Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and	 
Management of the Enforcement Process (21-APR-04, GAO-04-463).	 
                                                                 
Discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family	 
status, and other grounds is illegal in the United States. Each  
year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and related agencies	 
carry out enforcement activities for several thousand complaints 
of housing discrimination. The timeliness and effectiveness of	 
the enforcement process have been continuing concerns. GAO	 
describes the stages and practices of the fair housing		 
enforcement process, looks at recent trends, and identifies	 
factors that may influence the length and thoroughness of the	 
process.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-463 					        
    ACCNO:   A09837						        
  TITLE:     Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight   
and Management of the Enforcement Process			 
     DATE:   04/21/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Discrimination					 
	     Housing programs					 
	     Investigations by federal agencies 		 
	     Complaints processing				 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Timeliness 					 
	     HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program		 
	     HUD Title Eight Automated Paperless		 
	     Tracking System					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-463

United States General Accounting Office

                     GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2004

FAIR HOUSING

Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the Enforcement
                                    Process

                                       a

GAO-04-463

Highlights of GAO-04-463, a report to congressional requesters

Discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, and
other grounds is illegal in the United States. Each year, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity (FHEO) and related agencies carry out enforcement activities
for several thousand complaints of housing discrimination. The timeliness
and effectiveness of the enforcement process have been continuing
concerns. GAO describes the stages and practices of the fair housing
enforcement process, looks at recent trends, and identifies factors that
may influence the length and thoroughness of the process.

GAO makes six recommendations to the HUD Secretary for improving the
management and oversight of the fair housing enforcement process. These
recommendations include exploring ways to disseminate effective practices
used at various enforcement locations, improving tracking and
data-gathering procedures, and finding a way to meet human capital
challenges in, among other things, staffing and skill levels.

HUD generally agreed with the report's conclusions and recommendations and
stated an intent to look closely at incorporating them into planned
efforts to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of enforcement.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-463

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David G. Wood at (202)
512-6878 or [email protected].

April 2004

FAIR HOUSING

Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the Enforcement
Process

The current fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for
addressing housing discrimination complaints. Both FHEO and Fair Housing
Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies located around the country take
inquiries about potential incidences of discrimination and conduct
investigations to determine whether discrimination did in fact occur. The
practices used during intake and investigation differ among FHEO and the
FHAP agencies, as the state and local agencies have some discretion in
determining which practices work best for them. As a result, some agencies
have developed procedures that they said improved the quality of intake
and made investigations easier. For example, some FHAP agencies use
experienced investigators during the intake process to help clients
develop formal complaints. To date, FHEO has not looked at such practices
to determine if they should be disseminated for potential use at other
locales.

Further, individuals alleging discrimination in housing sometimes face a
lengthy wait to have their complaints investigated and decided. Although
the law sets a benchmark of 100 days to complete investigations into
complaints of discrimination, FHEO and the FHAP agencies often do not meet
that deadline. The typical time to complete an investigation in 1996
through 2003 was more than 200 days, with some investigations taking much
longer. However, a lack of data makes it impossible to assess the full
length and outcomes of fair housing enforcement activities. For example,
because FHAP agencies are not required to report intake data to FHEO,
complete information is not available on the number of initial contacts
individuals alleging discrimination make with FHAP agencies. A lack of
data on the ultimate outcomes of some investigations conducted by both
FHEO and FHAP agencies may also prevent FHEO from fully measuring the time
that complaints face before cases are ultimately decided. Human capital
management challenges, such as ensuring adequate numbers of trained staff,
further affect FHEO's ability to carry out its mission in a timely manner.

Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003
Number of completed investigations (In thousands)

10

8

6

4

2

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

FHEO FHAP agencies Total Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework

for Handling Complaints Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and
Improve the Enforcement Process Enforcement Data Show Some Trends in
Numbers, Types, and Outcomes of Cases Data Limitations Preclude
Comprehensive Measurement of Time Taken by Each Stage of the Enforcement
Process Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the

Title VIII Enforcement Process Conclusions Recommendations Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

1 2 6

9

16

23

39

42 56 57 58

Appendixes

Appendix I:                                      Scope and Methodology  60 
Appendix II:             Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses  64 
     Appendix III:  Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12  72 
Appendix IV:         Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 
                                                              Development  79 

Tables Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7:

FHEO's Investigation Process for Alleged Act
Violations 13
Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed,
FY 1996-2003 32
Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or
FHAP Agencies Determined That There Was Reasonable
Cause to Believe That Discrimination Occurred
(Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996-2003) 37
FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits 61
Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003 72
Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996-2003 72
Prohibited Basis of FHA Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003 73

                                    Contents

Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003 74 Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed
by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003 75 Table 10: Outcomes of Fair
Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003
75 Table 11: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY
1996-2003 76 Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by
Issue of Discrimination FY 1996-2003 77 Table 13: Median Number of Days
Needed to Complete Investigations by Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003 78

Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process
Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY
1996-2003
Fair Housing Complaints Filed by AgencyResponsiblefor
Investigation, FY 1996-2003
Number and Location of FHAP Agencies in 1996 and in
2003
Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each
Year with FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003
Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with
FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003
Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP
Agencies, FY 1996-2003
Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by
FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003
Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days,
FY 1996-2003

10 25 26 27 28 30 33 35 39

41

43

44 47

50

Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the Enforcement
Process (Investigations completed by FHEO in fiscal years 1996-2003)

Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of
Discrimination, FY 1996-2003 Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to
Complete

Investigations by Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003) Figure 13: Number of
FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994-2004a Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO
and Hiring/Reassignment

Status of FHEO Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New
York Regions)

Contents

Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, as of
January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions) 51

Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of February
2004 52

Abbreviations

ALJ Administrative Law Judge
CSRS Civil Service Retirement System
CMS Contact Management System
DOJ Department of Justice
FERS Federal Employee Retirement System
FHAP Fair Housing Assistance Program
FHEO Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
FHIP Fair Housing Initiatives Program
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HIHRTS HUD Integrated Human Resources and Training System
OGC Office of General Counsel
QMR Quality Management Review
REAP Resource Estimation and Allocation Process
TEAPOTS Title Eight Automated Paperless Tracking System

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

April 21, 2004

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Jack Reed
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
United States Senate

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been
responsible for addressing nearly 57,000 complaints of housing
discrimination filed in the last 8 years. The Fair Housing Act (the Act)-
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended-prohibits housing
discrimination against minorities, persons with handicaps, and other
protected groups. The Act, which is administered by FHEO and 100 Fair
Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies, establishes a 100-day
benchmark for investigating fair housing complaints.1 In recent years,
neither FHEO nor the FHAP agencies have routinely met this benchmark.
For example, 1,611, or 39 percent, of open fair housing discrimination
investigations were over 100 days old and thus considered "aged" as of
September 2003.

You asked us to review several aspects of the fair housing enforcement
program. Specifically, we agreed with your offices to (1) describe the
steps
involved in the fair housing enforcement process; (2) determine the
practices selected FHEO and FHAP agencies use to carry out the
enforcement process and identify practices with the potential to expedite
or improve it; (3) determine the trends, if any, that are discernable in
HUD
data on the numbers, characteristics, and outcomes of fair housing
investigations; (4) determine the median time needed to complete each

1FHAP agencies are state and local agencies that receive funding under
FHEO's Fair Housing Assistance Program because they have rights and
regulations that are substantially equivalent to those defined in the Act.
FHAP agencies may investigate fair housing complaints made in their
regions.

stage of the enforcement process; and (5) identify factors that may
influence the length and thoroughness of the enforcement process.

To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the
legislation, regulations, and other guidance describing each stage of the
process and interviewed FHEO officials responsible for policymaking. To
determine the practices used at selected locations and their potential for
expediting or otherwise improving the process, we visited FHEO offices and
FHAP agencies in different regions and conducted structured interviews
with key officials in each location.2 To identify trends in FHEO data on
the numbers, characteristics, outcomes, and length of fair housing
investigations, we obtained and analyzed data from FHEO's automated
case-tracking system for an 8-year period (1996 to 2003). We also used
these data to determine the median time needed to complete fair housing
investigations. We assessed the reliability of data from this system by
reviewing documents and interviewing managers to determine the
reasonableness of system controls and by conducting reasonableness tests
of system data. To identify the factors that could influence the length
and thoroughness of the Title VIII enforcement process, we interviewed
FHEO and FHAP agency officials responsible for management, intake,
investigation, and legal matters at selected field locations and used a
questionnaire to survey all of FHEO's 10 regional directors. We conducted
our work in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Ill.; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit,
Mich.; Fort Worth and Austin, Tex.; New Orleans and Baton Rouge, La.; and
New York, N. Y. between September 2003 and February 2004, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief The fair housing enforcement process consists of three
stages:

1.	Intake, during which FHEO offices and FHAP agencies receive inquiries
from individuals (complainants), determine whether the inquiries involve a
potential violation of the Act, and file fair housing complaints for those
that do.

2We selected these locations on the basis of several factors within the
regions, including (1) the number of "aged" cases, (2) the total number of
complaints received, (3) the ratio of FHEO investigations to all
investigations FHEO and FHAP agencies completed, and (4) the number of
FHEO centers and offices.

2.	Investigation, during which FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect
evidence to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a
discriminatory housing practice occurred, or is about to occur and
simultaneously work with parties to conciliate complaints to the extent
possible.

3.	Adjudication, during which an administrative law judge, another
administrative entity, or a federal or state court actually determines
whether a violation of the Act has occurred.

For each stage, either the Act or FHEO guidelines establish timeliness
benchmarks for certain aspects of the enforcement process.3 For a number
of reasons, however, not all intake actions proceed through the subsequent
stages. For example, FHEO or FHAP agency personnel may determine during
the intake stage that the allegation does not fall within the Act's scope
and therefore may not proceed with the investigation. Similarly, FHEO or a
FHAP agency may help resolve a complaint during the investigation stage.

Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied significantly
among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and officials noted that
certain practices have helped them expedite or improve the enforcement
process. For example, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies used experienced
investigators during the intake stage to gather required information from
aggrieved parties, a practice that staff at these locations believed
improved the quality of intake and decreased the overall length of the
enforcement process. (Other offices used some intake analysts who did not
have investigative experience.) Similarly, some sites involved attorneys
earlier and more frequently in the investigation stage than did other
sites. Officials at locations where attorneys were involved earlier and
more frequently believed that practice improved the thoroughness and
decreased the length of the enforcement process. We did not observe any
significant variations in FHEO and FHAP practices in the adjudication
stage. Because FHEO and FHAP agencies have some discretion in choosing the
practices they use to carry out the enforcement process, the variations in
practices may be greater than what we observed in our limited sample. Many
FHEO field office directors believed that the practices used during the

3When we refer to "timeliness benchmarks," we mean guidance on completing
certain enforcement actions. Some of these benchmarks are contained in the
Act, and some of them are contained in FHEO's Title VIII Intake,
Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook.

enforcement process could be improved, but we found that FHEO had not
systematically reviewed the practices in use across its field offices and
FHAP agencies to determine which ones worked best. Because of the
potential some practices may have to expedite the fair housing enforcement
process and reduce the backlog of aged cases, we are recommending that HUD
establish a way of sharing information on effective practices among its
regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies.

FHEO's fair housing program data revealed several trends in the volume,
characteristics, and outcomes of enforcement actions between 1996 and
2003. Among other things:

o 	Overall, the number of inquiries received annually varied only slightly
but increased substantially in 2003. The number of fair housing complaints
filed each year showed a steady increase since 1998. Further, the nature
of discrimination alleged in complaints changed during the period, with an
increasing proportion alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap and
a declining proportion alleging discrimination because of race.4 However,
race was most often cited as the basis of housing discrimination over the
period.

o 	The total number of fair housing investigations completed each year
increased somewhat over the period after declining in 1997 and 1998.
Throughout the period, FHAP agencies conducted more investigations than
FHEO.

o 	The outcomes of investigations also changed, with an increasing
percentage closed without a finding of reasonable cause to believe
discrimination occurred. Conversely, a declining percentage of
investigations were resolved by the parties themselves or with the help of
FHEO or a FHAP agency. The ultimate outcomes for many cases in which FHEO
and FHAP agencies found reasonable cause were not clear because the data
from FHEO's automated case-tracking system were incomplete, particularly
for cases processed by FHAP agencies.

4The Act prohibits discrimination in the sale and rental of a dwelling or
provision of services because of a handicap of the buyer or another person
associated with the buyer. According to the Act "handicap" means-with
respect to a person-a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of such person's major life activities, or a record of
having such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.
It does not include the current, illegal use of or addiction to a
controlled substance.

Accordingly, we are recommending that FHEO take steps to ensure that its
system contains complete data on the outcomes of the adjudication process.

o 	Finally, the percentage of investigations completed within 100 days
showed a general increase during the period.

Because of limitations in the data provided by FHEO's automated
case-tracking system, we were not able to determine the median number of
days needed to complete each stage of the enforcement process. Complete
data were available only for measuring the length of investigations. From
1996 to 2003, the median number of days required for investigations was
259 days for investigations that FHEO conducted and 195 for those FHAP
agencies conducted. Because of the importance of reliable data in
monitoring progress, managing cases, and achieving timeliness benchmarks,
we are recommending that FHEO take steps to ensure that its system
includes complete data documenting the key dates in each stage of the
process.

FHEO and FHAP agency officials identified a number of factors that could
influence the length and thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement
process. First, the nature of the complaint itself could affect the length
of investigations. For example, complaints involving lending or financial
practices generally took longer to investigate. Second, as noted above,
variations in the practices followed appeared to affect the length and
thoroughness of investigations. Third, human capital issues, including the
numbers, skill, and experience of investigators and other staff involved
in the process, could also influence investigations. Several FHEO field
officials stated that their staff lacked some of the skills needed to
conduct investigations, and some also pointed to limitations in the
quantity and timing of training. Fourth, the availability of funds that
enabled investigators to travel and collect evidence, conduct interviews,
or undertake related activities impacted investigations. We are
recommending that HUD consider a wide range of strategies to help ensure
that the skills and competencies needed to meet the fair housing mission
are fully developed.

HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity provided
comments on a draft of this report indicating general agreement with our
findings and recommendations. The comments also included technical
clarifications, which we have incorporated into this report as
appropriate. HUD's comments are reprinted in appendix IV.

Background	A number of federal statutes prohibit housing discrimination,
but the Act is the most comprehensive.5 This report focuses on enforcement
of fair housing rights under the Act, which is one of the federal
government's central tools for fighting discrimination in housing. The Act
(as amended) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, handicap, and familial status. The Act
applies to certain issues, including discrimination in the sale, rental,
or advertising or financing of housing, the provision of brokerage
services; and other activities related to residential real estate
transactions. The Act covers all "dwellings," which are defined generally
as buildings designed to be used in whole or part for a residence, as well
as vacant land offered for sale and lease for constructing or locating a
building, with some exceptions.6

The enforcement process granted to HUD and others under the Act has been
expanded since the law's enactment in 1968. The original Act gave no
enforcement powers to HUD-other than the ability to investigate and
conciliate complaints-and gave limited enforcement powers to private
persons and the Attorney General. Under the 1968 Act, private persons who
believed they had been discriminated against in housing could enforce the
Act by filing a complaint with HUD, and HUD could investigate and
conciliate those complaints.7 The 1968 Act had no mechanism for HUD to
adjudicate complaints, so HUD had no options for further enforcement if
conciliation efforts failed. The 1968 Act also authorized aggrieved
persons to bring a civil action within 180 days of the date of the alleged
discrimination. The relief that courts could provide in such cases
included only injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages up to
$1,000, and, where the plaintiff was not able to pay his or her own
attorneys' fees, those

5Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
S:794 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
S: 2000d et seq., as amended prohibit discrimination in housing that
receives federal funds.

6The Act does not apply to certain transactions involving private homes
marketed without a broker and without advertising if the owner does not
own more than three single-family dwellings at any one time, or to
transactions involving units within certain owner-occupied dwellings. The
Act also does not apply, in certain circumstances, to religious
organizations or private clubs, and the familial status provisions do not
apply to housing for older persons. Finally, the Act specifically provides
that it does not "limit the applicability of reasonable local, State, or
Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted
to occupy a dwelling."

7Conciliation is the process by which FHEO helps the parties find a "just
and mutually acceptable" resolution of the disputed issues to a Title VIII
complaint.

fees.8 Under the 1968 Act, the Attorney General could initiate a civil
suit under some circumstances-for example, when there was reasonable cause
to believe that a "pattern or practice" of resistance had emerged to the
provisions of the Act. The Attorney General could also bring a suit if a
group of persons had been denied a right granted by the Act that raised an
issue considered to be of general public importance. However, damage
awards were not available in actions brought in these types of cases.

The 1988 amendments to the Act provided HUD, private persons, and the
Attorney General with more tools and remedies for enforcement. Currently,
under the Act as amended, there is an adjudication mechanism, so HUD's
enforcement efforts need not end if conciliation efforts do not succeed.
Additionally, aggrieved parties can elect not to utilize the
administrative enforcement process and can file civil actions in federal
court within 2 years of the alleged discrimination; and the Act provides
for actual and punitive damages without limitation and for injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees. As under the original 1968 Act, presently the
Attorney General can bring a civil action in pattern or practice cases or
cases of public importance. The 1988 amendments allow the Attorney General
to commence civil actions in cases of breached conciliation agreements or
discriminatory housing practices referred by HUD and to enforce subpoenas.
In cases commenced by the Attorney General, courts can award civil
penalties up to $100,000 for the second violation, in addition to
compensatory monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The 1988 Act also
created a deadline of 100 days for HUD's investigation and reasonable
cause determination.

FHEO directs HUD's enforcement efforts, although some state and local FHAP
agencies handle most enforcement efforts for their states and localities.
FHEO refers complaints alleging violations of state and local fair housing
laws that are administered by a certified FHAP to that agency. A certified
agency that has entered into a memorandum of understanding with FHEO is
eligible to participate in the Fair Housing Assistance program. Under this
program, FHAP agencies receive funding for fair housing activities and
must conform to reporting and record maintenance requirements, agree to
on-site technical assistance, and agree to implement policies and
procedures provided to the agencies by FHEO. FHEO has staff in each of
HUD's 10 regional offices, called "hubs," through which it

8Injunctive relief is an order that commands or prevents an action.

conducts its enforcement efforts.9 FHEO staff has responsibility for the
intake, investigation, and resolution of some of these complaints.
Aggrieved persons may also go directly to FHAP agencies, which then
perform the intake process. However, FHEO must ultimately approve the
filing of all complaints involving alleged violations of the Act. If an
aggrieved party contacts a FHEO office regarding discrimination that
allegedly occurred in a state or locality that has a FHEO-certified
"substantially equivalent" state or local agency (that is, a FHAP agency),
FHEO will complete the intake process and refer the complaint to that
agency for enforcement.

Under the Act and HUD's implementing regulations, FHEO can certify an
agency if (1) the rights and remedies available under the state or local
laws are substantially equivalent to those available under the Act, and
(2) the operation of the agency demonstrates that it meets performance
standards for timely and thorough fair housing complaint investigations,
conciliation, and enforcement. The local law must require the agency to
meet the 100-day investigation benchmark contained in the Act. Although
the FHAP agency enforcement process must be substantially similar to the
HUD process, it need not be exactly the same. That is, FHAP agencies
review incoming complaints to determine if they allege a violation of
their state or local fair housing laws, the Act, or both; investigate
complaints to determine if fair housing laws have been violated; and
provide for the final adjudication of complaints, but each of the 100 FHAP
agencies can take different actions to accomplish these tasks. These
certified state and local agencies could be civil rights agencies like the
Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

FHEO field offices monitor the FHAP agencies, review cases FHAP agencies
investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for payment under
FHAP, and provide technical assistance. FHEO field offices also have
responsibility for other functions, such as assessing compliance with fair
housing regulations for entities receiving federal funds, providing
community education and outreach efforts for fair housing issues, and
managing grants under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which funds
public and private entities combating discriminatory housing practices.

9Figure 4 shows the states for which hubs have enforcement authority.
These hubs are located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Fort Worth,
Kansas City, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle.

FHEO tracks fair housing enforcement efforts through its Title Eight
Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) database. FHEO
enforcement personnel input information at major stages of the enforcement
process, such as when a complaint is filed at FHEO, when an investigation
of a complaint begins, and when a case is resolved. FHEO managers use
TEAPOTS to track the progress of fair housing cases and enforcement
efforts. All FHAPs have access to TEAPOTS and are required to report their
performance information (such as timeliness milestones for initiated and
completed investigations) into TEAPOTS or other data and information
systems technology agreed to by HUD. TEAPOTS captures numerous aspects of
enforcement efforts both nationally and by hub, including the numbers and
lengths of enforcement actions; characteristics of complaints, such as
basis of discrimination (race, religion, etc.) and subject matter of
discrimination (sale, rental, etc.); and type of resolution.

HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process Provides the Framework for Handling
Complaints

The fair housing enforcement process consists of three stages: (1) intake,
during which FHEO or FHAP agencies receive inquiries from individuals with
housing discrimination concerns and determine whether those concerns
involve a potential violation of the Act; (2) investigation, during which
FHEO or FHAP agency investigators collect evidence to determine if
reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice
has occurred or is about to occur; and (3) adjudication, during which an
independent fact finder determines whether the person charged with
discrimination (the respondent) did in fact violate the Act. The
independent fact-finding may occur before an administrative law judge
(ALJ) or, if one of the parties chooses, a federal court or state court
for complaints filed with HUD and FHAP agencies, respectively. The Act and
other guidelines establish timeliness benchmarks for completing certain
parts of the enforcement process. An overview of HUD's basic fair housing
enforcement process is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: HUD's Fair Housing Enforcement Process

Sources: GAO analysis of the Act and fair housing regulations and GAO interviews
              with HUD, FHAPs, and private fair housing advocates.

Note: Although the most common way to initiate the enforcement process is
through an inquiry made by an individual, the HUD Secretary, a FHAP agency, or a
                 private fair housing organization might bring

a complaint on behalf of an aggrieved party. For illustration, this figure
shows HUD's basic process. FHAP agencies follow a similar process.

Intake: FHEO Analyzes Inquiries to Determine Whether They Constitute Fair
Housing Complaints

In the intake stage, FHEO hubs receive inquiries (called "claims" from
1996 to 2001), determine which ones involve a potential violation of the
Act, and file fair housing complaints for those that do.10 FHAP agencies
also receive inquiries and work with complainants to determine whether a
potential violation of the Act, state or local law, or both has occurred.
According to FHEO headquarters staff, the process usually starts when an
individual contacts a FHEO hub by telephone, fax, or mail; in person; or
over the Internet.11 Intake analysts refer numerous contacts they receive
that are not related to fair housing to appropriate outside organizations.
Intake analysts record contacts dealing with fair housing as "inquiries"
in TEAPOTS. The analysts interview complainants and may do other
research-for example, property searches and searches of newspaper or
corporate records-to see if enough information exists to support filing a
formal complaint. This initial process is known as "perfecting" a
complaint, although it does not always result in a complaint. In order for
a complaint to be perfected, it must:

o 	contain the required four elements of a Title VIII complaint: the name
and address of the aggrieved party (the person who was allegedly injured
by a discriminatory housing practice), the name and address of the
respondent, a description and address of the dwelling involved, and a
concise statement of the facts leading to the allegation; and

o 	satisfy the Act's jurisdictional requirements that the complainant has
standing to file the complaint; that the respondent, dwelling, subject
matter of discrimination (e.g., refusal to rent or refusal to sell),12 and
the basis (e.g., race, color, familial status) for alleging discrimination
are

10Of FHEO's many field locations, only the 10 hubs handle intake. Although
complainants sometimes contact other offices about fair housing issues,
these offices refer the complainants to the appropriate hub.

11FHAP agencies may also contact FHEO with an inquiry that they have
received directly. If FHEO determines that an inquiry alleges a violation
of the Act, FHEO considers the inquiry a complaint and "dual files" it,
paying the FHAP agency if it investigates the complaint. FHEO reviews
complaints received from a FHAP agency to ensure that the complaint
alleges a violation under the Act as well. Intake analysts identify
complaints that should be "dual-filed" with the appropriate FHAP agency.

12FHEO uses the terms "issue," "type," or "subject matter" of
discrimination interchangeably.

covered by the Act; and that the complaint has been filed within a year of
the last occurrence of the discriminatory practice.

Hub directors decide whether these conditions are met. If so, the inquiry
becomes a perfected complaint; otherwise, it is dismissed. Intake analysts
record key information about perfected complaints in TEAPOTS, have
complainants sign the official complaints, and send letters of notice
about the complaint and the enforcement process to both complainants and
respondents.13 The complaint file is then usually delivered to the
investigator.14

According to FHEO headquarters staff, the intake stage for a complaint
that will be investigated by FHEO-rather than a FHAP agency-is usually
considered complete when the complaint file is delivered to a FHEO
investigator. For such complaints, FHEO's Title VIII Intake,
Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook (Handbook) establishes a
timeliness benchmark of no more than 20 days for the intake stage.
However, FHEO also performs intake for inquiries that, because of their
characteristics, are ultimately referred to a FHAP agency for
investigation. For example, if a person alleges a discriminatory practice
that is within the jurisdiction of a FHAP agency, FHEO intake analysts
complete the intake stage, file the complaint, and refer the case to the
FHAP agency.15 For such complaints, the Handbook establishes a timeliness
benchmark of no more than 5 days for the intake stage.

13Federal regulations allow the complaint to be signed at any time during
an investigation, but FHEO prefers to have the complaint signed early on
to protect against frivolous or false claims and erroneous statements.

14In some cases, however, FHEO has special processing procedures that it
follows. These cases include complaints requiring assistance from the
Department of Justice (DOJ), such as those that require prompt judicial
action, show a pattern and practice of housing discrimination, or involve
local zoning laws; complaints involving free speech that might be
protected by the First Amendment and complaints naming HUD as a
respondent.

15FHEO generally does not take further action on a complaint referred to a
FHAP agency but may reactivate the complaint in certain circumstances-for
instance, when FHEO and the FHAP agency agree to it or when the FHAP
agency has not taken sufficient actions within certain time frames.

Investigation: FHEO Collects Evidence to Determine If Reasonable Cause
Exists to Believe a Discriminatory Housing Practice Has Occurred or Is
about to Occur

During the investigation stage, FHEO investigators collect evidence to
determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory
housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. Similarly, FHAP
agencies may collect evidence to determine if a local or state fair
housing law has been violated. The Handbook provides guidance for
investigators during this process, although the Handbook notes that
investigations will vary (see table 1).

Table 1: FHEO's Investigation Process for Alleged Act Violations

                                Task Description

Review case file from intake	Review intake documents, including intake
log, Housing Discrimination Information form (Form 903), interviews or
investigation conducted during intake, including fair-housing testing.

Review jurisdiction	Make sure that the complaint is timely, that the
complainant has standing, that neither the dwelling nor respondent is
exempt, and that the complaint alleges violation of the Act.

Interview complainant	Inform the complainant of rights and steps in the
enforcement process and obtain information crucial to investigation.

Receive respondent's defense	Receive (orally or in writing) the
respondent's response to notification made during the intake process.

Develop investigative plan	Study the respondent's defense to determine
whether it appears valid. Supervisors and investigators are responsible
for ensuring that all claims made in the complaint are adequately
investigated.

Request necessary additional data from parties Gather information and
documents in preparation for interviews.

Interview respondent	Clarify issues and facts in dispute in the complaint,
collect additional information about the respondent, and assess all
responses to the complainant's allegations.

Make on-site or off-site visits	Communicate with parties and witnesses and
examine records or other documents, either on or off site.

Analyze case	Evaluate the evidence gathered and determine whether further
investigation is needed to make a recommendation of reasonable cause or no
cause.

Final interviews	Request responses to or clarification of all of the
evidence collected in the case from the complainant and respondent.

Create final investigative report	Conduct final check to validate
jurisdiction, summarize the position of parties, summarize investigation
activity and records, and summarize and analyze the evidentiary record.
Recommend a finding of cause or no cause to believe that respondent
violated the Act.

Source: FHEO Handbook.

According to agency guidance, once an investigator completes an
investigation, the appropriate hub director reviews the results and makes
a determination of whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a
discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur. With
the concurrence of the relevant HUD's regional counsel, the hub director
issues a determination of reasonable cause and directs the regional
counsel to issue a "charge" on behalf of the aggrieved person. The charge
is a short written statement of the facts that led FHEO to the reasonable
cause determination. If the hub director decides that no reasonable cause
exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred;
then, upon concurrence of the regional counsel, the hub director dismisses
the complaint. In a March 6, 2003, memorandum, HUD's Office of General
Counsel (OGC) in headquarters requested that regional counsels send OGC's
Office of Fair Housing the final draft of any charge that they propose to
file and that they not file charges until they have received a response
from OGC's Office of Fair Housing.

At any stage before the investigation is complete, the enforcement process
can end by either conciliation or administrative closure.16 FHEO's
Handbook states that conciliation is the process by which FHEO "assists
the complainant and respondent in achieving a just and mutually acceptable
resolution of the disputed issues in a Title VIII complaint." The Act
requires that HUD try to conciliate all complaints to the extent feasible,
starting at the time the complaint is filed and continuing until the final
charge is issued or the case is dismissed. The Handbook and federal
regulations implementing the Act allow an individual to act as
investigator and conciliator on the same case, but the regulations state
that generally investigators will not conciliate their own cases.17
Instead, other investigators not investigating a complaint conciliate such
complaints. Conciliation agreements are to seek to protect the public
interest in furthering fair housing through various provisions, such as
requiring the respondent to provide FHEO with periodic reports.18 FHEO may
also close complaints administratively for several reasons-for example, if
the complainant withdraws the complaint.

16In rare instances, FHEO does not resolve a case or complete an
investigation but instead refers it to DOJ.

1724 C.F.R. 103.300 (c).

18The Act authorizes DOJ to enforce conciliation agreements.

The regulations implementing the Act require FHEO and the FHAP agencies to
complete an investigation, conciliate a case, or otherwise close a
complaint within 100 days of the filing date unless doing so is
"impracticable."19 An investigation is considered complete, and the
100-day deadline ends, when a hub director makes a cause or no-cause
determination in which the regional counsel concurs. If the investigation
cannot be completed within 100 days, FHEO must notify the complainant and
the respondent in writing of the reasons for the delay. This written
notification is called the 100-day letter.

Adjudication: An Independent Fact Finder Determines Whether a Violation of
the Act Has Occurred

Once a determination of reasonable cause has been made and a charge has
been issued, an independent fact finder determines whether the respondent
has in fact violated the Act (FHAP agencies also use independent fact
finders to make this determination). HUD's regulations state that OGC must
file charges with the Office of Administrative Law Judges within 3
business days. When the complainant and respondent receive notice of the
charge, each has 20 days to decide whether to have the case heard in a
federal district court or by an ALJ.20 The complainant may intervene as a
party, and the complainant and the respondent may be represented by a
lawyer before the ALJ. The Act also requires that the ALJ hearing begin
within 120 days of the date of the charge, unless impracticable, and that
the ALJ decision be issued within 60 days of the end of the ALJ hearing,
unless impracticable.21 If the ALJ determines that no discrimination has
occurred, the case is dismissed. If the ALJ determines that discrimination
has occurred, he or she is authorized to award injunctive or other
equitable relief, economic and noneconomic damages, and civil penalties,
as applicable.22 Any party adversely affected by the

1942 U.S.C.A. 3610(a)(1)(B)(iv) requires investigations to be completed
within 100 days after the filing of the complaint, "unless doing so is
impracticable."

20HUD enforcement personnel said that parties to a case have a variety of
reasons for going to court. These reasons include, for a complainant,
wanting greater access to the punitive damages that a federal district
court can levy; for a defendant, fearing that the ALJ might be biased in
favor of FHEO or the complainant; and for either the complainant or the
respondent, wanting a jury trial or having been advised by an attorney
more comfortable with the federal court procedures.

2142 U.S.C. S: 3612(g)(1).(2).

22Equitable relief is a nonmonetary remedy, such as a specific
performance, when monetary damages cannot adequately redress the injury.

ALJ's decision may appeal it to the HUD Secretary and then to the
appropriate appellate court, within certain time frames.23 HUD and any
person entitled to relief under the final decision may petition the
appropriate court of appeals to have the final decision enforced.

If either party elects to go to federal district court after the charge is
issued, the HUD Secretary must authorize a civil action in federal
district court, and the U.S. Attorney General must undertake the action on
the complainant's behalf. The complainant may participate and be
represented by a lawyer in this court proceeding. The respondent may also
choose to be represented by counsel. Any party adversely affected by the
final court decision may file a petition in the appropriate appellate
court.

Some Practices Suggest Ways to Expedite and Improve the Enforcement
Process

Some practices for handling fair housing complaints varied significantly
among the FHEO and FHAP agencies we visited, and officials noted that
certain practices had helped them expedite or improve the quality of the
enforcement process. For example, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies used
experienced investigators during the intake stage, while others did not.
Some officials at locations that used experienced investigators said that
this practice had improved the quality of intake and decreased the overall
length of the enforcement process. The variation in enforcement practices
between FHEO and FHAP agency locations is not surprising, given the
freedom those offices have to administer the enforcement process. In fact,
there is a potential for the variation to be even greater than we
observed, as we visited only 3 of the 10 hubs and just 7 of the 100 FHAP
agencies. Even this limited look revealed practices in some locations that
could potentially expedite cases if adopted elsewhere. However, HUD has
not performed a systematic nationwide review of the enforcement practices
at all of these various locations to identify practices with such
potential.

23A party adversely affected by the decision may, within the first 15 days
of the decision, file a motion with the Secretary explaining how and why
the decision should be modified. The ALJ's decision becomes HUD's official
decision after 30 days, during which time the Secretary may affirm,
modify, or set aside the decision or remand the case for additional
proceedings. Any party adversely affected by the final decision may file a
petition in the appropriate appellate court within 30 days of the final
decision. If no petition is filed, the final order becomes conclusive for
any issues in connection with any petition for enforcement.

Involving Experienced Investigators in Intake May Shorten Process and
Facilitate Investigations

We found two personnel practices that officials at some FHEO and FHAP
agency locations believed had improved their enforcement processes. First,
several locations we visited used experienced investigators during their
intake processes, while others generally did not. Although all three hubs
we visited used dedicated intake analysts rather than current
investigators to handle intake responsibilities, two hubs used some former
investigators as intake analysts. Several FHAP agencies we visited had no
dedicated intake analysts. At these agencies, current investigators simply
shared the intake of complaints. Some FHEO officials told us that using
investigators for intake improved the thoroughness of intake and decreased
the overall length of the enforcement process. Some officials said that
investigators have a better understanding of the information needed for
jurisdiction and investigations, and they thus focus their intake efforts
on getting that information.

Second, one FHAP agency we visited had instituted a team approach to
enforcement. The agency had changed its entire enforcement process in 1997
to incorporate this approach, using several teams consisting of "civil
rights representatives" (as opposed to intake analysts and investigators)
and a "coach attorney." Teams handled the enforcement process starting
with the initial contact and finishing up with the reasonable cause
recommendation. Teams rotated through the intake function for 1 week each
month, investigating all cases that originated in intake that week.
Although this FHAP agency made other changes simultaneously with the
change to the team approach, FHAP agency officials said that the team
approach had helped its backlog of cases drop significantly and improved
the quality of its enforcement process. It is not possible to isolate the
team approach's impact on the FHAP agency's fair housing effort, and the
complaint numbers provided by the agency included other civil rights
enforcement work, such as enforcement of equal employment opportunity
laws. However, FHAP agency officials told us that, after the team approach
had been fully implemented, the average complaint processing time fell
from 476 days to 335 days.

In addition to personnel practices, we found that one FHAP agency was
using a software system to improve the intake procedure. In addition to
using TEAPOTS, this particular FHAP agency, in conjunction with a software
company, had developed Contact Management System (CMS) software that had
significant extra capabilities. The CMS generated a series of initial
intake questions for the FHAP agency's civil rights representative to ask
during intake and then constructed follow-up questions based on the
answers to the previous questions. These follow-up questions reflected the

elements that would be necessary to prove discrimination in a given case.
At the end of its approximately 2-hour intake process, the FHAP agency
tried to have either a perfected complaint or a reason that the contact
did not warrant a perfected complaint. A FHAP agency official told us that
the CMS software had helped decrease the length and improve the
thoroughness of its enforcement process. Again, it is not possible to
isolate the impact of the CMS software, but after the software was
installed, average complaint processing times for the FHAP agency's fair
housing and other civil rights work decreased from 335 days to 252 days.

Differences in Investigations, Including the Degree of Attorney
Involvement and Conciliation Methods, May Improve the Enforcement Process

OGC Involvement

We observed numerous variations in investigative practices among the FHEO
and FHAP agencies we visited. In several locations, officials said that
their specific practices had helped them expedite the process, improve the
quality of the process, or both. First, some locations involved attorneys
earlier and more frequently during the investigation than other locations.
Second, some FHEO offices and FHAP agencies simultaneously investigated
and conciliated complaints, while others delayed the investigation while
conciliating. Third, one hub and one FHAP agency customarily used separate
persons to investigate and conciliate a complaint, while at other hubs and
FHAP agencies, a single person handled both of these tasks. Fourth, some
enforcement locations employed a tool called a "bubble sheet" to help meet
the 100-day requirement for completing investigations. Last, one FHAP
agency used software that provided additional investigative tools that
TEAPOTS did not provide.

At the FHEO offices and FHAP agencies we visited, investigators and
attorneys interacted to different degrees, and several officials told us
that greater interaction had resulted in shorter and more thorough
investigations. For example, at one hub the regional OGC had weekly
meetings with investigators at the same location and biweekly meetings
with investigators at other offices in the region. Interaction at another
hub was less formal, but both regional OGC attorneys and the investigators
said that frequent and meaningful interaction occurred on most cases
through the informal "open-door" approach. At a third hub, OGC attorneys
were not yet formally interacting with investigators, although they had
recently signed a memorandum of understanding to do so. At FHAP agencies,
we saw similar variations. One FHAP agency, as mentioned earlier, had a
"coach attorney" on each team to help from the earliest stages of the
investigations. At other FHAP agencies we visited, investigators had more
limited interaction with the FHAP agency attorney.

In our survey of the 10 hub directors, 5 said that involving OGC in
investigations had a great or very great impact on investigations,
improving thoroughness, decreasing length, or both.24 Officials cited
various reasons for this result, including that the interactions with OGC:

o 	reduced the amount of work wasted on aspects of a case that should not
receive investigative attention, shortening investigations;

o 	reduced the amount of additional work involved in seeking attorney
concurrence, decreasing the length of investigations;

o 	helped the investigators pursue the appropriate leads at the best times
during an investigation, increasing thoroughness; and

o 	created more cooperation among complainants and respondents, as the
parties believed that attorneys were more involved in the enforcement
process.

FHEO has recognized the importance of greater FHEO-OGC interaction. A May
5, 2003, memorandum to all hub directors and OGC regional counsels from
the FHEO Assistant Secretary and the HUD General Counsel said, "The most
effective fair housing enforcement actions are the result of frequent
coordination and collaboration between investigators and counsels." That
memorandum required FHEO/regional counsel to consult with FHEO personnel
frequently during the enforcement process, including having:

"significant involvement at complaint intake, in determinations of
jurisdiction, in investigative plan development, in conducting
investigations, in the effort to resolve cases informally through
conciliation, and in making determinations of reasonable cause."

That memorandum also required each regional counsel and each FHEO hub
director to enter into working agreements with each other to formalize
their working relationships. As of November 24, 2003, every hub had those
agreements in place, and one HUD official said that the new memorandum of
understanding had resulted in improved communication between investigators
and OGC.

24The complete results of our survey appear in appendix II.

Simultaneous Conciliations	Some HUD locations we visited put
investigations on hold when conciliation looked likely, while others did
not. Some fair housing officials at the locations that simultaneously
investigated and conciliated told us that doing so not only expedited the
enforcement process but could also facilitate conciliation. Because the
parties were aware that the investigation was ongoing, two hub directors
told us they were sometimes more willing to conciliate. Additionally, some
officials at the offices that delayed the investigation while attempting
conciliation told us that this practice increased the number of calendar
days necessary to investigate a case. However, one hub official told us
that simultaneous investigation and conciliation could waste resources, as
it might not be necessary to obtain further evidence in a case that would
be conciliated. Overall, 6 of the 10 hub directors told us that
simultaneous investigation and conciliation had a great or very great
impact on the length of the enforcement process, and all 6 said that the
practice decreased the length. Four directors said that the practice had a
great or very great impact on the thoroughness of investigations, and
these four told us that it increased the thoroughness of investigations.

Investigator Conciliation of Own Investigators at some FHEO locations and
FHAP agencies customarily

Cases

conciliated their own cases, while other locations usually used separate
investigators and conciliators.25 Officials we spoke with were divided on
the impact of this practice. Some officials told us that having the same
person performing both tasks had not caused problems. Other officials-
including some at locations where investigators conciliated their own
cases-indicated a preference to have different people perform these tasks.
One official said that separating these tasks enabled simultaneous
conciliation and investigation of a complaint, a practice that speeded up
the process. Another official noted that parties might share information
with a conciliator that they would not share with an investigator and that
a conflict of interest might result if one person tried to do both. The
same official said that although investigators were not allowed to use
information they learned as conciliators during investigations, the
information could still influence the questions conciliators posed-and
thus the information they learned-as investigators. Similarly, at one hub
an OGC official told us that information learned as a result of
conciliation efforts should not be included in investigative findings. A
few enforcement

25Federal regulations implementing the Act allow an individual to act as
investigator and conciliator on the same case, but the regulations state
that generally investigators will not conciliate their own cases.

officials at locations that did not separate the tasks said that they did
not have enough staff to have separate conciliators. One hub director said
that a FHAP agency in its region was experimenting with a separate
mediation track in addition to the conciliation mechanism. The mediation
occurred early in the process and involved a professional, nongovernment
mediator. The director said the mediation had usually pleased the parties,
resulting in timely resolutions of cases and beneficial results.

Response to 100-day In responding to the 100-day requirement, several hubs
and FHAP agencies

Requirement	used variations of what they called a "bubble sheet"--a list
of investigative milestones and a time line for completing them--in order
to meet the 100-day requirement. If an investigator missed a milestone,
the "bubble burst," and the investigator might not meet the 100-day
requirement. Some officials said that the bubble sheet helped
investigators complete each of the small steps of the investigation in a
timely fashion and thus increased the likelihood of compliance with the
100-day requirement. Nevertheless, some people said that the 100-day
requirement was arbitrary and often unattainable, and their response to
the 100-day requirement was simply to send the 100-day letter at the
appropriate time.

Software	As in the intake stage, the CMS software used at one FHAP agency
offered additional tools during investigations that TEAPOTS did not. The
CMS generated interview questions for investigations based on the
information obtained in intake and then generated a list of critical
documents that were usually needed for certain types of investigations.
According to FHAP agency officials, the CMS improved the quality of
investigations and decreased the length of cases. One FHEO center we
visited was attempting to store possible witness questions in a central
database for investigators to review to see if any were applicable to
their cases, but this system was not automated and relied on investigators
to compile the list. Officials at that center hoped that having a central
location for all such questions would give investigators at least some
examples of possible questions to ask. Officials at the FHAP agency noted
that some data they are required to enter into TEAPOTS duplicated
information in CMS and indicated that it would be preferable not to enter
this information twice. Another FHAP agency we visited that used other
software in addition to TEAPOTS had begun a pilot program to alleviate
this duplication, using a program that would allow information entered
into TEAPOTS to be incorporated into the FHAP agency software without
keying the data again.

Some Hubs and FHAP Agencies We Visited Had Limited Adjudication
Involvement over Last Several Years

We did not observe any significant variations across agencies in the
adjudication stage of the enforcement process, possibly in part because
the hubs and FHAP agencies we visited had adjudicated very few cases
through their administrative processes. For example, one hub and one FHAP
agency we visited told us they did not have any cases that had gone
through the administrative hearing process over the last 5 years.
Officials at the FHAP agency told us that in the rare cases that could go
to an administrative proceeding, the FHAP agency encouraged parties to opt
for state court, since otherwise the FHAP agency would have to commit
resources to the process. Agency officials said that steering parties to
one forum is inconsistent with the enforcement framework of the Act and
the neutral role FHEO and FHAP agencies should play with respect to forum
selection.

FHEO and FHAP Agencies Had Discretion in Implementing Practices, but FHEO
Had Not Examined Different Practices

The variations among hubs, centers, and FHAP agencies are not surprising,
given the discretion FHEO locations and FHAP agencies have had to
administer the enforcement process. While FHEO's Handbook contains
significant guidance, policies, and procedures, FHAP agencies have not
been required to follow them. Rather, FHAP agencies must meet certain
performance standards to obtain or maintain certification as substantially
equivalent agencies. Under these standards, FHAP agencies must have
engaged in timely, comprehensive, and thorough fair housing complaint
investigation, conciliation, and enforcement activities. For both FHEO
locations and FHAP agencies, the variations we observed could be even
greater, given our small sample. Additionally, according to the 2001
National Council on Disability report, variations in the hubs' practices
had increased since 1996.26 Similarly, the potential for variations in
FHAP agencies' practices has likely grown with the number of FHAP
agencies, which increased from 64 at the start of fiscal year 1996 to 100
at the start of fiscal year 2004.

Many FHEO hub directors indicated that practical improvements could be
made to the enforcement process; in fact, at least four directors believed
that practical improvements could be made to each stage. Several hub

26"Reconstructing Fair Housing," (National Council on Disability) NCD
Report, (Washington, D.C., November 6, 2001). The NCD Report said that
FHEO headquarters had greater authority over the enforcement process in
the early 1990s but that in 1996 authority began to devolve to FHEO's
hubs. As a consequence of that development and other factors, the NCD
report said, significant differences among hubs emerged.

directors provided specific ideas for improvements to the intake stage.
One hub director said that her hub had recently written its own intake
handbook and had set a requirement of completing intake within 15 days,
rather than the 20 days specified in FHEO's Handbook. Five of the 10
directors said that improvements could be made to the investigation stage
for FHEO that would reduce the length of the process to a great or very
great extent. One director specifically mentioned a practice-mediation in
the early stages of the complaint process-that was in place at FHAP
agencies in his region. Additionally, 4 of the 10 directors said that
practical improvements could be made to the investigation stage that would
increase the thoroughness of the enforcement process to a very great
extent. For example, several directors suggested either increasing OGC's
staff to provide more assistance to investigators or putting a non-OGC
attorney on staff at the hub or field level as a resource for the
investigators. Additionally, one hub director said that a checklist she
had recently developed for supervisors reviewing investigations should
increase the thoroughness of investigations. Regarding the adjudication
stage, one hub director said that the region was concerned about not
knowing whether DOJ would accept a fair housing case if a party in the
case elected to have it heard in federal district court.

Despite the existing differences in practices among the entities involved
in enforcing the Act and officials' belief that some practices could be
improved, HUD has not performed a systematic nationwide review of its or
FHAP agencies' enforcement practices since 1996. The 1996 review, a
business process redesign, focused on FHEO's practices, although one FHAP
agency was represented in the process. FHEO uses other reviews for
practices in its offices, such as Quality Management Reviews (QMR), in
part as peer reviews that allow collaboration and information sharing
between FHEO offices. Additionally, FHEO reviews cases FHAP agencies
investigate to determine if the agencies are eligible for payment under
the program. However, the QMRs and FHAP agency reviews are not systematic,
nationwide reviews of the practices that FHEO and FHAP agencies are using.

Enforcement Data Our analysis of FHEO data on fair housing enforcement
activities from Show Some Trends in fiscal year 1996 to 2003 revealed a
number of trends. We found that:

Numbers, Types, and  o  The number of claims or inquiries FHEO received
annually remained Outcomes of Cases stable until 2002 but then increased
substantially. The number of

complaints filed trended downward in the earlier years but then rose
steadily.

o 	An increasing proportion of these complaints alleged discrimination on
the basis of handicap, while the most frequently cited basis of
discrimination-race-declined as a proportion of all complaints.

o 	While the number of investigations completed fell in 1997 and 1998,
more investigations were completed in each subsequent year. FHAP agencies
rather than FHEO conducted most of the investigations.

o 	The outcomes of investigations changed over the period, with an
increasing proportion of investigations closed without finding reasonable
cause to believe discrimination occurred.

o 	The frequency with which FHEO and FHAP agencies completed
investigations within 100 days increased over the period.

The trend data we present are reported on a fiscal year basis. We could
not measure the volume of claims and inquiries before 1996. Generally,
FHEO treated all inquiries it received between 1989 and 1994 as
complaints, regardless of whether the contact alleged a violation of the
Act. During parts of 1994 and 1995, FHEO did not collect information on
those inquiries that did not result in an investigation.

The Number of Inquiries From 1996 until 2002, FHEO's annual numbers of
claims and inquiries and Complaints Filed alleging violations of the Act
varied only slightly, averaging about 4,600 per Increased year, but rose
to more than 5,400 in 2003 (fig. 2). Because FHEO does not

require FHAP agencies to report the number of claims and inquiries
received during this period, we could not determine the number of claims
and inquiries received by FHAP agencies.27

27Other FHEO data give an indication of the extent to which FHAP agencies
received inquiries. Specifically, FHAP agencies were responsible for
intake for nearly 24,000 complaints filed, or 42 percent of all complaints
filed during the period.

Figure 2: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003

Number of claims and inquiries (In thousands)

10

8

6

4

2

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Does not include inquiries received by FHAP agencies.

The combined number of complaints perfected and filed declined slightly
from 1996 until 1998, but then began increasing steadily (fig. 3). By
2003, the number of complaints filed annually had risen to more than
8,000, with FHAP agencies responsible for investigating the largest share.
Of the 53,866 complaints filed during the period, FHAP agencies were
responsible for investigating 67 percent, and FHEO was responsible for
investigating 33 percent.

Figure 3: Fair Housing Complaints Filed by Agency Responsible for
Investigation, FY 1996-2003

Number of complaints filed (In thousands)

10

8

6

4

2

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Total

FHAP agencies

FHEO

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Not all inquiries are perfected into complaints.

Overall, FHAP agencies were responsible for investigating an increasing
portion of complaints filed each year from 1998 until 2003. In part, these
increases may be attributable to the growth in the number of FHAP agencies
nationwide. Seven states (Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New York,
North Dakota, and Vermont), Washington, D.C., and 26 localities created
FHAP agencies between 1996 and 2003 (fig. 4). FHAP agencies were
responsible for investigating an increasing number of complaints filed
between 1998 and 2003 in all except the Denver region (Region 8). In
comparison, four FHEO regions-Boston, Chicago, New York, and
Philadelphia-were responsible for investigating a declining number of
complaints filed during this period.

significantly, rising by more than 13 percentage points to become the
second most frequently cited basis of complaints. Complaints alleging
discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, and retaliation
also grew somewhat, while those alleging discrimination because of sex and
color declined.

Figure 5: Prohibited Basis as a Percent of Complaints Filed Each Year with
FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: Discrimination based upon retaliation prohibits retaliation against
anyone who has filed a fair housing complaint, encouraged or assisted
another person in the filing of a fair housing complaint.

Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints alleged more than
one basis.

The subject matter, or issue covered by the Act, of complaints also
changed from 1996 through 2003. Most of the complaints filed alleged
discriminatory terms, conditions, or privileges (e.g., refusal to repair,
charging an inflated rent) or refusal to rent, but the share of these
complaint issues fell over the period from a high of about 63 percent and
36 percent, respectively, in 1996 to 55 percent and 23 percent in 2003
(fig. 6). At the same time, the share of complaints alleging failure to
make reasonable accommodation or modification rose significantly, from
less than 1 percent in 1996 to 16.5 percent in 2003.28 Complaints alleging
a single issue represented about 68 percent of complaints filed during
that period, while complaints alleging more than one issue represented the
remaining 32 percent.

28Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of handicap
includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in the rules,
policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary
to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. This
category may also include (with the exception of rental environments) the
refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable
modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such
person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full
enjoyment of the premises. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3).

Figure 6: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: Columns do not total 100 percent because some complaints involve
more than one issue.

aRetaliation is covered under Section 818 of the Act making it illegal to
coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise
of, or on account of, his/her having aided any other person in the
exercise of the right to file a fair housing complaint.

bAdvertising refers to making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be
made, printed, or published any notice, statement or advertisement, with
respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference,
limitation, or discrimination based on a protected class (e.g., race,
color, etc.).

cDiscriminatory lending or financial practices refers to engaging in
residential real estate-related transactions (e.g., mortgages,
construction loans, home equity loans, home improvement loans, and
appraisals) that discriminate against any person making such a transaction
on the basis of a protected class. This category includes discrimination
in the provision of professional opportunities in real estate by
restricting membership in the associations necessary for success.

dFalse representation refers to representing to any person that any
dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such a
dwelling is, in fact, so available.

eDesign and construction refers to discrimination in connection with the
failure to design and construct a dwelling in such a manner that, for
example, the public and common use portions are readily accessible to and
usable by persons with disabilities.

fSteering refers to the practice of guiding prospective tenants or
homebuyers to areas where persons of their class have previously been
housed. Blockbusting refers to the practice of inducing homeowners to sell
their property at depressed prices by appealing to their fear of
integration. Redlining refers to a policy of excluding specific geographic
areas from the consideration for investment.

gOther category includes six issues involving (1) criminal activity (i.e.,
covered under a federal criminal statute, Section 901 of the Act, intended
to prohibit housing-related acts of violence motivated by a prohibited
basis such as race, sex, or religion); (2) refusal to insure, which was
cited in less than 1 percent of complaints in 2003; and (3) failure to
qualify for the senior housing exemption all of which were cited in less
than 1 percent of complaints in 2003; (4) discriminatory zoning and land
use (i.e., the practice of applying zoning codes in an uneven manner or
voting to rezone tracts of land to prevent the construction of housing
projected to attract persons of another race), which was cited in about 1
percent of complaints in 2003; (5) failure to comply with HUD poster
regulations, which was not cited in any complaints in 2003; and (6)
allegations involving otherwise denying or otherwise discriminating in
housing, which were cited in about 10 percent of complaints in 2003.

While the volume of complaints filed nationwide grew during the period,
two regions, Denver (Region 8) and Seattle (Region 10) saw a decline
(table 2). Conversely, two regions saw substantial increases.
Specifically, complaints filed in Kansas City (Region 7) doubled during
the period and almost tripled in the New York region (Region 2). The
increases may be attributable, in part, to the addition of FHAP agencies
from 1996 through 2003. By November of 1999, the New York region had two
FHAP agencies online. In fiscal year 2000, the number of complaints filed
in the New York region had more than doubled, rising from 213 to 442
complaints, or 6.3 percent of all complaints filed. FHEO referred 337 of
these complaints to the FHAP agencies for investigation.

Table 2: Regional Distribution of Discrimination Complaints Filed, FY 1996-2003

                Complaints by                                           
            region filed each                                           
                         year 1996  1997  1998   1999 2000  2001  2002   2003 
            Region 1 (Boston)   386   382  359    374   436   407   400   458 
                     Region 2                                           
                   (New York)   253   239  238    213   442   607   699   685 
                     Region 3                                           
               (Philadelphia)   506   453  368    408   532   536   560   541 
           Region 4 (Atlanta)   839   851  742    954 1,306 1,266 1,497 1,367 
           Region 5 (Chicago)   887   953 1,049   924 1,040 1,059 1,142 1,296 
                     Region 6                                           
                 (Fort Worth)   892   629  692    693   700   855   942   968 
             Region 7 (Kansas                                           
                        City)   507   580  780    808   654   677   760 1,035 
            Region 8 (Denver)   401   286  251    281   266   257   280   269 
                Region 9 (San                                           
                   Francisco) 1,118 1,113 1,061 1,089 1,058 1,003 1,067 1,176 
          Region 10 (Seattle)   479   389  277    379   536   339   298   341 
                        Total 6,268 5,875 5,817 6,123 6,970 7,006 7,645 8,136 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Excludes 26 complaints filed with Region 00 (Washington, D.C.).

The Number of Completed Investigations Rose, While Outcomes Varied

Investigations may be completed in several ways, each leading to a
particular outcome. First, an investigation is considered complete when it
is closed administratively-for example, the complainant withdraws the
complaint or staff are unable to locate the complainant. Second, a
FHEO-conducted investigation may be considered complete when the complaint
is transferred to DOJ because of FHEO's agreement to do so in certain
instances, such as in cases involving criminal activity or pattern and
practice issues. Third, FHEO or the FHAP agency may complete the
investigation through conciliation with the parties, or the parties may
settle among themselves. Fourth, FHEO or the FHAP agency may determine
that reasonable cause may exist to believe that a discriminatory housing
practice has occurred (find cause). Finally, FHEO or the FHAP agency may
determine that there is not reasonable cause (no cause).

The number of investigations completed annually during the period rose
after falling significantly in 1997 through 1998 (see fig. 7). This
pattern was

similar for both FHAP agencies and FHEO, though the number of
investigations completed by FHAP agencies declined in 2003 and the number
of investigations completed by FHEO declined in 2002.

Figure 7: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY
1996-2003

Number of completed investigations (In thousands)

10

8

6

4

2

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

FHEO

FHAP agencies

Total

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

The most frequent outcome of investigations completed during the period
was a determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that
discrimination had occurred (see fig. 8). The share of investigations
resulting in this outcome rose from just over 40 percent in 1996 to around
48 percent in 2003. Conversely, the share of investigations completed
through successful conciliation or settlement declined somewhat during

the period, but this outcome remained the second most frequent-about
one-third of all investigations completed during the period.29

A determination of reasonable cause accounted for the smallest share of
outcomes, around 5 percent of all completed investigations. TEAPOTS does
not have a code specifically indicating that an investigation was
completed with a finding of reasonable cause, but does provide for a date
on which cause was found. We used this date to measure the number of
investigations completed with a finding of reasonable cause. According to
a HUD official, FHEO hubs do not record cause dates in TEAPOTS
consistently. Specifically, at least two hubs may initially record the
date the case is transferred to the regional counsel, rather than the date
of the issuance of a determination of reasonable cause with which the
regional counsel has concurred. These hubs then enter a new date when the
regional counsel concurs and a charge of discrimination is issued.
Therefore, the number of investigations that we report as completed during
each fiscal year with a finding of reasonable cause may not match the
number of charges that HUD reports, particularly for fiscal year 2003.

29About 1 percent of investigations completed during this period were
closed by FHEO when they were transferred to DOJ.

Figure 8: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003

Percentage 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

                       Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Administrative closures

Reasonable cause

Conciliation or settlement

No reasonable cause

Note: Does not include investigations closed by FHEO through referral to
the DOJ (about 1 percent in 2003).

We sorted HUD's data on outcomes by basis of complaint, subject matter,
and region. Our analysis revealed the following:

o 	The percentage of no-cause determinations varied somewhat according to
the basis of discrimination alleged. Above-average proportions of
investigations that involved religion, retaliation, and race ended in
no-cause determinations, (55, 53, and 54 percent respectively, compared
with 47 percent overall). Similarly, 41 percent of investigations
involving familial status and 40 percent of investigations involving
handicap as at least one of the bases for discrimination ended in
conciliation or settlement, compared with 32 percent overall.

o 	Outcomes also differed by the subject matter, or issue involved. A
greater proportion of investigations that resulted in a no-cause finding
had discriminatory terms or refusal to rent as an issue (61 and 30
percent, respectively). Conversely, however, relatively few complaints
determined to have no cause involved refusal to sell or noncompliance with
design and construction as issues (4 and 1 percent, respectively).

o 	Regional differences were also apparent in outcomes. Investigations
completed in the Atlanta region (Region 4), for instance, were more likely
to end in no-cause determinations-53 percent-than investigations in any
other region. Similarly, investigations completed in the Denver region
(Region 8) were more likely to end in conciliation or settlement. Finally,
the overall percentage of investigations completed with a reasonable cause
determination varied widely among regions, from as high as 10 percent in
the Boston region (Region 1) to as low as 1 percent in the Fort Worth
region (Region 6).

Complaint investigations that resulted in a determination of reasonable
cause generally proceeded to the adjudication stage. Because of TEAPOTS
data limitations, we were not able to determine the final resolutions
(that is, the reasons for closing the cases, including decisions on
whether or not an actual violation of the Act had occurred) of all
complaints that reached the adjudication stage. Specifically, as table 3
shows, for 8 percent of investigations in which FHEO made a determination
of reasonable cause and 30 percent of investigations in which a FHAP
agency made a similar determination, information on the reason for closure
was missing in TEAPOTS. For the remaining FHEO and FHAP agency
investigations (those for which the reason for closure was available), we
identified the following:

o 	The independent fact finder found that discrimination had occurred in
about 3 percent of the FHEO cases and 7 percent of the FHAP agency cases.

o 	About one-third of all cases (FHEO and FHAP agency) resulted in a
judicial consent order-that is, the parties negotiated a settlement,
either alone or through an appointed settlement judge, which was submitted
to the independent fact finder as a voluntary agreement to resolve the
case.

o 	Of the FHEO cases, 46 percent were closed when the parties elected to
go to court, about 6 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 2

percent resulted in administrative closure, about 1 percent resulted in
judicial dismissal, and in less than 1 percent the independent fact finder
found that no discrimination occurred.

o 	Of the FHAP agency cases, the independent fact finder dismissed 16
percent, 9 percent resulted in conciliation or settlement, 4 percent were
closed administratively, and 4 percent resulted in a finding that no
discrimination occurred.

Table 3: Types of Closures for Complaints for Which FHEO or FHAP Agencies
Determined That There Was Reasonable Cause to Believe That Discrimination
Occurred (Investigations completed in fiscal years 1996-2003)

                                 FHAP agencies    FHEO          Total 
         Types of Closures       Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 
Judicial consent order by ALJ                                      
              or FHAP                                                 
    agency related fact finder         591 30.5  230    32.0    821   
Parties elect to go to court           0 0.0  330    45.9    330   
Judicial dismissal by ALJ or                                       
            fact finder                                               
      related to FHAP agency           309 16.0     10   1.4    319   
Conciliation or settlement by                                      
              FHEO or                                                 
            FHAP agency             176a 9.1        44   6.1    220   
Discrimination found in legal                                      
    proceedings of ALJ or fact                                        
          finder related                                              
          to FHAP agency                134 6.9     24   3.3    158   
     Administrative closure by                                        
              FHEO or                                                 
           FHAP agencyb                 74c 3.8     14   1.9       88 
    No discrimination found in                                        
               legal                                                  
    proceedings of ALJ or fact                                        
          finder related                                              
          to FHAP agency                 77 4.0      5   0.7       82 
    Open case or information on                                       
       adjudication decision           576 29.7     59   8.2    635   
             missingd                                                 
               Total              1,937 100.0    719e   99.5   2,656  

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

aIncludes 145 FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed through
conciliation or settlement. However, FHEO officials are concerned that
FHAP agencies are incorrectly coding what actually may be cases closed
through judicial consent order.

bIncludes complaints that were withdrawn by the complainant after the case
was resolved.

cIncludes three FHAP agency cases coded in TEAPOTS as being closed because
a trial had begun. According to FHEO officials, there have been problems
in the past with FHAP agencies coding these case closures incorrectly.

dThe case is either still open in the adjudication process or TEAPOTS did
not include a closure code.

eIncludes 3 complaints, that had a determination of reasonable cause but
were coded in TEAPOTS as having an adjudication closure code of no cause
(one case) or DOJ settlement (two cases). According to FHEO officials, the
coding for adjudication is likely incorrect.

The Number of Investigations Completed within 100 Days Increased in
2001-2003

The numbers of investigations completed within 100 days by both FHEO and
the FHAP agencies increased significantly after 2001 (fig. 9).30 Some of
the improvement in the number of FHEO investigations completed in 100 days
may have been the result of an initiative aimed at reducing the number of
aged cases in FHEO's inventory. FHEO undertook the initiative in 2001
after completing only 14 percent of its investigations within the 100-day
timeframe in 2000. The number completed in 100 days rose in 2002, to 41
percent of all investigations.31 At the same time, the number of FHAP
agency investigations meeting the 100-day benchmark remained fairly stable
(23 to 33 percent) over the period 1996 to 2003, rising most markedly from
2002 to 2003 by more than 30 percent. In January 2004, FHEO established
monthly efficiency goals aimed at monitoring the progress of the hubs in
meeting both the 20-day intake and 100-day investigative timeliness
benchmarks. It is too soon to determine what effect this initiative might
have on the timeliness of investigations.

30HUD requires that the time to complete an investigation be measured from
the date a complaint is filed, reopened, or reentered (taken back from the
FHAP agency)-whichever is most recent-to the date the investigation is
closed.

31We found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2003, the most frequent month
in which HUD reopened or reentered a fair housing complaint was September,
the last month of the fiscal year. This practice had the effect of
increasing the percentage of investigations that were aged less than 100
days for statistics reported at the end of the fiscal year. We report data
on the age of complaints for investigations completed during the year.

 Figure 9: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 1996-2003

Percentage complete within 100 days

                    1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

                                      FHEO

While data were generally available to measure the length of both FHEO's
and FHAP agencies' investigations, we found that reliable data were
lacking on the intake and adjudication stages handled by FHAP agencies.
First, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to report on intake activities,
and FHAP agencies accounted for intake on 42 percent of all complaints
filed in fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Second, while TEAPOTS contained
data on the dates that inquiries were received for investigations
completed by FHAP agencies, we question the reliability of these data.
According to a FHEO official responsible for TEAPOTS, FHEO staff may have
routinely used the date on which cases were transferred to FHAP agencies
as the "initial inquiry" date. In addition, TEAPOTS data show that 20,226
(54

                              FHAP agencies Total

                       Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: For this analysis, we use HUD's method of measuring compliance with
the 100-day benchmark for investigations-that is, the most recent of the
dates the complaint was filed, reopened, or reentered.

Data Limitations Preclude Comprehensive Measurement of Time Taken by Each
Stage of the Enforcement Process

percent) of complaints investigated by FHAP agencies were filed the same
day that the inquiries were received-that is, the intake stage began and
ended on the same date. Third, HUD does not require FHAP agencies to
report the results of the adjudication of closed investigations.
Accordingly, for many complaints investigated by FHAP agencies that
reached the adjudication stage, TEAPOTS did not show an end date for
adjudication.32 Finally, TEAPOTS was missing these dates for some
complaints investigated by FHEO as well. Using the data that were
available, we measured the typical length of each stage using medians-that
is, the number at the exact midpoint of the range of days required to
complete each stage (or where there was an even number of observations,
the mean or average of two at the midpoint).

TEAPOTS data indicate a median of 12 days for the intake stage (from the
date of the initial inquiry to the date the complaint was filed) for cases
handled by FHEO in 1996 through 2003.33 The data showed that 35 percent of
complaints investigated by FHEO were filed the same day that the claims or
inquiries were received (that is, the intake stage began and ended on the
same date), 28 percent within 20 days, and 31 percent within 21 days to 3
months of the date that the claim or inquiry was received. FHEO's new
monthly efficiency reports aim to, among other things, monitor the hubs'
progress in completing the intake process within 20 days.

The median number of days for investigations (from the date the complaint
was filed to the date the investigation was completed) was 259 for
complaints investigated by FHEO (fig. 10).34 The median number of days
varied somewhat, depending on the outcome of the investigations (e.g.,
administrative closure, finding of reasonable cause, finding of no cause,

32Specifically, of the 1,937 FHAP agency investigations that resulted in
reasonable cause determinations, 575 (30 percent) had no date shown in
TEAPOTS to indicate that the adjudication period had ended.

33For the purpose of measuring compliance with the 100-day benchmark for
investigations, HUD used the most recent of the dates a complaint was
filed, reopened, or reentered (i.e., when HUD takes over an investigation
from a FHAP agency). For the purposes of this section of the report,
however, we used the date on which the complaint was filed in order to
represent the elapsed time experienced by a complainant. That is, we
measured the intake stage from the date the inquiry was received until the
date the complaint was filed, and we measured the investigation stage
starting with the date the complaint was filed.

34In comparison, FHAP agencies took a median of 195 days to complete
investigations during fiscal years 1996 through 2003. TEAPOTS contained
complete information on filing and completion dates for 37,600 such FHAP
agency investigations.

etc.). FHEO completed 61 percent of its investigations within a year of
the date the complaint was filed.35

We could not measure the time required to adjudicate all cases for which
FHEO found cause. Specifically, of the 719 investigations for which FHEO
determined that reasonable cause existed to believe that discrimination
had occurred, TEAPOTS included data on 339 cases that were adjudicated
within HUD. In these cases, the median time required to complete the
adjudication process was 203 days. In an additional 330 cases, one or both
parties elected to have their complaints heard in district court at the
cause date, or shortly thereafter. For these individuals the enforcement
process continued, but FHEO did not record the length of the judicial
process.36 TEAPOTS also did not have information on adjudication for 50
cases for which FHEO found cause.

Figure 10: Median Number of Days of the Three Stages of the Enforcement
Process (Investigations completed by FHEO in fiscal years 1996-2003)

Intake Investigation Adjudication

Days

                       Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we measured the end of the intake
stage and the beginning of the investigation stage using the date the
complaint was filed. The median numbers of days shown are based on 19,312
inquiries that resulted in FHEO investigations completed during fiscal
years 1996 through 2003, for which TEAPOTS included data on the date the
inquiry was received and the date the resulting complaint was filed;
19,299 investigations completed during fiscal years 1996 through 2003, for
which TEAPOTS included data on the date the complaint was filed and the
date the investigation was completed; and 339 investigations completed
during fiscal years 1996 through 2003 that were adjudicated within HUD,
for which TEAPOTS included data on the date that FHEO determined there was
reasonable cause and the date the adjudication stage was completed.

35In comparison, FHAP agencies completed 80 percent of investigations
within 1 year.

36According to HUD officials, FHEO shares responsibility for inputting
adjudication decisions into TEAPOTS with OGC and depends upon getting
information about the adjudication of these cases back from DOJ.

Many Factors Can Influence the Length and Thoroughness of the Title VIII
Enforcement Process

We found that numerous factors affected the length and thoroughness of the
enforcement process. First, hub directors we surveyed said that the
characteristics of complaints-certain issues, for example, and the
presence of multiple bases-could increase the time needed for
investigations, reduce thoroughness, or both. Second, both hub directors
and FHEO and FHAP agency officials said that specific practices could make
investigations shorter and more thorough. Third, hub directors and other
officials pointed to human capital issues as potentially increasing the
length and decreasing the thoroughness of investigations, including staff
shortages, low skill levels, lack of training and guidance, and inadequate
travel resources. Finally, hub directors noted that national performance
goals could reduce the number of aged cases but had little effect on
timeliness or thoroughness.

The Characteristics and Volume of Complaints May Affect Timeliness of the
Enforcement Process

Most hub directors stated that the issue of a complaint had a great or
very great effect on the amount of time required to complete the
enforcement process. Complex issues such as refusing to provide insurance
or credit could add time to investigations. For example, investigators
might have to analyze statistics to determine if the complainant was
treated differently from the norm. According to one director, some issues,
such as failure to make reasonable accommodation, could require time for
staff to conduct time-consuming on-site visits. In addition, some
directors thought that complaints involving multiple issues could take
longer to investigate.

Agency data tend to support some of the directors' observations (fig. 11).
While investigations took a median of 211 days to complete during the
period, the median for investigations involving discriminatory lending was
295 days; and for noncompliance with design and construction issues, it
took 284 days. However, the median for investigations involving reasonable
accommodation or modification was just 162 days.

    Figure 11: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of
                          Discrimination, FY 1996-2003

Days

500

400

300

200

100 0

                                       y

lending orDiscriminator

financial practices

selFa

representation

sting,u

Steering,bk

and redlining

              Refusal to sell (Section 818) Refusal to rent tising

yterms

Discriminatorle

Other Reasonabor modification Single issue

                          Multiple issuesconstruction

verAd

cobl

Issue

                       Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

FHEO

FHAP agencies

Median

Note: See notes to figure 6 for a discussion of issues covered under the
Act.

Although directors generally did not believe that any particular
prohibited basis had an effect on the length of investigations and thus on
the enforcement process, one director did note that complaints involving
multiple bases would likely increase the length of the enforcement
process. We found that the median number of days required to complete
investigations involving multiple bases was slightly higher than for
single-issue investigations-217 days. The median number of days FHAP
agencies needed to complete an investigation varied more across specific
prohibited bases than it did for FHEO. For FHEO, the median length of
investigations ranged from a low of 223 days (handicap) to 302 days
(retaliation) (see fig.

12). For FHAP agencies, the median length of investigations ranged from a
low of 175 days (handicap) to 211 (sex).

Figure 12: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003 Days

origin status basis bases

FHEO

FHAP agencies

Median

Most directors stated that the volume of complaints received in their
region had a great or very great effect on the length of the enforcement
process. According to one director, a large volume of complaints created
competing demands on staff time. Another director noted that the volume of
complaints could lengthen the enforcement process if staff resources were
in short supply.

Half (5) of the hub directors also believed that the volume of inquiries
and complaints had a great or very great effect on the thoroughness of the
enforcement process. One respondent noted that complex issues in a
complaint or large volumes of complaints in a region might decrease the
thoroughness of the process if resources were strained, staff were not

200

100

0 Color Retaliation Race National Sex Familial Religion Handicap Single
Multiple

(Section 818) Prohibited basis

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

adequately skilled to accommodate the amount or level of difficulty of the
work to be done, or both. Fewer directors (2 out of 10), said they
believed that the basis of complaints had a great or very great effect on
the thoroughness of the process. One director noted that, regardless of
the factors involved, the thoroughness of the enforcement process should
never be compromised.

Certain Practices Could Improve the Enforcement Process

As we have seen, some HUD and FHAP agency officials identified two intake
practices that they believe shortened the enforcement process, increased
its thoroughness, or both. The first-involving investigators in intake-was
cited by 4 of the 10 HUD hub directors that responded to our survey.
Further, officials at the FHAP agency that used the team intake and
investigation approach noted that it had led to better investigations that
were conducted in less time. The second practice-using CMS enforcement
software-was credited by the FHAP agency that used it with facilitating
both timeliness and thoroughness.

HUD and FHAP agency officials also cited several investigative practices
that increased the thoroughness or decreased the length of the enforcement
process or both. First, several HUD officials said that early and frequent
OGC involvement was important to increasing the thoroughness of
investigations. Second, some enforcement officials said that simultaneous
conciliation and investigation might decrease the length of
investigations. Third, some HUD hub directors said that using TEAPOTS
affected the length and thoroughness of the process to a great or very
great extent: specifically, 6 hub directors indicated that using the
system increased the thoroughness of the enforcement process, decreased
the length of the process, or both. Some officials, however, also told us
that TEAPOTS could be improved, and one FHAP agency's CMS software offered
an alternative system that the FHAP agency credited with reducing the
length of its process and improving its thoroughness. The CMS software
provides investigators more sophisticated tools than TEAPOTS offered for
planning and conducting investigations. Finally, one hub official said
that alternative mediation at the outset of the complaint process could
help decrease the length of some complaint investigations.

Human Capital Challenges FHEO officials and others we interviewed
identified human capital
Also Affect the Enforcement management challenges that had negatively
affected the fair housing
Process enforcement process, including the number and skill levels of FHEO
staff,

the quality and effectiveness of training, and other issues.

Number of Staff	FHEO officials told us that hiring freezes had left a
number of FHEO offices with chronic staffing shortages, especially among
supervisors and clerical workers and that these shortages had never been
fully resolved. The shortages affected not only enforcement of the Act,
but also FHEO's other responsibilities, forcing managers to assume heavier
caseloads and professional staff to perform administrative duties rather
than concentrating on enforcement. Hub directors told us that hiring
activity in the last 3 years had at least partially abated the chronic
staffing shortages. However, they added that FHEO now faces the prospect
of losing staff because a corrective action plan requires that FHEO,
consistent with HUD's key workforce planning effort, have fewer employees
than it currently has.

As figure 13 shows, the total number of full-time equivalents (FTE) 37 in
FHEO has fluctuated over the last 10 years, falling from a high of 750 in
fiscal year 1994 to a low of 579 in fiscal year 2000. In 2003, FHEO's FTEs
rose once more to 744 after a concerted hiring initiative, although the
workforce effort mentioned above suggested a level of 640. Currently, FHEO
faces the challenge of meeting a mandatory ceiling of 640. FHEO comprised
about 6 percent of HUD's total workforce until fiscal year 2002 and 7
percent in 2003, when FHEO directors received hiring authority for new
staff. 38 FHEO staff have other responsibilities beyond enforcing Title
VIII, including monitoring program compliance by housing providers
receiving federal funds, performing Fair Housing Initiatives Program
(FHIP) grant management, monitoring FHAP agencies, providing technical
assistance, and performing education and outreach activities.

37A full-time equivalent (FTE) is the number of regular hours a full time
equivalent would work during a given year. For most years, an FTE equals
2,080 hours. The FTEs reported here represent the total number of hours
worked by all FHEO or HUD staff during the year divided by 2,080.

38FHEO expenses are paid out of the Salaries and Expenses fund. Figure 13
shows FHEO FTEs as a proportion of HUD's total FTEs, including those
authorized by the Salaries and Expenses fund, the Working Capital Fund,
the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight accounts. From this point forward, FHEO staff will be
discussed in the context of the Salaries and Expenses fund.

Figure 13: Number of FTEs, FHEO and HUD, FY 1994-2004a

Number of FTEs 800 750

                                      744

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 (estimated)

                                  FHEO HQ FTEs

                                FHEO field FTEs

Sources: HUD, Office of Budget, and Congressional Justifications.

aIn fiscal year 1994, FHEO contained the function of the Office of
Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity (ODEEO), which is responsible
for planning and implementing the department's internal equal employment
activities. HUD established ODEEO in 1995 as a separate program area. HUD
moved ODEEO back under FHEO's responsibilities in fiscal years 2001 and
2002 and FHEO's FTE total for those years includes ODEEO's FTEs. The
department moved ODEEO out of FHEO in fiscal year 2003, and the FTE total
(744) for that year does not include ODEEO FTEs.

bMandated ceiling for 2004.

FHEO hired 167 staff beginning in July 2002 as part of a departmental
effort to reach its requested ceiling by September 30, 2002. That is, HUD
was attempting to reach 9,100 FTEs at the end of fiscal year 2002, a
number that would equal the approved fiscal year 2002 FTE level and the
requested

fiscal year 2003 level.39 FHEO's hiring initiative, like HUD's overall,
was not in line with the department's workforce planning efforts. The most
important of these, the Resource Estimation and Allocation Process (REAP),
a series of department studies conducted from 2000 through 2002, to assess
HUD's staffing requirements, recommended a total FTE ceiling for FHEO of
640.40 As a result of HUD's hiring initiative, HUD had a staffing level of
9,395 at the beginning of fiscal year 2003-295 above the approved fiscal
year 2002 and requested fiscal year 2003 levels.41 Therefore, HUD was
forced both to reprogram more than $25 million to cover the costs of the
newly hired excess staff and to submit to Congress a corrective action
plan consistent with REAP. HUD's Strategic Placement Plan, issued in
January 2004, would reduce FHEO's excess staff to the mandated level of
640 FTEs by the end of fiscal year 2004 through voluntary and, if
necessary, involuntary reassignments. However, as of February 2004, FHEO
remained at 727 FTEs, and FHEO officials told us they did not know how
they would meet the mandated level on schedule. The officials also
expressed concern that they would lose many of their best staff through
the voluntary reassignment plan.

Officials expressed concern not only with the insufficient number of staff
but also the lack of staff at key positions. Some HUD managers said that
due to unfilled supervisor positions in their regions, existing
supervisors were not able to review materials as carefully as they could
have with those positions filled. For example, one center director told us
that investigators did not get supervisory input on initial investigative
plans due to a vacant supervisory post. This center director said that the
gap in supervision

39Congress authorized a total of 10,297 FTEs for HUD for fiscal year 2003
to be funded through the Salaries and Expenses fund, the Working Capital
Fund, the Office of Inspector General, and the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight accounts. This amount included 9,100 FTEs funded
through the Salaries and Expenses account and 643 for FHEO. HUD later
asked the Office of Management and Budget and Congress to increase the
fiscal year 2003 FTE ceiling for the entire department, including 758 FTEs
for FHEO.

40The REAP study conducted in 2000 through 2002 suggested 660.2 FTEs for
FHEO, but officials later revised this figure downward. Under the fiscal
year 2003 Corrective Action Plan, FHEO received a prorated amount of 655.8
FTEs plus 5 FTEs for interns for a total of 660.8 FTEs. In its fiscal year
2004 request, FHEO received an additional 8.3 FTEs for a total of 669, and
HUD removed ODEEO's 29 FTEs from FHEO, resulting in a ceiling of 640 for
fiscal year 2004.

41U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the
Inspector General, Review of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Staffing 9/30 Initiative.

2003-AO-0004. (Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2003).

decreased the thoroughness and sometimes increased the length of
investigations, as existing supervisors were unable to complete work in a
timely manner.

Staff Skills and Experience	Some hub directors and other officials we
spoke with cited concerns about the noncompetitive reassignment of staff
into FHEO. They noted that the level of staff skills could influence the
length and thoroughness of the enforcement process and that the
reassignment process had a generally negative impact on FHEO's overall
skill levels. According to these officials, while many of the reassigned
staff had worked at HUD for years, their skills were often not
transferable to FHEO activities, which require specific analytical,
investigative, and writing skills. Some directors cited the skills issue
as a greater problem for FHEO than the actual numbers of personnel. FHEO's
own internal review also cites concerns about reassigned employees'
qualifications, skills, and work products and about the amount of time and
supervision these employees require.42 FHEO documentation shows that 106
staff were reassigned to the program under various HUD realignments from
1998 to 2002.43 Figure 14 shows the numbers of staff in the three hubs we
visited by their years of experience with FHEO and reassignment status.
Although FHEO has brought many new staff on board recently through
competitive hiring, many staff in the hubs we reviewed came to the
organization via noncompetitive reassignment.

42HUD's internal QMR Program is a peer-review reporting system for
evaluating HUD's field office operations. HUD began conducting QMRs in
2000 and had covered the majority of FHEO offices by 2003.

43These realignments included the Community Builder Redeployment, the HUD
2020 Management Reform, the Office of Administration Redeployment, Cross
Placement, and the Voluntary Reassignment Initiative.

Figure 14: Years of Experience with FHEO and Hiring/Reassignment Status of
FHEO

Staff, as of January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions)

Number of staff

80

6970

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 30+ <30-25 <25-20 <20-15 <15-10 <10-5 <5
(1970-(1975-(1980-(1985-(1990-(1995-(2000-1974) 1979) 1984) 1989) 1994)
1999) 2004)

Employees' years of experience with FHEO (Year employee started with FHEO)

Staff hired competitively

Staff reassigned to FHEO

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Although figure 14 shows that more than half of the FHEO staff currently

located in the three sites we visited had fewer than 10 years of
experience

with FHEO, many have a significant number of years of federal service.

Figure 15 shows a snapshot of the same FHEO employees in the three sites

we visited by their years of federal service.44 The figure demonstrates
that

half of the FHEO employees in the three sites we visited have 20 or more

44Employees are eligible for `optional' or immediate retirement under both
the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee
Retirement System (FERS) if they are 62 years of age with 5 years of
federal service; age 60 with 20 years and, under the CSRS, age 55 with 30
years and, under the FERS, the Minimum Retirement Age with between 10 and
30 years. Under both systems, employees are eligible for `early'
retirement at any age if they have 25 years of service or are age 50 with
20 years of service.

years of federal service, and 14 percent have 30 or more years of federal
service.

Figure 15: Years of Service with Federal Government of FHEO Staff, as of
January 2004 (Chicago, Fort Worth, and New York Regions)

Number of staff

60

51 50

40

30

20

10

0 30+ <30-25 <25-20 <20-15 <15-10 <10-5 <5 (Prior
(1975-(1980-(1985-(1990-(1995-(2000-
to 1974) 1979) 1984) 1989) 1994) 1999) 2004)

Years of service with the federal government
(Year employee started with the federal government)

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Retirement eligibility was an issue not only for the three sites we
visited, but also for FHEO as a whole. Officials expressed concern about
the loss of skilled and experienced staff to retirement, and personnel
data provided by the HUD human resources staff show that 40 percent of
FHEO employees overall were eligible for either early or immediate
retirement in February 2004 (see fig. 16). Moreover, as we have noted
previously, officials that we spoke with also expressed concern that
current plans to eliminate a significant number of FHEO staff by voluntary
reassignment could cause skilled workers to leave FHEO and seek
opportunities elsewhere.

Figure 16: Retirement Eligibility for All FHEO Employees, as of February
2004

Employees eligible for optional retirement now (139)

Employees eligible for early retirement (154)

All other employees (439)

Total number of employees in FHEO: 732

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Training	Providing effective training is another human capital challenge
that FHEO faces. Half of the directors told us that the quality and
effectiveness of training helped reduce the length of the fair housing
enforcement process, and six said that it improved thoroughness. For
example, some directors said that training serves to expedite
investigations as staff gain more technical skills. Other directors said
that training improves thoroughness because staff can recognize issues of
discrimination and decide what evidence is needed to support complaints.

We heard concerns from FHEO staff, an ALJ, and others outside of HUD about
the quality or availability of training for FHEO employees. Most staff we
spoke with reported that they had received initial formal training for
their positions, though not always in a timely fashion. A list of courses
supplied by the HUD Training Academy, which provides the majority of
formal training for FHEO, showed that the basic course in investigation
had been offered annually in all but 1 of the last 5 years. However,
depending on the hiring date, a new staff member might have to wait 1 year
or more to attend the basic course. Potentially compounding this problem,
hub directors told us that although training was available in fiscal year
2003, lack of travel funds sometimes prevented them from sending staff to
training out of the area. Finally, budget data show that although FHEO had
initial approval from the HUD Training Academy to spend $416,000 for

training in fiscal year 2003, the HUD Training Academy reduced FHEO's
training funds to $200,000 as part of the department's overall efforts to
reduce expenditures to cover the cost of excess staff hiring.

FHEO recognized the need for additional training by establishing the HUD
Fair Housing Training Academy, which is slated to open in the summer of
2004. FHEO officials told us that they hope to standardize what the agency
believes are uneven fair housing processes and practices implemented
around the nation by FHEO and its FHAP agency partners, create a more
professional group, and possibly reduce turnover rates at FHAP agencies by
certifying attendees. Initially, however, the academy will serve staff
from only FHAP agencies, not FHEO employees. Officials explained that FHAP
agency funds would cover the costs of this initial training.

FHEO's human capital challenges are symptomatic of those facing HUD as a
whole. FHEO, like the department and other federal agencies, is
experiencing significant challenges in deploying the right skills in the
right places at the right time, is facing a growing number of employees
who are eligible for retirement, and is finding it difficult to fill
certain mission-critical jobs-a situation that could significantly drain
its institutional knowledge.

We have observed that federal agencies need effective strategic workforce
planning to identify and focus on the long-term human capital issues that
most affect their ability to attain mission results. We identified five
key principles that strategic workforce planning should address, which
include (1) involving top management, employees, and other stakeholders in
developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce plan;
(2) determining the critical skills and competencies that will be needed
to achieve current and future programmatic results; (3) developing
strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number, deployment, and
alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining the
contributions of all critical skills and competencies; (4) building the
capability needed to address administrative, educational, and other
requirements important to support workforce strategies; and (5) monitoring
and evaluating the agency's progress toward its human capital goals and
the contribution that human capital results have made toward achieving
programmatic goals. In developing strategies to address workforce gaps, we
reported that agencies should, among other things, consider hiring,
training, staff development, succession planning, performance management,
use of flexibilities, and other human capital

strategies and tools that can be implemented with resources that can
reasonably be expected to be available.45

We have reported in the past that HUD had not done the strategic workforce
planning necessary to address its human capital challenges.46 Like HUD,
FHEO does not have a comprehensive strategic workforce plan to help it
meet key human capital challenges. REAP, which estimates the staff needed
to handle HUD's workload in each of its offices, does not include the
extensive analysis involved in a comprehensive assessment. However, since
we last reported, HUD contracted a technical adviser to conduct a
comprehensive workforce analysis. Such an assessment would cover current
workforce skills, anticipated skill needs, current and future skill gaps,
and needed training and development that will be used to develop a
comprehensive 5-year departmental workforce plan. Additionally, HUD plans
to rollout over the next 3 years a customized human resources and training
information system known as the HUD Integrated Human Resources and
Training System (HIHRTS). HUD documentation says that the system will
replace several legacy systems; will integrate all human resource
information into one platform, making information available to managers
for strategic planning and employee development; and helping ensure that
HUD employees are used effectively.

Lack of Travel Funds Can Affect How Thoroughly Cases Are Investigated

Officials from headquarters and the sites we visited also told us that
inconsistencies in the amount and availability of travel funds impaired
the length and thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement process. As
mentioned previously, in May 2003, Congress approved the reprogramming of
funds within HUD to cover the cost of excess staff hiring, including a
$7.7 million reduction in travel funds. FHEO officials told us that
following this reprogramming, they had no travel funds for up to 6 months,
preventing investigators from making timely visits to the sites of
complaints. Budget data show that FHEO has experienced larger decreases in
travel funds than HUD as a whole. From fiscal year 2002 to 2003, HUD's
allotment for travel decreased by 12 percent. FHEO's travel allotment,
however, decreased by 17 percent over the same period. Directors reported

45U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles for
Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.:
December 2003).

46U.S. General Accounting Office, HUD Human Capital Management:
Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Planning Needed, GAO-02-839 (Washington
D.C.: July 2002).

that interruptions in travel funds in fiscal year 2003 had impeded efforts
to plan and manage investigations. Directors also told us that
uncertainties regarding the department's ultimate annual appropriations
amount had forced headquarters to limit travel funds at the beginning of
fiscal years and prevented them from establishing a firm annual travel
budget. Without this budget, directors said, they could not plan for the
travel that would have helped reduce the length of investigations.

Directors reported using several methods to stretch their travel funds,
including curtailing and delaying travel, limiting the time investigators
could spend in the field, catching up on needed travel when funds became
available at the end of the fiscal year, reducing travel for FHEO's other
responsibilities outside of fair housing enforcement, and asking
investigators from offices closer to the site of the complaint to assist
with the investigation. Some investigators told us that they had used
their own vehicles or funds for site visits and conducted desk
investigations. At the same time, budget data show that hub directors'
routine meetings consumed an increasing share of FHEO's travel budget from
fiscal year 2001 to 2003. Director's meetings utilized 13 percent of
FHEO's travel expenditures of approximately $900,000 in fiscal year
2003.47

Performance Goals May Affect the Length of Investigations

Hub directors we visited told us that while FHEO's national performance
goals have helped reduce the number of aged cases, these goals have had a
negligible impact on the thoroughness of the fair housing enforcement
process and could create competing demands for staff time. Performance
reports show that the percentage of aged fair housing complaints for HUD
nationwide has declined steadily since fiscal year 2000, exceeding the
national goals in fiscal year 2001 through 2003.48 For example, in fiscal
year 2003, the national goal was a 25 percent maximum for aged cases and

47Up significantly from 2 percent of total travel expenses in fiscal year
2001 and 7 percent in fiscal year 2002.

48U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Performance and
Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2003, pp. 2-121. In fiscal year 2000,
HUD's percentage of aged cases nationally was 82 percent. In fiscal year
2001, the goal called for a maximum of 40 percent; FHEO's actual
percentage was 37 percent. For 2002, the corresponding percentages were 35
and 29 percent, respectively.

FHEO achieved 23 percent.49 However, there are no national goals that
directly relate to the thoroughness of investigations or the fair housing
enforcement process. Regardless, some directors told us that although they
strive to meet performance goals, they are more motivated by the statute's
100-day benchmark and the need to provide good customer service.

Directors also cited a tension between the need to meet the 100-day
benchmark and the simultaneous need to conduct a thorough investigation
and said that at times one goal cannot be achieved without some cost to
the other. One director stated that while mindful of the 100-day
benchmark, she would not close a case to meet the time limit unless she
felt that the investigation had been thorough. Directors told us that the
existence of overall performance goals for FHEO could exacerbate the
problem of competing demands. For example, annual goals routinely set
achievement targets in FHEO's area of responsibility outside of Title VIII
enforcement, including program compliance review, monitoring FHIP and FHAP
agencies grantees, increasing the number of substantially equivalent
agencies, and providing training on accessibility and handicap rights. The
time and resources needed to meet these targets could increase the
challenges involved in meeting Title VIII commitments in a timely and
thorough manner.

Conclusions	The fair housing enforcement process provides a framework for
considering complaints of housing discrimination. However, persons who
have experienced alleged discrimination in housing can sometimes face a
lengthy wait before their complaint is resolved. Because flexibility is
built into the process, enforcement practitioners have devised a variety
of practices for processing inquiries and complaints, some of which could
improve the timeliness and thoroughness of investigations. Our limited
look at enforcement operations at FHAP agencies and FHEO centers within 3
of FHEO's 10 regions revealed practices that could potentially expedite
cases if they were adopted elsewhere. Further, many FHEO hub directors
told us they believed that every stage of the fair housing enforcement
process could be improved. However, practitioners may be unaware of such
practices because FHEO has not taken steps to identify

49According to HUD's Performance and Accountability Report: Fiscal Year
2003, FHEO achieved 19 percent maximum aged cases, however, a HUD official
told us this figure is incorrect because it omits open aged cases, which
are with OGC, and that the correct figure is 23 percent.

those practices that hold the promise of improving the fair housing
enforcement process.

Because of data limitations-specifically, data that are of questionable
reliability, missing, or not currently collected-FHEO does not know how
much time individuals face from the day they make an inquiry to the day
they learn the outcome of their cases, particularly when FHAP agencies
handle the investigation. Without comprehensive, reliable data on the
dates when individuals make inquiries, FHEO cannot judge how long
complainants must wait before a FHAP agency undertakes an investigation.
Similarly, without comprehensive, consistent, and reliable data concerning
the dates that complaints are finally decided, HUD cannot determine how
long the intended beneficiaries of the Act typically wait for a decision.
Data that provide a comprehensive view of the enforcement process from
start to finish for both FHEO and FHAP agencies could help HUD target
problem areas and improve management of the enforcement process. TEAPOTS
provides a platform that FHEO and FHAP agencies may use for recording
these key enforcement data.

FHEO's human capital challenges serve to exacerbate the challenge of
improving enforcement practices. Human capital management issues at both
HUD and FHEO are an immediate concern. FHEO's planned reduction in staff
and other human capital factors may affect its ability to enforce fair
housing laws. To meet such challenges, HUD managers will need to continue
their efforts to analyze workforce needs and to develop a workforce
planning process that makes the best use of the department's most
important resource-the people that it employs now and in the future. A
comprehensive strategic workforce planning process that builds on the five
principles that we have observed at other federal agencies will help FHEO
and other departmental programs identify and focus their investments on
the long-term human capital issues that most affect the agency's ability
to achieve its mission.

Recommendations	To improve the management and oversight of the fair
housing enforcement process, we recommend that the HUD Secretary direct
the Assistant Secretary of FHEO to take the following 4 actions:

o 	establish a way to identify and share information on effective
practices among its regional fair housing offices and FHAP agencies;

o 	ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,
reliable data on key dates in the intake stage of the fair housing
enforcement process for FHAP agencies;

o 	ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,
reliable data on key dates in the adjudication stage of the fair housing
enforcement process for both FHEO and FHAP agencies;

o 	ensure that the automated case-tracking system includes complete,
reliable data on the outcomes of the adjudication stage of the fair
housing enforcement process for FHEO and FHAP agencies; and

o 	ensure that hubs enter cause dates into the automated case-tracking
system in a consistent manner.

Further, we recommend that the Secretary take the following action:

o 	In developing HUD's 5-year Departmental Workforce Plan, follow the five
key principles discussed in this report. As part of the comprehensive
workforce analysis, ensure that HUD fully considers a wide range of
strategies to make certain that FHEO obtains and maximizes the necessary
skills and competencies needed to achieve its current and emerging mission
and strategic goals with the resources it can reasonably expect to be
available.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment. We
received written comments from the department's Assistant Secretary for
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. These comments, which are included in
appendix IV, indicated general agreement with our conclusions and
recommendations. The Assistant Secretary noted that FHEO has already begun
to take steps to improve the quality and timeliness of the fair housing
enforcement process. Specific planned actions that are consistent with our
recommendations include (1) implementing a new Business Process Redesign
review; (2) establishing a reporting requirement addressing post-cause
results; and (3) enhancing, in conjunction with the department, FHEO's
efforts at workforce analysis. The Assistant Secretary commented that FHEO
would take a close look at all of the report's recommendations. HUD's
comments also included several suggestions to enhance clarity or technical
accuracy. We revised the report to incorporate these suggestions and have
included them in this report where appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issuance date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs; the HUD Secretary; and other interested congressional members and
committees. We will make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will also be available at no charge on our Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me or Mathew J. Scire at (202) 512-6794 if you or your
staff have any questions concerning this report. Key contributors to this
report were Emily Chalmers, Rachel DeMarcus, Tiffani Green, M. Grace
Haskins, Marc Molino, Andrew Nelson, Carl Ramirez, Beverly Ross, and Anita
Visser.

David G. Wood Director, Financial Markets and

Community Investment

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Our engagement scope was limited to fair housing investigations conducted
under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, rather than
fair housing activities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To describe the fair housing enforcement process, we reviewed the
legislation, regulations, and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity's (FHEO) guidance for intake, investigation and adjudication
of fair housing complaints. We also interviewed officials at FHEO
headquarters who are responsible for oversight and policymaking. In
addition, we conducted site visits and structured interviews with key FHEO
and Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agency officials, including
FHEO hub, FHAP agency, and center directors; intake staff; investigators
and attorneys. We selected 3 of the 10 FHEO hubs and 8 of the 18 centers
for site visits (table 4). We selected the hub sites on the basis of (1)
the number of "aged" cases within the region, (2) the total number of
complaints received, (3) the ratio of FHEO investigations to all
investigations, and (4) the number of organizational components-that is
the number of centers and offices within the hub. We ranked each hub on
the basis of whether they were among the 3 hubs with the highest values,
the 3 with the lowest values or the 4 hubs with the middle values for the
dimensions we measured. We also visited at least one FHAP agency in each
of the selected hub regions.

                        Appendix I Scope and Methodology

                  Table 4: FHEO Hubs Selected for Site Visits

HUD investigations as Percentage of aged Number of complaints a percentage
of all Number of organizational Location cases received investigations
components

Chicago Hub             Medium         High         Medium            High 
Centers                                                        
Detroit                                                        
Columbus                                                       
Chicago                                                        

Fort Worth Hub             High         Medium        High            High 
Centers                                                        
Fort Worth                                                     
New Orleans                                                    
Austin                                                         

New York Hub              Low         Medium         Low            Medium 
Centers                                                      
New York City                                                
Newark                                                       

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

To describe the trends in FHEO data on the numbers, characteristics,
outcomes, and length of fair housing investigations, we used data from
FHEO's automated case-tracking system (TEAPOTS). Specifically, we obtained
data on inquiries and claims made and investigations completed as of
September 2003, for each fiscal year from 1996 through 2003. Using these
data, we computed the following:

o  number of inquiries and claims made,

o  number of complaints filed,

o  number and outcome of investigations completed,

o  percentage of investigations completed within 100 days, and

o  median length of each enforcement stage.

For the purposes of measuring the percentage of investigations completed
within 100 days, we measured the time elapsed between the most recent of
the date filed, date reopened, or date reentered and the date the
investigations were either transferred to the Department of Justice,
closed administratively, conciliated or settled, found to have reasonable
cause, or found not to have reasonable cause.

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

To assess the reliability of TEAPOTS data we used, we examined (1) the
process FHEO and FHAP agencies use to capture and process inquiry and
complaint information and (2) the internal controls over the TEAPOTS
database that store and retrieve this information. We interviewed the
system's managers, reviewed documentation of and reports produced by the
system, compared some of our results to summary reports previously
produced by FHEO, and performed basic reasonableness checks on TEAPOTS
data. Missing values and fields, inconsistencies between fields, and
out-of-range values in fields were infrequent and did not pose a material
risk of error in our analysis. We concluded that the data we analyzed were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. However, we
encountered several limitations in the TEAPOTS data that prevented us from
using them to fully describe the trends in the numbers, characteristics,
and outcomes of fair housing investigations. Because of indications that
TEAPOTS data may either be incomplete or inconsistent regarding the dates
that inquiries were made, and the dates that an independent fact finder
ultimately determined that discrimination did or did not occur, we were
unable to provide complete information on one of our report objectives.
Specifically, we were unable to report on the average time taken by two
phases of the enforcement process for cases handled by FHAP agencies.

In attempting to determine the average time needed to complete each stage
of the fair housing enforcement process, we relied on data from TEAPOTS.
Specifically, we obtained TEAPOTS data on complaint investigations
completed from 1996 through 2003 by FHEO and FHAP agencies and attempted
to measure (1) the time elapsed between a complainants' first contact with
either the FHEO or a FHAP agency and the date that the complaint was
filed; (2) the time elapsed between filing a complaint and completing an
investigation; and (3) the time elapsed between completing an
investigation and the final disposition, the end of the adjudication
process. Because of inconsistent intake data and missing adjudication
data, we were unable to determine the average time that had been required
to complete the first and last stages of the complaint process for cases
handled by FHAP agencies.

To determine the factors that could influence the length and thoroughness
of Title VIII investigations, we interviewed FHEO and FHAP agency
officials responsible for management, intake, investigation, and legal
matters at selected field locations. We also surveyed the 10 FHEO hub
directors. Appendix II reproduces our questionnaire. We also reviewed and
analyzed information concerning the allocation, numbers, experience, and

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

tenure of FHEO staff, including Quality Management Reviews and Resource
Estimation and Allocation Process analyses. In addition, we interviewed
officials and staff responsible for implementing the fair housing process
at selected fair housing enforcement hubs and selected centers within
these hubs. We also reviewed reports on HUD human capital challenges
prepared by GAO, the HUD Inspector General, and other relevant sources

Appendix II

Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

Appendix II Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

Appendix II Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

Human Capital  Very         Moder-ate        Little                        
    Management & Great  Great   Extent    Some  or No                 It      
        Planning Extent Extent           Extent Extent Longer Shorter Depends
 I. Annual                                                                    
 performance                                                          
 management        2      3        2       1      2      0       3       2
 goals set for                                                        
 your Region                                                          
J. The annual                                                              
      Director's                                                      
    Elements set   1      2        4       1      2      1       2       0
    for you as a                                                      
    HUB Director                                                      
K. Succession   0      4        0       3      3      4       0       0    
        planning                                                      
 L. Workforce                                                                 
 analysis                                                             
 (Alignment of     1      4        3       1      1      4       1       0
 staff skill                                                          
 with mission                                                         
 accomplishment)                                                      
    M. REAP/TEAM   3      0        1       2      4      2       1       0    
                  Very         Moder-ate        Little                        
           Other Great  Great   Extent    Some  or No                 It      
                 Extent Extent           Extent Extent Longer Shorter Depends
       N. Please                                                              
  specify. (Type  n/a    n/a      n/a     n/a    n/a    n/a     n/a     n/a
in the shaded                                                      
blank below.)                                                      

Appendix II Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

    A. Subject                                                                       
  matter/issue   2      3        3       0      2         4           1         0
            of                                                               
discrimination                                                               
 B. Prohibited                                                                       
      basis of   1      1        4       3      1         2           0         0
discrimination                                                               
  C. Volume of                                                                       
 inquiries and   1      4        2       2      1         4           1         0
    complaints                                                               
Staffing        Very                          Little    Less        More             
Levels, Skill  Great  Great  Moder-ate  Some  or No  Thor-oughly Thor-oughly It      
& Resources    Extent Extent  Extent   Extent Extent                         Depends
  D. Number of   1      4        1       2      2         2           2         1    
         staff                                                               
E. Level of                                                                       
skill among   2      6        1       0      1         4           1         3
         staff                                                               
 F. Amount and                                                                       
  availability   1      2        2       3      2         1           2         0
of training                                                               
         funds                                                               
G. Quality and                                                                       
 effectiveness   0      6        2       1      1         0           6         0
of training                                                               
 H. Amount and                                                                       
  availability   4      2        2       1      1         3           2         1
     of travel                                                               
         funds                                                               
 Human Capital  Very                          Little                                 
  Management & Great  Great  Moder-ate  Some  or No     Less        More     It      
      Planning Extent Extent  Extent   Extent Extent Thor-oughly Thor-oughly Depends
     I. Annual                                                                       
performance                                                               
    management   2      1        1       2      4         2           1         0
 goals set for                                                               
your Region                                                               
 J. The annual                                                                       
    Director's                                                               
  Elements set   1      1        2       2      4         2           0         0
  for you as a                                                               
  HUB Director                                                               
 K. Succession   1      1        1       0      7         1           1         0    
      planning                                                               

                                  Page 4 of 8

Appendix II Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

L. Workforce                                                                          
analysis                                                                      
(Alignment of     2      2        3       0      3         1           3         0
staff skill                                                                   
with mission                                                                  
accomplishment)                                                               
M. REAP/TEAM   1      1        1       1      6         1           1         0    
                 Very         Moder-ate        Little    Less        More             
          Other Great  Great   Extent    Some  or No  Thor-oughly Thor-oughly It      
                Extent Extent           Extent Extent                         Depends
      N. Please                                                                       
 specify. (Type  n/a    n/a      n/a     n/a    n/a       n/a         n/a       n/a
  in the shaded                                                               
  blank below.)                                                               

Appendix II Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

             D. Continuing to conduct investigations while in 3 3 2 1 1 0 6 0 
                                                 conciliation               

Appendix II Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

5. To what extent could practical improvements be made to each of the
following Title VIII activities that would reduce the amount of time
required to complete the entire process? Please consider any ideas or
practices that differ from HUD's current enforcement process and that,
with proper funding and training, would improve the overall length of the
process. You will have an opportunity to share these ideas and practices
during our follow-up interview. Check one box for each row.

                                      Very                            Little  
                                      Great   Great  Moderate  Some    or No  
                                     Extent  Extent  Extent   Extent  Extent  
                                               Title VIII Enforcement Process
                     A. Intake stage    3       1       0        4       2    
              B. Investigation stage                                          
                      (including the    4       1       2        3       0
              conciliation process)a                                  
               C. Adjudication stage    3       3       2        1       1    
                                   a                                  

6. To what extent could practical improvements be made to each of the
following Title VIII activities that would improve the overall
thoroughness of the entire process? Please consider any ideas or practices
that differ from HUD's current enforcement process, and that, with proper
funding and training, would improve the overall thoroughness of the
process. You will have an opportunity to share these ideas and practices
during our follow-up interview. Check one box for each row.

                                      Very                            Little  
                                      Great   Great  Moderate  Some    or No  
                                     Extent  Extent  Extent   Extent  Extent  
                                               Title VIII Enforcement Process
                     A. Intake stage    3       0       1        3       3    
              B. Investigation stage                                          
                      (including the    4       1       0        4       1
              conciliation process)a                                  
               C. Adjudication stage    3       1       1        3       2    
                                   a                                  

7. Please describe any noteworthy practices that your office uses in each
stage of the Title VIII fair housing enforcement process. (If you are
using the Word version of this survey, please type your answers in the
shaded blanks.)

Intake Stage

Page 7 of 8

Appendix II Hub Directors' Survey Questions and Responses

                              Investigation Stage (including the conciliation 
                                                                   process) a 
                                                         Adjudication Stage a 

a Some hub directors may have defined the investigation and adjudication
stages differently than other directors.

                                  Page 8 of 8

Appendix III

Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12

          Table 5: Claims and Inquiries Received by FHEO, FY 1996-2003

                             Claims           Inquiries                 Total 
                   1996            4,614          0                     4,614 
                   1997            4,333          0                     4,333 
                   1998            4,791          1                     4,792 
                   1999            4,831          1                     4,832 
                   2000            4,445          2                     4,447 
                   2001            1,323        3,140                   4,463 
                   2002                0        4,628                   4,628 
                   2003                0        5,417                   5,417 
                  Total      24,337            13,189                  37,526 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 2.

              Table 6: Fair Housing Complaints Filed, FY 1996-2003

                            FHAP Agencies           FHEO                Total 
                  1996                   4,213      2,055               6,268 
                  1997                   4,057      1,819               5,876 
                  1998                   3,792      2,026               5,818 

1999 3,888 2,251 6,139 2000 4,823 2,150 6,973 2001 5,034 1,975 7,009 2002
5,079 2,568 7,647 2003 5,397 2,739 8,136 Total 36,283 17,583 53,866

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 3.

       Appendix III Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12

Table 7: Prohibited Basis of Fair Housing Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003

                1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003  
                Num.   Num.    Num.    Num.    Num.    Num.    Num.      Num. 
                Per.   Per.    Per.    Per.    Per.    Per.    Per.      Per. 
    Handicap    1,577  1,740   1,766   2,082   2,398   2,438   2,888    3,166 
                25.2   29.6    30.4    33.9    34.4    34.8    37.9        39 
    Familial                                                           
     Status     1,578  1,306   1,165   1,163   1,281   1,248   1,238    1,297 
                25.2   22.2    20      18.9    18.4    17.8    16.2        16 
    National                                                           
     Origin        810     693     660   690       818     903   930    1,052 
                  12.9    11.8    11.4  11.2      11.7    12.9  12.2       13 
       Sex         780     698     644 559 9.1     729     812   870      935 
                  12.4    11.9    11.1            10.5    11.6  11.4     11.5 
      Color    470 7.5  589 10 429 7.4 277 4.5 285 4.1 317 4.5 186 2.4    180 
                                                                          2.2 
Retaliation 142 2.3 123 2.1 180 3.1  184 3  286 4.1 411 5.9 401 5.3  408   
    Religion    95 1.5   116 2 113 1.9 145 2.4 163 2.3 155 2.2 204 2.7  241   
      Total     6,268   5,875   5,813   6,138   6,972   7,004   7,624  8,111  

Race 2,729 43.5 2,562 43.6 2,638 45.4 2,457 40 2,801 40.2 2,745 39.2 3,000 39.3
                                   3,198 39.4

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. Notes: Data also represented in figure
5. Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may have more
than one basis.

       Appendix III Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12

Table 8: Issue Covered Under the Act for Complaints Filed with FHEO and
FHAP Agencies, FY 1996-2003

Total 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Num. Num. Per. Num. Per.
Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.

Discriminatory 58.4	terms 31,466 3,932 62.7 3,775 64.2 3,539 60.9 3,586
3,961 56.8 4,008 57.2 4,213 55.1 4,452 54.7	

 Refusal to rent 15,011 2,274 36.3 1,775 30.2 1,417 24.4 1,699 27.7 1,962 28.1
                        1,990 28.4 2,014 26.3 1,880 23.1

     Reasonable                                                         
    accommodation                                                       
or modification 5,954  11    154   367   685  1,018 1,020 1,357 17.8 1,342 
                          0.2   2.6   6.3  11.2  14.6  14.6              16.5 
     Retaliation                                                        
    (Section 818)  6,990  857   699   863   855    887   777   942 12.3 1,110 
                         13.7  11.9  14.8  13.9   12.7  11.1             13.6 
                          257   286   408   611    645   649   558 7.3    440 
     Advertising   3,854  4.1   4.9   7.0  10.0    9.3   9.3              5.4 

Discriminatory	lending or 	financial	practices 2,876 238 3.8 293 5.0 291
5.0 246 4.0 359 5.2 427 6.1 492 6.4 530 6.5	

     False                                                                 
 representation 1,405 175 2.8 150 2.6 193 3.3 163  189 2.7 159 2.3 169 2.2  207 
                                              2.7                           2.5 
Refusal to   1,788 153 2.4 156 2.7 203 3.5 181  260 3.7 261 3.7 288 3.8  286 
      sell                                    3.0                           3.5 
Design and                                                              
  construction  1,418  55 0.9 126 2.1 215 3.7 278  219 3.1 152 2.2 154 2.0  219 
                                              4.5                           2.7 
Steering,                                                               
 blockbusting,                                                             
 and redlining    605  51 0.8  53 0.9  68 1.2  62   93 1.3  80 1.1  79 1.0  119 
                                              1.0                           1.5 
                                              650                           874 
     Other      4640  498 8.0 437 7.4 516 8.9 10.6 517 7.4 421 6.0 727 9.5 10.7 

Single issue 36,287 4,300 68.6 4,176 71.1 3,969 68.2 3,912 63.7 4,579 65.7 4,748
                           67.7 5,076 66.4 5,527 67.9

 Multiple issues 17,574 1,968 31.4 1,700 28.9 1,847 31.8 2,226 36.3 2,393 34.3
                        2,261 32.3 2,570 33.6 2,609 32.1

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data. Notes: Data also represented in figure
6. Columns do not total to 100 percent because complaints may involve more
than one issue.

       Appendix III Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12

Table 9: Number of Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP Agencies, FY
1996-2003

                           FHAP Agencies           FHEO                 Total 
                  1996                  4,737      3,190                7,927 
                  1997                  4,430      1,921                6,351 
                  1998                  4,038      1,449                5,487 
                  1999                  3,806      1,963                5,769 
                  2000                  4,216      2,336                6,552 
                  2001                  4,846      3,089                7,935 
                  2002                  5,860      2,474                8,334 
                  2003                  5,667      2,877                8,544 
                 Total                 37,600     19,299               56,899 

                       Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 7.

  Table 10: Outcomes of Fair Housing Investigations Completed by FHEO and FHAP
                             Agencies, FY 1996-2003

Administrative Closure

Reasonable Cause

Conciliation or Settlement No Cause

Transfer to DOJ (FHEO only) Total

              Num. Per. Num. Per. Num. Per.       Num.  Per. Num. Per.   Num. 
             1,454 18.3 293 3.7 2,833 35.7       3,323  41.9   24 0.3   7,927 
               896 14.1 262 4.1 2,316 36.5       2,844  44.8   33 0.5   6,351 
               812 14.8 300 5.5 1,971 35.9       2,349  42.8   55  1    5,487 
               833 14.4 290 5 2,057 35.7         2,412  41.8  177 3.1   5,789 
      2000 929     14.2 324 4.9 2,301 35.1       2,892  44.1  106 1.6   6,552 
     2001 1,104    13.9 405 5.1 2,325 29.3       3,958  49.9  143 1.8   7,935 
     2002 1,087     13  409 4.9 2,464 29.6       4,285  51.4   89 1.1   8,334 
     2003 1,035    12.1 373 4.4 2,912 34.1       4,126  48.3   98 1.1   8,544 
     Total 8,150   14.3 2,656 4.7 19,179 33.7    26,189  46   725 1.3  56,899 
     Source: GAO                                                       
analysis of HUD                                                     
        data.                                                          
                                 Note: Data also                       
                        represented in figure 8.                       

Appendix III Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12

 Table 11: Percentage of Investigations Completed within 100 Days, FY 1996-2003

FHAP Agencies FHEO Total

                                                Total Investigations complete

                   Num.    Per.     Num.    Per.     Num.       Per.     Num. 
            1996  1,110    23.4        524  16.4     1,634      20.6    7,927 
            1997  1,060    23.9        407  21.2     1,467      23.1    6,351 
            1998      957  23.7        308  21.3     1,265      23.1    5,487 
            1999  1,014    26.6        491   25      1,505      26.1    5,769 
            2000  1,145    27.2        328   14      1,473      22.5    6,552 
            2001  1,316    27.2        539  17.4     1,855      23.4    7,935 
            2002  1,471    25.1    1,011    40.9     2,482      29.8    8,334 
            2003  1,893    33.4    1,448    50.3     3,341      39.1    8,544 
           Total  9,966    26.5    5,056    26.2    15,022      26.4   56,899 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 9.

Appendix III Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12

Table 12: Median Number of Days to Complete Investigations by Issue of
Discrimination FY 1996-2003

                                                    FHAP            
                                                  Agencies    FHEO    Overall 
                            Discriminatory terms         197  261         214 
                                 Refusal to rent         218  283         234 
                     Reasonable accommodation or                    
                                    modification         156  175         162 
                       Retaliation (Section 818)         218  296         245 
                                     Advertising         219  267         231 
             Discriminatory lending or financial                    
                                       practices         240  408         295 
                            False representation         206  373         250 
                                 Refusal to sell         216  347       242.5 
                         Design and construction         203  398         284 
           Steering, blockbusting, and redlining         228  359       265.5 
                                           Other         192  199         194 
                                    Single issue         184  242         199 
                                 Multiple issues         220  293         240 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD Data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 11.

Appendix III Tables Corresponding to Data Depicted in Figures 1-12

Table 13: Median Number of Days Needed to Complete Investigations by
Prohibited Basis, FY 1996-2003

                                            FHAP               
                                        Agencies     FHEO             Overall 
                           Race              210      294                 230 
                       Handicap              175      223                 190 
                Familial Status              204      269                 219 
                National Origin              181      290                 209 
                            Sex              211     275.5                226 
                          Color              168      340                 191 
                    Retaliation              196      302                 216 
                       Religion              210     267.5                224 
                   Single Basis              195      253                 211 
                 Multiple Bases              194      283                 217 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Note: Data also represented in figure 12.

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development

GAO's Mission	The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm Waste, and Abuse in E-mail:
[email protected] Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                               Presorted Standard
                              Postage & Fees Paid
                                      GAO
                                Permit No. GI00

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***