction would--OASCR's jurisdiction would 
        extend to any USDA programs, wherever they are offered so that 
        the jurisdiction and the authority is there, but I don't know 
        if we looked at any complaints specifically from your district.
          Mr. Sablan. Okay, and how do we get your office to look at 
        complaints, if there are any out there that have not been 
        looked at? We are just so isolated, so remote, and we get 
        looked over so many times.
          Ms. Fong. We would be happy to reach out to your staff and 
        discuss the most effective way to do that.
          Mr. Sablan. Okay, thank you.
          Ms. Fong. And if you have anything else to offer, Gil, please 
        comment.
          Mr. Harden. Yes, I was just going to offer that we can first 
        take a look at the 28 complaints that are in our sample just to 
        confirm where they are and if there are any complaints from the 
        Northern Mariana Islands, and also reach out and have a 
        discussion about concerns with complaints in that area.

    Our Office of Audit confirmed that none of the 28 complaints in our 
sample were from either the Northern Mariana Islands or Guam.
Insert 5
          Mr. Sablan. . . .
          And so, Inspector General, in your testimony, you state that 
        the OASCR does not evaluate and process all complaints for 
        USDA, and it relies on the assistance of two organizations, FNS 
        and HUD, these two organizations completed 59 percent of USDA's 
        civil rights complaints during the period that your OIG 
        evaluated and processed complaints more quickly than OASCR, 
        more than 600 days and more than 200 days on average 
        respectively in Fiscal Year 2019, as compared to 799 days on 
        average for all complaints. Why do you believe that FNS and HUD 
        processed complaints more quickly than OASCR?
          And are there lessons from the processes that could be 
        applied to OASCR's process itself?
          Ms. Fong. Well, I think you make a very interesting point, 
        that the complaints handled by FNS and HUD were handled in a 
        more timely manner than some of the others. I think what we 
        would be concerned about is that none of those timeframes 
        really comport with the timeframes that the agency was holding 
        itself to, and were much too lengthy. But Gil may have some 
        further insight on that.
          Mr. Harden. I agree, it is a very interesting question that I 
        would have to go back and talk to the team and see if we have 
        any information that would inform discussion in that area, and 
        if we do, we can get back to the Congressman, either way, 
        whether we do or we don't.

    Comparing FNS and HUD processing methods to OASCR's was not a part 
of the objectives of the audit. Our objective was to assess OASCR's 
oversight of the civil rights complaint process. Specifically, we 
evaluated OASCR's controls to ensure that program complaints were 
processed in accordance with applicable regulations, policies, and 
procedures and resolved in a timely and efficient manner. Additionally, 
we followed up on prior audit recommendations related to the program 
complaint process.
                                 ______
                                 
                           Submitted Question
Response from Hon. Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, U.S. Department 
        of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General
Question Submitted by Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress 
        from Connecticut
    Question. In March 2018, OIG submitted a comment in response to 
USDA's Request for Information outlining the Department's proposed 
realignment of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 
(FR Doc. 2018-05051), which indicated that OIG planned to consider 
looking at the effectiveness of this realignment as part of our future 
audit planning process.
    Has OIG determined if such a review is appropriate? If so, please 
share the timeline for the review. If not, please share OIG's reasoning 
for foregoing a review of the 2018 realignment.
    Answer. At this point, we have not specifically assessed USDA's 
2018 reorganization of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights (OASCR). However, the findings in our recent 2021 audit, reflect 
that OASCR's operations, during our audit scope period and after the 
reorganization, were not effective in terms of processing program 
complaints timely. As we start our next engagement in OASCR to assess 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Process, we will assess, as 
appropriate, the impact the 2018 reorganization had over OASCR's 
ability to process EEO complaints efficiently and timely. We are 
scheduled to start this assignment in Fiscal Year 2022.

                                  [all]