U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: The Commission Should Strengthen
Its Quality Assurance Policies and Make Better Use of Its State  
Advisory Committees (01-MAY-06, GAO-06-343).			 
                                                                 
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (the Commission) was	 
established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to serve as an	 
independent, bipartisan, fact-finding agency whose mission is to 
investigate and report on the status of civil rights in the	 
United States. Since its inception, the Commission has conducted 
hearings and issued reports highlighting critical, controversial 
civil rights issues, including racial segregation, impediments to
voting rights, and affirmative action. To carry out its 	 
fact-finding and reporting mission, the Commission is required to
submit at least one report annually to the President and Congress
on federal civil rights enforcement efforts, among other	 
requirements. Because the Commission has no enforcement power,	 
the key means for achieving its mission lies in its credibility  
as an independent and impartial fact-finding and reporting	 
organization. To complement this national fact-finding and	 
reporting effort, separate state advisory committees were also	 
authorized in 1957 to advise the Commission and serve as its	 
"eyes and ears" on state and local civil rights issues. State	 
advisory committees are composed of volunteers appointed by the  
Commission in every state who conduct public hearings on state	 
and local civil rights issues and issue reports to the Commission
on their findings. The Commission's national office reports are  
researched and written by national office staff and approved by  
the Commissioners, and the state advisory committee reports are  
researched and drafted by the Commission's regional office staff 
under the direction of the state advisory committees. We were	 
asked to assess the Commission's quality assurance policies for  
its national and state advisory committee reports and other	 
products and the role of the state advisory committees in	 
fulfilling the Commission's fact-finding and reporting mission.  
More specifically, our objectives were to assess (1) the adequacy
of the Commission's policies for ensuring the quality of its	 
products and (2) the role of the state advisory committees in	 
contributing to the Commission's work.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-343 					        
    ACCNO:   A53082						        
  TITLE:     U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: The Commission Should   
Strengthen Its Quality Assurance Policies and Make Better Use of 
Its State Advisory Committees					 
     DATE:   05/01/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Advisory committees				 
	     Agency missions					 
	     Civil rights					 
	     Federal advisory bodies				 
	     Independent agencies				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Quality assurance					 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-343

     

     * Results in Brief
     * Background
          * Commission Products
          * Quality Assurance Policies
          * State Advisory Committees
     * The Commission Lacks Policies for Ensuring Objectivity or Pr
          * Although the Commission Has Policies That Provide Some Safeg
               * Commission Policies Provide General Criteria for Ensuring Qu
               * The Commission Lacks Policies for Ensuring the Objectivity o
          * Commission Policies Do Not Provide Accountability for Decisi
               * Some Product Decisions Are Made without Consulting All Commi
               * The Commission Has Not Documented Key Decisions on Its Produ
          * Commission Policies for State Advisory Committee Products Ar
     * State Advisory Committees Have Played a Key Role in the Comm
          * State Advisory Committees Have Identified, Examined, and Pub
          * Most State Advisory Committee Activities Have Been Suspended
               * Changes in Membership Criteria Have Delayed Charter Renewal
               * Some Committees Have Continued to Operate without Charters
          * State Advisory Committee Activities Have Declined
          * Declines in Regional Staff Have Limited the Committees' Acti
               * State Advisory Committees Also Hindered by Limits on Travel
               * National Office Policies and Delays in Approving Advisory Co
          * The Current Commission Has Not Generally Sought Input from t
     * Conclusions
     * Recommendations for Executive Action
     * Agency Comments
          * Survey of State Advisory Committees
     * GAO's Response to Comments
          * Policies for Briefings and Hearings
          * Age Distribution
          * Racial Distribution
          * Persons with Disabilities
          * Political and Religious Affiliations
          * Occupations
     * GAO Contact
     * Staff Acknowledgments
     * GAO's Mission
     * Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
          * Order by Mail or Phone
     * To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * Congressional Relations
     * Public Affairs

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

GAO

May 2006

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The Commission Should Strengthen Its Quality Assurance Policies and Make Better
                      Use of Its State Advisory Committees

GAO-06-343

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The Commission Should Strengthen Its Quality Assurance Policies and Make
Better Use of Its State Advisory Committees

  What GAO Found

The Commission has some policies for ensuring the quality of its national
office reports, briefings, and hearings. However, it lacks policies for
ensuring that these products are objective and that the Commission is
sufficiently accountable for the decisions made on these products. While
the Commission's policies for its national office products call for legal
and other reviews, and Commissioners have an increased role in the
development of its products, as GAO previously recommended, the
Commission's policies do not require that Commission reports, briefings,
or hearings incorporate balanced, varied, and contrasting perspectives in
order to ensure objectivity. Also, the Commission has no policy on the use
of external reviewers of national office reports, such as a policy that
would specify when external reviewers should be used and how to select
them so as to obtain a broad representation of views. We also found that
the Commission's leadership has lacked accountability for some of its
reporting decisions. For example, in some cases, the leadership has not
consulted with all Commissioners at key points in the development of its
reports. This includes the development of the Commission's 2005 national
report to the President and Congress, which was significantly refocused
without obtaining the concurrence of all Commissioners. Finally, the
Commission has not secured an external means of oversight to examine its
reporting policies and monitor its practices.

The state advisory committees have played a key role in the Commission's
mission by identifying and reporting on local civil rights issues, but
most committees do not have current charters giving them authorization to
operate and the Commission has not fully integrated the committees into
the accomplishment of its mission. Since 1980, the state advisory
committees have accounted for 200 of the 254 reports issued by the
Commission. However, 38 of the 51 state advisory committees cannot
function because their authorizing charters have expired. In recent years,
the committees' operations have been limited by reduced funds for meetings
and travel and reductions to regional office staff who provide the
committees with essential operational support. Additionally, in our survey
of the state advisory committees and interviews with committee members,
they reported a lack of timely review by the Commission of reports they
have developed. Furthermore, although the state advisory committees are
considered the "eyes and ears" of the Commission, it has not incorporated
the role or work of the committees into its strategic planning and
decision-making processes. Finally, the Commission has not provided for
independent oversight of its policies and practices for the state advisory
committees.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 5
The Commission Lacks Policies for Ensuring Objectivity or Providing
Accountability for Its Products 10
State Advisory Committees Have Played a Key Role in the Commission's Work,
but Most of Their Operations Have Been Suspended 21
Conclusions 34
Recommendations for Executive Action 35
Agency Comments 36
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Appendix II Comments from
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 43
Appendix III Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner Braceras
and GAO's Response 47
GAO's Response to Comments 54

Appendix IV Comments from Commissioner Kirsanow, U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights

Appendix V The Commission's Policies and Process for Developing and
Approving National Office Products

Appendix VI The Commission's Process for Developing and Approving State
Advisory Committee Products

Page i GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix VII  Summary Data on Profiles of the State Advisory Committee  65 
                 Members                                                  
Appendix VIII          GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments            67 
Tables            Table 1: Charter Expiration Dates for State Advisory     
                   Committees, as of February 2006 Table 2: Comparison of 24  
                         the Previous and Proposed New Criteria for State 25  
                         Advisory Committee Membership Table 3: Number of 29
                    Regional Offices and Professional Staff, 1980 to 2006 
Figures           Figure 1: Number of Reports Issued by State Advisory     
                           Committees, 2000 to 2005 Figure 2: Process for     
                  Developing and Approving National Office Reports Figure 28  
                   3: Process for Developing and Approving State Advisory 61
                                                       Committee Products 64

    Abbreviations

CBO                       Congressional Budget Office                      
FACA                                        Federal Advisory Committee Act 
GSA                                        General Services Administration 

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.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

May 1, 2006

The Honorable Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

The Honorable Steve Chabot Chairman Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch United States Senate

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (the Commission) was established by
the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to serve as an independent, bipartisan,
factfinding agency whose mission is to investigate and report on the
status of civil rights in the United States. Since its inception, the
Commission has conducted hearings and issued reports highlighting
critical, controversial civil rights issues, including racial segregation,
impediments to voting rights, and affirmative action. To carry out its
fact-finding and reporting mission, the Commission is required to submit
at least one report annually to the President and Congress on federal
civil rights enforcement efforts, among other requirements. Because the
Commission has no enforcement power, the key means for achieving its
mission lies in its credibility as an independent and impartial
fact-finding and reporting organization. To complement this national
fact-finding and reporting effort, separate state advisory committees were
also authorized in 1957 to advise the Commission and serve as its "eyes
and ears" on state and local civil rights issues. State advisory
committees are composed of volunteers appointed by the Commission in every
state who conduct public hearings on state and local civil rights issues
and issue reports to the Commission on their findings. The Commission's
national office reports are researched and written by national office
staff and approved by the Commissioners, and the state advisory committee
reports are researched and drafted by the Commission's regional office
staff under the direction of the state advisory committees.

We were asked to assess the Commission's quality assurance policies for
its national and state advisory committee reports and other products and
the role of the state advisory committees in fulfilling the Commission's
fact-finding and reporting mission. More specifically, our objectives were
to assess (1) the adequacy of the Commission's policies for ensuring the
quality of its products and (2) the role of the state advisory committees
in contributing to the Commission's work.

To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevant
statutes, regulations, and administrative policies of the Commission;
transcripts and minutes of Commission meetings; and recent Commission and
state advisory committee reports. We interviewed Commission staff,
including the Staff Director, and three Commissioners-the Chair, one
Republican member, and one Democrat. We also attended monthly meetings of
the Commission, including briefings, during the period in which we
conducted our work. To analyze the quality assurance policies for its
products, we reviewed the Commission's administrative policies for its
reports, briefings, and hearings. We also reviewed the policies used by
the National Academies of Sciences (the Academies) and the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) to ensure the quality of their products and guidance
from the Office of Management and Budget on ensuring the quality and
objectivity of information disseminated by federal agencies, in addition
to considering GAO's own policies. We also interviewed officials from the
Academies and CBO. In addition, we reviewed the Commission's files for a
selection of recent national and state advisory committee reports and
interviewed national and regional office staff.

To analyze the state advisory committees' role in the Commission's
factfinding and reporting mission, we conducted a survey of the 51 state
advisory committee chairs. We received responses to this survey from state
advisory committee chairs and former chairs in 36 states. In addition, we
conducted site visits to all six regional offices, where we interviewed
regional staff to determine the support they provide to the state advisory
committees. We also interviewed the state advisory committee chairs and
members in 11 states to understand how they operate and their experiences
with the Commission's national and regional offices. We interviewed
officials at the General Services Administration (GSA), which provides
guidelines for federal advisory committees, and reviewed the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and related documents. In addition, we
reviewed the most recently approved state advisory committee charters,
interviewed Commission officials who work with the regional offices, and
reviewed state advisory committee regulations, policies, and other
guidance. We conducted our work from April 2005 to March 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

  Results in Brief

The Commission has some policies that provide adequate quality assurance
for its products; however, it lacks policies for ensuring the objectivity
of its national office reports, briefings, and hearings and providing
accountability for decisions made on its national office products. Among
its key policies, the Commission requires its national office products to
be reviewed for legal sufficiency and provides affected agencies an
opportunity to comment on the accuracy of information in its draft
reports. In addition, under new Commission policies, Commissioners have an
increased role in the development of its products, as we previously
recommended. However, the Commission lacks several key policies that could
help ensure objectivity in its national office products. Specifically, the
Commission does not have a policy requiring varied and opposing
perspectives in its national office reports, briefings, or hearings.
Similarly, the Commission does not have a policy for determining when to
use external reviewers for its national office reports and how to select
reviewers so that they can provide a variety of perspectives. The
Commission also lacks accountability for the decisions made on its
products. In some cases, the Commission has made decisions without fully
consulting with the Commissioners or documenting its decisions. For
example, the Staff Director did not consult with all the Commissioners or
obtain their agreement before he significantly redirected the focus of its
2005 statutorily required national office report. In addition, although we
found that the Commission has weaknesses in its policies for ensuring the
objectivity of its products and accountability for the decisions made on
these products, it has not provided for any external examination or
monitoring of its policies or practices. Finally, the Commission's product
quality policies for its state committees are more comprehensive than
those for its national office policies, including, for example, the
requirement that state advisory committees consider varied and opposing
perspectives in conducting its work.

The state advisory committees have played a key role in the Commission's
work by identifying and reporting on local civil rights issues, but most
committees do not have current charters giving them authorization to
operate, and the Commission has not fully integrated the committees into
the accomplishment of its mission. Traditionally, the committees have
gathered data on state and local civil rights issues by holding hearings,
forums, and briefings and communicated their findings to the Commission
and the public through reports. Since 1980, the state advisory committees
have accounted for 200 of the 254 reports published by the Commission.
Currently, however, 38 of the 51 state advisory committees cannot conduct
any work because they do not have approved charters. In late 2005, the
Commission began revising the criteria for state advisory committee
membership in order to, among other things, move away from racially and
ethnically based representation toward great diversity in expertise and
ideas. It also decided that the committees' applications for new charters
would not be accepted until they had been redrafted to include only
members who meet the new criteria. Several other actions by the Commission
have limited the activities of the state advisory committees. First, since
the 1990s, because of budgetary constraints, the Commission has
significantly reduced the number of regional office staff, who provide
extensive support to the state committees in conducting their activities
and producing reports. In addition, the Commission has reduced funding for
the state advisory committees, including money needed to hold public
meetings. Furthermore, draft reports prepared by the state advisory
committees are often not reviewed or published by the Commission in a
timely manner. For example, most of the state advisory committees we
visited told us the national office had not reviewed and accepted their
reports in a timely manner, and less than a quarter of the state advisory
committee chairs who responded to our survey reported that they were
satisfied with the national office's timeliness in processing their
reports. The Commission has also not incorporated the work of the state
advisory committees into its strategic planning and decision-making
processes, including articulating how the national office will use the
state advisory committees' findings on state and local civil rights issues
to inform the Commission's national goals and strategies. For example, the
Commission did not obtain input from the state advisory committees in
developing its new draft strategic plan, although the committees play an
important role in accomplishing the agency's goals. Finally, although many
of these are long-standing issues, the Commission has not provided for
independent oversight of its policies and practices for the state advisory
committees.

We are making several recommendations intended to strengthen the
Commission's product quality assurance policies, its accountability for
the decisions made on these products, and its use of the state advisory
committees. More specifically, we are recommending that the Commission
develop policies designed to better ensure the quality of the Commission's
national office products and to ensure that relevant information and
perspectives are covered comprehensively during briefings and hearings. In
addition, we are recommending that the Commission make the most effective
use of the state advisory committees and that it establish an external
accountability mechanism to ensure that the Commission's processes are
well documented and its policies are followed.

We provided the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights with a draft of this
report for review and comment. In its response, the Commission's Staff

                                   Background

Director did not comment on our conclusions or recommendations but instead
described actions taken to improve the Commission's management and
financial controls, the operations of the state advisory committees, the
role of the Commissioners, and internal review procedures for its reports
and briefings. We had already discussed most of these actions in our
report, and we added information on recent state advisory committee
activities. However, while many of these actions are positive, they do not
address the matters upon which we based our recommendations. We continue
to believe that the actions described in our recommendations are needed to
strengthen the Commission's products and make better use of its state
advisory committees. The Staff Director's comments are summarized on pages
36 and 37 and reproduced in their entirety in appendix II.

Although we did not solicit comments from the Commissioners, the Staff
Director provided them with an opportunity to respond to our draft report,
and three of the seven Commissioners provided us with comments. One
Commissioner agreed with the contents of the draft report. However, in a
joint response, the Vice Chair and one Commissioner strongly disagreed
with the draft report's approach, tone, and conclusions and asserted,
among other things, that the report was biased and unbalanced. They also
stated that the report did not sufficiently acknowledge the policy and
other changes made by the Commission and that the previous leadership of
the Commission was responsible for many of the issues discussed in our
report. We have carefully reviewed the Commissioners' comments and
continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and recommendations
are well grounded and that the report is balanced and unbiased. Their
comments and our responses are summarized on pages 37 and 38. The written
comments we received from the Commissioners are contained in appendixes
III and IV.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established to serve as an
independent, bipartisan, fact-finding agency whose mission is to
investigate and report on the status of civil rights in the United States.
It is required to study the impact of federal civil rights laws and
policies with regard to discrimination or denial of equal protection of
the laws. According to its statutory mission, the Commission also serves
as a national clearinghouse for information related to its mission and
investigates charges of citizens being deprived of the right to vote
because of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, or national
origin. For the purpose of carrying out its mission, the Commission may
hold hearings and has the power to administer oaths, issue subpoenas for
the attendance of witnesses and the production of written materials, take
depositions, and use written interrogatories to obtain information about
matters that are the subject of a Commission hearing or report. However,
because the Commission lacks enforcement powers that would enable it to
apply remedies in individual cases, the Commission refers specific
complaints to the appropriate federal, state, or local government agency
for action. 1 Its operations are also governed by the provisions of the
Sunshine Act, which requires the Commission to open most of its meetings
to the public. 2

By statute, the structure of the Commission has three key components- the
Commissioners, the Staff Director, and the state advisory committees:

     o The Commission is directed by eight part-time Commissioners who serve
       6-year staggered terms. Four Commissioners are appointed by the
       President, two by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and two by
       the Speaker of the House of Representatives. With the concurrence of a
       majority of the Commission's members, the President also designates a
       Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the Commissioners. No more
       than four Commissioners can be of the same political party. 3
     o The Staff Director is appointed by the President with the concurrence
       of a majority of the Commissioners. A full-time employee, the Staff
       Director serves as the administrative head of the Commission. All
       Commission offices and senior staff report directly to the Staff
       Director.
     o The Commission has established 51 state advisory committees composed
       of private citizens appointed by the Commission who volunteer to
       assist

1

Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights issues. For
example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is charged with
enforcing specific federal employment antidiscrimination statutes. The
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice also enforces federal
statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability,
religion, and national origin.

2

In general, the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b (2000),
requires collegial bodies composed of two or more individual members to
conduct and dispose of agency business at meetings which have been
announced in advance, for which an agenda has been published and at which
the public may attend and observe. Some meetings can be closed if they
meet specific statutory requirements.

3

As of March 2006, the Commission members included four Republicans, one
Independent, and two Democrats. One position was vacant. In recent years,
several Commissioners have changed their party affiliation during their
tenures. For example, one Commissioner was appointed to the Commission as
a Republican in 2001 but changed her party affiliation to Independent in
December 2004.

                              Commission Products

the agency by identifying local civil rights issues, some of which may
become important at the national level. Each committee has a minimum of 11
members. The state advisory committees are supported by six regional
offices whose primary function is to assist the state committees in their
planning, fact-finding, and reporting activities.

The Commission's annual appropriation has averaged about $9 million for
more than 10 years, with salaries and benefits constituting about 73
percent. Because of level funding since fiscal year 1995, the total number
of full-time equivalent employees steadily declined from 95 in fiscal year
1995 to 64 in fiscal year 2004. As of January 1, 2006, the number of staff
had further declined to 46 full-time staff nationwide, excluding the
Commissioners; 9 of the 46 staff were professionals in regional offices.

After December 2004, when a new Chair, Commissioner, and Staff Director
were appointed, the Commission began to reevaluate its product development
policies and matters related to the operations of its state advisory
committees.

Because the Commission has no enforcement authority, the "force of its
work derives from its scholarly reports." 4 The Commission's work was
intended from the outset to be "objective and free from partisanship . . .
broad and at the same time thorough," as the Attorney General noted when
he transmitted the legislative proposal that established the
Commission-the Civil Rights Act of 1957. 5 The primary written product
produced by the Commission's national office is a statutorily required
annual report on federal civil rights enforcement efforts. This statutory
report, which is transmitted to the President and Congress, contains
findings, conclusions, and recommendations and is published by the
national office. In addition, the national office produces other studies,
such as reports on federal funding for civil rights programs and letters
to agencies or members of Congress on civil rights issues. The Commission
also invites speakers, such as attorneys and scholars, to brief the
Commissioners on civil rights issues upon request at the Commission's

4

H.R. Rep. No. 775 103rd Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1994).

5

Letter from Herbert Brownell, Jr. to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, April 9, 1956, reprinted in H.R. Rep. No. 29, 85th Cong.,
1st Sess. 13 (1957). In our report, "objectivity" means expressing facts
or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings,
prejudices, or interpretations. Synonyms include "fairness,"
"impartiality," and "independence."

Page 7 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

regular (generally, monthly) public meetings. Such briefings can also
serve as the basis for Commission reports that include the speakers'
written statements. The Commission has also conducted public hearings with
witnesses as part of its investigative and fact-finding mission. The
Commission's professional staff researches and writes its national office
reports and organizes Commission briefings and fact-finding hearings.

In addition to the Commission's national office products, the state
advisory committees produce written reports that are based on factfinding
hearings and other public meetings. State advisory committee members
propose civil rights topics for study, participate in state and local
hearings and public meetings that they sponsor, review draft reports, and
vote to approve state advisory committee reports to be sent to the
Commission. Fact-finding reports may contain findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for action. State advisory committees also issue reports
that summarize speakers' presentations at conferences and public hearings
held by the committee. The Commission's regional staff provide support to
the state committees by organizing and attending their meetings, hearings,
and other public events, and by researching and drafting reports for the
committees.

The Staff Director and Commissioners play key roles in approving the
Commission's products. The Staff Director is responsible, among other
duties, for approving all national office project proposals, project
designs, and draft products before they are forwarded to the Commissioners
for review. The Staff Director also approves all state advisory committee
activities, project proposals, and reports. Commissioners vote to approve
national office products at key stages, such as project proposals and
final drafts, and they also receive all state advisory committee final
reports but do not vote to accept or reject them.

Quality Assurance Policies The Commission's quality assurance policies for
its national office and state advisory committee products are set forth in
its Administrative Manual, 6 Legal Sufficiency and Defame and Degrade
Manual, and Hearing Manual. In addition, the Commission's quality
assurance policies for its state advisory committee products are set forth
in the Commission's

6

This manual contains the Commission's administrative instructions and
policies for many of its day-to-day operations. Hereafter, we refer to the
Administrative Manual as the Commission's policy manual.

Page 8 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

                           State Advisory Committees

State Advisory Committee Handbook, published by the Commission in February
1998. The Commission's policies for its state advisory committees provide
guidance for developing and approving project proposals and reports and
conducting fact-finding hearings and public meetings. Some of the
Commission's regional offices also have issued memorandums and other
documents on policies affecting their products. (See apps. V and VI for
further information on the Commission's policies and processes for
developing and approving national office and state advisory committee
products.)

The Commission's state advisory committees were established to function as
the "eyes and ears" of the Commission on civil rights issues. The
Commission's statute authorizes the creation of advisory committees and
directs the Commission to establish at least one advisory committee in
every state and the District of Columbia. Each state committee has a
charter that enables it to operate and identifies its members. Each
charter is valid for a term of 2 years, and the committee terminates if
the charter is not renewed at the end of the term. 7 The Commission is
responsible for renewing state advisory committee charters.

The mission of the state advisory committees is to investigate within
their states any subject that the Commission itself is authorized to
investigate and provide advice to the Commission in writing about their
findings and recommendations. The committees must confine their studies to
the state covered by their charters. They are not limited to subjects
chosen by the Commission for their study but may study any subjects within
the purview of the Commission's statute. More specifically, the state
advisory committees advise the Commission about (1) any alleged denials of
the right to vote due to discrimination or fraud, (2) any matters related
to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the law and the effect
federal laws and policies have with respect to equal protection of the
laws, and (3) any matters of mutual concern in the preparation of reports
of the Commission to the President and Congress. Advisory committees are
also charged to receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from
individuals, public and private organizations, and public officials upon
matters pertinent to advisory committee inquiries; assist the Commission

7

The Commission recently asked Congress to change the term of each state
advisory committee from 2 years to 4 years but as of February 2006, this
change had not been made. FACA limits charters to 2 years and provides
other operating parameters for advisory committees. See 5 U.S.C. App. 1-16
(2000).

Page 9 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

  The Commission Lacks Policies for Ensuring Objectivity or Providing
  Accountability for Its Products

in the exercise of its clearinghouse function; and, attend, as observers,
any open hearing or conference that the Commission may hold within their
state.

To carry out their mission to gather information and to advise the
Commission on state and local civil rights issues, state advisory
committees are authorized to hold fact-finding meetings and invite
government officials and private persons to provide information and their
views on various subjects. Advisory committee meetings are open to the
public, and a designated federal employee must be present at all meetings.
Any person may submit a written statement at any business or fact-finding
meeting of an advisory committee and, at the discretion of the designated
federal employee, may make an oral presentation.

The Commission's relations with its state advisory committees are guided
and regulated by FACA. Enacted in 1972, FACA prescribes certain ground
rules that govern all federal advisory committees, including the
Commission's 51 advisory committees. Under the act, GSA established a
Committee Management Secretariat, which is tasked with prescribing
administrative guidelines and management controls for advisory committees
and providing advice, assistance, and guidance to advisory committees to
improve their performance. In turn, FACA requires each agency head to
establish uniform administrative guidelines and management controls for
its advisory committees that are consistent with the Secretariat's
directives. Under FACA, advisory committees are to have a balanced
representation of views and adequate funding and support, and to exercise
independent judgment without inappropriate influence from the appointing
agency or any other party. 8

The Commission has some policies designed to ensure the quality of its
products. However, it does not have policies for ensuring an objective
examination of the issues or ensuring accountability for the decisions
made on its products. The Commission's policies for developing and
approving its products do not contain criteria to be used by the Staff
Director or Commissioners and do not provide for the representation of
diverse perspectives or the use of experts as external reviewers. In
addition, the Commission's policies do not provide transparency for the
decisions made in regard to its national office products, and the

8

5 U.S.C. App. 5(b) and (c) (2000).

    Although the Commission Has Policies That Provide Some Safeguards, It Lacks
    Policies Designed to Ensure the Objectivity of Its National Office Products

Commission Policies Provide General Criteria for Ensuring Quality

Commission has not obtained the services of an Inspector General, as we
previously recommended, to strengthen its accountability. In contrast, the
Commission's policies for its state advisory committees are more
comprehensive than those for its national office.

The Commission has policies for developing and approving its national
office products-reports, briefings, and hearings-that provide some
safeguards for the quality of these products, but it lacks policies for
ensuring their objectivity. More specifically, the Commission does not
have a policy requiring the inclusion of balanced and varied perspectives
in its national office reports, briefings, and hearings, nor does it have
a policy on the use of external reviewers. In addition, although the
Commission requires the Staff Director and Commissioners to approve its
national office products at key junctures in their development, its
policies do not include criteria for their assessment of these products.

The Commission's policies on the quality of its national office products
are fairly general, requiring the reports to be accurate, well written,
and timely. For example, it is Commission policy to issue "well-written
documents that meet high standards of accuracy and timeliness," according
to the Commission's policy manual. Similarly, the offices that develop
Commission products are responsible for ensuring that the draft report is
"well written, accurate, and of high quality" before the report is
published, and staff must "double-check sources" in draft reports "for
accuracy and conformance with the appropriate rules of citation." In
addition to these general policies, the Commission requires four
independent reviews of draft reports primarily designed to ensure their
accuracy: (1) an editorial review; 9 (2) a legal sufficiency review; (3) a
"defame and degrade" review to ensure that, if reports cast aspersions on
any persons named in them, those persons will be offered an opportunity to
respond; and (4) if needed, a review by agencies affected by the report.
(See app. V for further information on the Commission's policies and
processes for developing and approving national office products.)

9

The purpose of the editorial review is to determine the adequacy and
accuracy of the substantive information in the draft document, according
to the policy manual. However, Commission officials we interviewed
generally agreed that editorial reviewers tended to focus on issues such
as grammatical correctness, inconsistencies, and clarity, rather than on
substantive issues such as the adequacy of evidence.

Page 11 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Staff Director and Commissioners exercise considerable control in
carrying out these policies. The Staff Director plays a pivotal role in
approving all interim documents, such as proposals, outlines, discovery
plans, and draft reports, throughout their development. 10 The Staff
Director must approve all documents before they can be sent to the
Commissioners for approval. Under new policies effective in May 2005, the
Commissioners are required to approve Commission products at all key
stages, from proposal development through final report stages, and their
approval requires a majority vote. If there are any significant changes to
a product at any stage, the Staff Director and Commissioners are required
to approve these changes as well. This change marks a significant
improvement over previous Commission policy, in which the Commissioners
had limited involvement in the development of its products. 11 The
previously limited role was a source of considerable concern to some
Commissioners and led to our 2003 recommendation that the Commission
provide for increased involvement of the Commissioners in planning and
implementation. 12

The Commission has issued four reports and conducted several briefings
under the new policy requiring greater Commissioner involvement. 13 Two of
these reports were based on briefings made to the Commissioners. From July
2005 to February 2006, the Commission conducted five briefings with
invited speakers presenting their perspectives on specific civil rights
issues, such as the reauthorization of expiring provisions of the Voting
Rights Act and racial disparity studies. The papers that speakers
submitted for these briefings provide the basis for briefing reports
published by the Commission.

10

A discovery plan describes the methods to be used to obtain the
information needed to develop a product, such as issuing subpoenas for
hearings, document requests, and interrogatories-formal questions sent to
federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations when appropriate, that
require a written response and documentation.

11

Under previous policy, Commissioners could approve proposals and design
summaries at the beginning of product development and vote to approve
final reports at the end, but did not otherwise play an active role in
product development.

12See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial
Oversight Needed , GAO-04-18 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).

13

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Federal Procurement after Adarand
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005); Funding Federal Civil Rights Enforcement:
The President's 2006 Request (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2005); The Economic
Stagnation of the Black Middle Class (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2005); and
Reauthorization of the Temporary Provisions of the Voting Rights Act
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006).

The Commission Lacks Policies for Ensuring the Objectivity of National
Office Products

The Commission does not have a policy requiring the representation of
varied perspectives in its national office reports, in contrast to its
policies for state advisory committee reports, which are required to
"represent a variety of different and opposing views." 14 For example, the
initial draft of the Commission's 2005 report, Federal Procurement after
Adarand (the Adarand report)-the most significant report recently issued
by the Commission because it was the statutorily required annual report-
reflected a range of research and perspectives on a controversial issue
involving the application of racial considerations in federal contracting.
15 The Commissioners had agreed upon this range of perspectives when they
voted to approve the report's outline in April 2005. However, in response
to comments from a few Commissioners, the Staff Director removed major
sections of the report that supported one perspective, that "race
conscious" strategies are still needed to increase minority businesses'
participation in federal contracts. 16 As a result, the main text of the
final

14

Including dissenting statements by Commissioners in reports is one of the
avenues available for broadening a national office report to include
varied perspectives. Such statements are now provided for under a new
policy that the Commission approved in May 2005. However, in practice,
relying upon dissenting statements can be problematic because it places
the burden on the dissenting Commissioners to obtain and analyze data and
write the dissents without necessarily having support from the Commission
staff. The process also assumes that Commissioners who wish to write
dissents will be given access to data and adequate time to write their
statements. Similarly, although members of state advisory committees can
submit dissenting statements, the Commission's new policy for these
committees, approved in February 2006, limits these statements to no more
than one page.

15

The title of this report refers to the Supreme Court's 1995 decision,
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), which addressed
the use of set-asides for small and disadvantaged businesses in federal
contracts. Prior to the decision, federal contracting agencies operated
under the presumption that businesses owned by members of racial minority
groups were disadvantaged and entitled to preference in awarding federal
contracts. The Supreme Court opinion held that government benefit programs
that use racial criteria must serve a compelling government interest and
be narrowly tailored in order to be constitutional. The Supreme Court
returned the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Colorado to decide
whether the compelling interest and narrow tailoring were present in the
case of the construction contracts questioned by the petitioner Adarand.
To determine whether the program was narrowly tailored, the Supreme Court
suggested that the Court of Appeals should inquire, among other things,
"whether there was `any consideration of the use of race-neutral means to
increase minority business participation' in government contracting..."
515 U.S. at 237-238.

16

Programs that provide economic benefits to overcome the effects of past
discrimination are said to be "race neutral" if criteria such as social or
economic disadvantage are used to determine the availability of the
economic benefit. They are said to be "race conscious" if race or ethnic
characteristics are used to determine the availability of the economic
benefit. Programs that use affirmative action to increase minority
participation are generally categorized as race conscious.

published report reflected only one point of view, that federal agencies
have not sufficiently developed "race neutral" approaches to increase the
participation of small and disadvantaged businesses in federal
contracting. 17

We also found that the Commission does not have a policy for determining
when to use external reviewers and how reviewers should be selected for
its national office reports. For example, for the Commission's 2005
Adarand report on affirmative action in federal contracting, the Staff
Director hired a single reviewer whose work is cited in the report and who
is widely known for his opposition to affirmative action. The contractor's
functions were to review the draft report and provide his "opinions,
revisions, comments and suggestions," based on his expertise in federal
contracting and race-neutral alternatives. Some of the Commissioners and
the staff responsible for preparing the report said that they did not know
that an external reviewer had been hired, how he had been selected, what
changes the reviewer had recommended, or which changes were included in
the final report. Agency staff noted that the external reviewer added some
material to the report that critiqued the work of a federal agency and
that the Commission did not provide the agency with an opportunity to
comment, as required by Commission policy. In addition, the Commission did
not acknowledge the external reviewer's participation in the published
report.

Although the Commission does not have a policy on using external
reviewers, other nationally recognized research organizations, such as the
National Academies and the Congressional Budget Office, use external
reviewers to assess the completeness, balance, and objectivity of their
reports. 18 For both the Academies and CBO, the general principle is that
the more controversial the topic, the greater the number of reviewers they
use. The Academies' extensive external review process includes preparing a
slate of names of possible reviewers, having the names approved at two
levels of the organization, and establishing a review coordinator. The

17

The deleted material was the subject of the dissenting statement written
by one Commissioner, who included the deleted material as an appendix to
his dissent.

18

The National Academies is a nongovernmental institution that enlists
scientists, health professionals, and other experts to provide the
government and others with independent, unpaid advice on scientific and
other issues that have public policy implications. CBO is a nonpartisan,
independent congressional agency that prepares reports for Congress on
budget-related information, including cost estimates for bills, budget and
economic projections, and analyses of the President's budget each year.

Academies then recruit independent experts with a range of views and
perspectives to comment on the draft report, and their comments are
provided anonymously. In addition, to ensure that the reviewers' comments
are appropriately incorporated, the Academies require the review
coordinator to document that the report adequately addressed the
reviewers' comments. Similarly, CBO uses external reviewers from the
academic community and other agencies in order to obtain a wider range of
views and twice yearly draws on the advice of a panel of experts to review
and comment on the agency's preliminary economic forecasts.

Although briefings and briefing reports are becoming increasingly frequent
Commission products, the Commission does not have a policy specifying how
speakers for the briefings are to be identified or requiring that briefing
panels be balanced and include a variety of perspectives. 19 For example,
the Commission held a briefing in October 2005 to discuss expiring
provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a controversial topic of
immediate interest. Three of the four speakers at the Commission briefing
opposed reauthorization of a key provision of the act. One Commissioner we
interviewed told us he thought the briefing panel was biased and
unbalanced. 20 According to the Staff Director, the way speakers are
identified and the basis for their selection vary with each briefing,
depending on the topic, but the Commission does not have a written
requirement for ensuring varied perspectives in briefing panels. 21 Some
invited speakers have declined to participate in Commission briefings
because they were unavailable on the proposed briefing dates or because
they believed their professional roles precluded them from taking a stance

19

In August 2005, the Commission voted to conduct briefings during nearly
all of its monthly meetings and publish briefing reports based on them
rather than issuing national office reports not required by its statute.
If briefing reports are issued for all briefings conducted, as planned,
this would be an increase in the number of products issued by its national
office. From July 2005 to February 2006, the Commission held five
briefings and issued two briefing reports.

20

According to the Commission's new policies, Commissioners must approve
briefing topics and the panel of speakers for briefings at a monthly
Commission meeting at least 1 month in advance of the briefing itself. In
addition, in order to hold a hearing, a majority of the Commission or a
majority of the members present at a meeting with a quorum must vote to
approve the hearing.

21

Regarding hearings, as opposed to briefings, the Commission also lacks a
policy specifying how witnesses for hearings are to be identified or
requiring the inclusion of a variety of perspectives in its hearings. A
Commission official told us that the witness panel as a whole should be
balanced, although the Commission does not have a written policy to this
effect. The Commission has not conducted hearings since 2002.

    Commission Policies Do Not Provide Accountability for Decisions Made on Its
    Products

Some Product Decisions Are Made without Consulting All Commissioners

on the issues to be discussed. However, the Staff Director also told us
that the Commission often has difficulty obtaining speakers who represent
different perspectives on controversial topics. 22 For example, in one
instance an invited speaker declined in part because he had no confidence
in the Commission's receptivity to the evidence and other points of view.

In addition, although the Commission's new policies require the Staff
Director and Commissioners to approve national office products at several
stages, these policies do not include criteria designed to ensure that the
products are objective. The Staff Director's and Commissioners' decisions
to review and approve each stage of a product's development-such as
proposal, outline and methodology, discovery plan, and draft report-are
not guided by written criteria, such as requiring reviewers to assess
whether the methodology provides sufficient and relevant evidence to
achieve the product's objectives. According to the Staff Director, in
addition to the Commission's general policy guidance, his reviews of draft
reports are largely guided by his judgment on whether the reports are
likely to be approved by a majority of the Commissioners. The Staff
Director made a similar point at a July 2005 public meeting, stating that
several Commissioners had indicated that they would dissent from a draft
report, and that his goal in removing chapters from the final report was
to ensure that a majority of the Commissioners would vote to approve it.

The Commission does not use some checks and balances to ensure
Commissioner involvement and its policies do not provide transparency for
the decisions made in regard to its products, and the Commission has not
obtained the services of an Inspector General to strengthen its
accountability, as we previously recommended.

The Commission does not use some of the checks and balances needed to
provide accountability for the decisions made on its products. Although
its new policies involve the Commissioners far more extensively in
decisions on its products than in the past, the Commission still does not
routinely include all Commissioners in its deliberations as required. This
problem predates the Commission's new policies. For example, our 2003
report noted the complaints of several Commissioners that they were often

22

The Staff Director also noted that the Commission does not pay speakers.

unaware of the content of Commission products until they were published or
released to the public. 23

This pattern of not including all Commissioners in its deliberations was
especially evident with regard to the decisions made on the Adarand
report. For example, in an early stage of the development of this report,
the Staff Director did not consult with all of the Commissioners or obtain
their agreement before he changed the focus of the questions used to
collect essential data from federal agencies for the report. These
questions-called interrogatories-significantly altered the report's
direction after the Commission's staff had completed much of their
research. However, the Commissioners were not made aware of this change
until a Commissioner pointed out discrepancies between the original focus
as approved by the Commission in 2003 and the interrogatories that went
out in 2005. At a public meeting of the Commission, three Commissioners
objected to the fact that the interrogatories had gone forward without the
expressed authority of the Commissioners and that these changes were made
autonomously by the Staff Director and the Chair. At the meeting, the
Chair agreed that the interrogatories should not have been sent without
the other Commissioners' approval of the changes.

In another example of decisions being made without the knowledge of all of
the Commissioners, the Chair made changes to a draft briefing report on
campus anti-Semitism based on his legal interpretation of an issue and
private conversations with officials from the Department of Education. At
the Commission's February 2006 meeting, the Vice Chair said that she did
not understand the rationale for the changes and objected to the methods
used to obtain information on the issue. Other Commissioners questioned
the Chair's legal interpretation and the accuracy of the changes he made.
Although they had planned to vote on the report at this meeting, the
Commissioners postponed the vote because of disagreements about these
changes and their implications for the report's recommendations.

Similarly, the Chair and several Commissioners sent a letter to the
Secretary of the Department of Education (Education) disagreeing with a
civil rights organization's report that had criticized the department and

See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial
Oversight Needed, GAO-04-18 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).

Page 17 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Commission Has Not Documented Key Decisions on Its Products

commending Education for its commitment to civil rights. 24 However, the
Commissioner, who, at that time, was the sole Democrat, 25 noted in a
separate dissenting letter that he was not informed about the majority's
letter until after it was drafted and that he did not understand the other
Commissioners' impetus for writing the letter. 26

In several recent instances, Commissioners have also complained about not
receiving key documents for review or receiving them too late to help them
in their deliberations. For example, at the Commission's monthly public
meeting in January 2006, several Commissioners complained that they had
not received transcripts of Commission meetings since October 2005. Among
other things, the transcripts contained information on a briefing that
Commission staff had used to draft a briefing report on reauthorization of
the Voting Rights Act. However, because the Commissioners had not received
copies of the transcript used to prepare this report, they postponed a
vote to approve the report for publication. In addition, the Commissioners
postponed a vote accepting a state advisory committee report for
publication because they had not received it in time to review it.
Similarly, in July 2005, the Commissioners were sent a final draft of the
Adarand report for review on the same day that they voted on its
publication, despite the fact that it contained comments from an affected
federal agency and an external reviewer that required fresh review. In
addition, the Commissioner who was the sole Democrat at that time said
that he did not receive additional changes to the report that were sent to
all of the other Commissioners.

The Commission's decisions on the content of its products lack
transparency because, in some cases, they are not discussed publicly or
documented. For example, there was no documentation of the basis for the
Staff Director's decision to remove several sections of the Adarand report
in response to comments received from several Commissioners

24

Letter from Chairman Reynolds, Vice Chair Thernstrom, and Commissioners
Braceras, Kirsanow, and Taylor to the Secretary of Education, Margaret
Spellings (July 5, 2005). See http://www.usccr.gov. The report referred to
in the Commission's letters, written by the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, is entitled, "Closing the Gap: Moving from Rhetoric to
Reality in Opening Doors to Higher Education for African-American
Students," (June 23, 2005). See
http://www.naacpldf.org/landing.aspx?sub=52.

25

As of July 2005, the Commission had one Democratic Commissioner. A second
Democrat was appointed in October 2005.

26

Letter from Commissioner Yaki to the Secretary of Education, Margaret
Spellings (July 6, 2005). See http://www.usccr.gov.

during their initial review of the draft report. In addition, in
accordance with the Commission's new policies, the Commissioners'
individual reviews of the draft report were not discussed in a public
meeting. 27 Two Commissioners said that they were unaware of the changes
made to the report until after the decision had been made to remove the
sections of the report from the draft. In a public meeting afterward, the
Staff Director stated that he had removed the sections because it had
become clear to him that with these sections, the report would not receive
enough votes to be approved for publication. One Republican Commissioner
told us that although he agreed with the analysis in the Adarand report,
he had abstained from voting on the final report because he objected to
the report process and because he did not want a biased report to be
issued by the Commission.

Another means of documenting the quality of products is the use of
checklists. Although the Commission does not have checklists for assessing
the quality of its national office reports, it does have such checklists
for assessing the quality of state advisory committee reports. The
checklists include a section to be completed by the Office of the Staff
Director that documents the office's assessment of the balance, writing,
and report conclusions of state advisory committee reports before
transmitting these reports to the Commissioners. However, the Commission
does not appear to use the checklists for state advisory committee
reports, since they were not always completed or were missing. For
example, although we requested copies of the completed checklists for nine
state advisory committee reports issued since 2002, the Commission could
not provide us with copies of any completed checklists.

Finally, the Commission has not obtained independent oversight, as we
recommended in 2004 to address long-standing concerns about its

Two review stages, including review of draft reports, do not require
Commissioners' vote to occur in a public meeting, where the discussion and
decisions would be transcribed. The Commission's new policies allow
Commissioners to approve each stage of a product's development outside of
public meetings in writing by means of a process called "notational
voting." Notational voting is a procedure used to consider and act on
agency business without holding a formal meeting. Written proposals are
circulated among the Commissioners and they vote by fax or mail; no public
deliberations on the issues are held. However, if any Commissioner decides
that an issue requires public deliberation, the notational vote is
canceled and the issue is discussed at the Commission's next public
meeting.

    Commission Policies for State Advisory Committee Products Are More
    Comprehensive than Those for Its National Office Products

management and accountability. 28 Specifically, we recommended that the
Commission seek the services of an existing Inspector General to help keep
the Commission and Congress informed of problems and to conduct and
supervise necessary audits and investigations of the Commission's
operations. In 2005, the Commission acted to implement our 2003
recommendation to increase Commissioners' involvement in the development
of its national office products and also began to implement our
recommendations on other matters, such as financial management. According
to the Staff Director, he contacted officials from some Offices of
Inspectors General, including GSA, but they declined to provide their
services, noting that most of the Commission's problems would take too
much of their staff time. The Staff Director also told us that the
Commission had contracted with an accounting firm for advice on how to
correct problems identified in their recent financial audit. This action,
however, will not address the weaknesses we identified in the Commission's
policies, or provide reasonable assurance of the objectivity of its
products and accountability for the decisions made on these products.

For state advisory committee products, which are researched and written
principally by the Commission's regional office staff, the Commission has
quality assurance policies that are generally more comprehensive than its
policies for its national office products. More specifically, Commission
policy explicitly requires state advisory committees to incorporate
balanced, varied, and opposing perspectives in their hearings and reports,
in contrast to national office products, which do not have such a
requirement. According to the Commission's administrative policy manual,
state advisory committees "must seek to hear a variety of points of view
and opinions" in conducting their work. This policy also notes that
"balance does not mean that the conclusions of a State Advisory Committee
agree with or include all positions, only that the research and opinions
listened to represent a variety of different and opposing views on the
topic at hand." To reinforce this focus, the checklist for transmitting
state advisory committee proposals to the national office for approval
asks the Staff Director's office to determine whether the sources to be
used represent a variety of opinions on the issues. Similarly, the
checklist for transmitting state advisory committee reports to the
national office

28

See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit from
Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight, GAO-05-77
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 8, 2004).

Page 20 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

requires the Office of the Staff Director to determine whether varied and
opposing views were identified and discussed in the report. The national
office does not have such quality assurance checklists for assessing its
own products. In addition, state advisory committee members are required
to review draft committee reports for their clarity, substance,
objectivity, and conclusions, unlike Commissioners, who do not have
criteria for reviewing Commission products. The regional directors are
also responsible for ensuring that state advisory committee reports meet
appropriate methodological, organizational, and balance standards. State
advisory committee products are also subject to the four reviews required
for all Commission products: the editorial review, legal sufficiency
review, defame and degrade review, and affected agency review. (See app.
VI for further details on the process for approving state advisory
committee reports.)

The state advisory committees have played a key role in accomplishing the
work of the Commission, but most committees cannot currently conduct any
work because the Commission has not renewed their charters. The Commission
has also instituted new membership criteria for the committees and has
required all of the committees whose charters have expired to redraft
their applications for renewal to comply with the new criteria.
Furthermore, over the past 5 years, the activities of the state advisory
committees have been significantly limited, in part because the
Commission, working under budget restraints, has reduced the resources
available to conduct their work and also because it has delayed reviewing
and accepting their reports for publication. In addition, the Commission
has not sought the views of state advisory committee members in its
strategic planning process or on key decisions that affect the committees.
Finally, although many of these are long-standing issues, the Commission
has not provided for independent oversight of its policies and practices
for state advisory committees.

  State Advisory Committees Have Played a Key Role in the Commission's Work, but
  Most of Their Operations Have Been Suspended

    State Advisory Committees Have Identified, Examined, and Publicized Many
    Local Civil Rights Issues

The Commission's state advisory committees have operated as a unique
national network intended to provide the Commission with information on
local civil rights issues that can be used in its work at the national
level. The state advisory committees have identified and examined issues
through a variety of activities and provided information to the Commission
and the public in written reports. Since 1980, the state advisory
committee issued 200 of the 254 reports published by the Commission. Other
activities conducted by the state advisory committees include open forums,
public meetings, and formal hearings that have provided avenues for the
public to communicate their civil rights experiences and for the
committees to define current local civil rights issues that may not yet be
on the national agenda.

Some of the committees' reports have prompted action by the Commission.
For example, in 1973, the California State Advisory Committee held
hearings on the concerns of the Asian American and Pacific Islander
communities. These hearings resulted in two state advisory committee
reports: Asian American and Pacific Peoples: A Case of Mistaken Identity
(February 1975) and A Dream Unfulfilled: Korean and Philipino Health
Professionals in California (May 1975). These reports were the first
studies conducted by the Commission on these issues, according to agency
officials. The Commission issued national office reports on these issues
in 1986, 1988, and 1992. More recently, after the terrorist attack on
September 11, 2001, the Commission asked the state advisory committees to
gather information on the status of Muslim, Arab American, and others
perceived to be from these communities in their states. Twenty state
committees held information-gathering events-such as town hall meetings-at
which the public was invited to speak about experiences that may have
threatened the civil rights of members of the Muslim community. As a
result, nine state advisory committees' reports were issued by the
Commission on the civil rights of Muslims and other communities in their
states, and the Commission issued a statement that summarized the results
of these activities and reports. 29

State advisory committee reports also have had an impact on their states'
operations, including state legislation. Members of several committees
told us about legislation that had passed or state offices that had been
affected through their efforts. For example, officials with one of the
Commission's regional offices told us that in 2003, one of its states
formed a multi-agency state task force to work on an issue reported by the
Nevada State Advisory Committee on the educational opportunities of Native
American Indian students in the state's public schools. As a result of the
task force's efforts, the state enacted legislation designed to improve
educational outcomes of Native American Indian students. State advisory
committee members also noted that just conducting activities, without
issuing a report, can have an effect. For example, members of one
committee told us that they visited a local prison after receiving
allegations of sexual abuse of female detainees

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Anniversary Update on Commission
Activities Related to September 11 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2002).

Page 22 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    Most State Advisory Committee Activities Have Been Suspended Pending Renewal
    of the Committees' Charters

being held on account of their illegal entry into the United States. Local
newspapers were present during the committee's visits, bringing the issue,
which was not well known, to the public's attention.

In addition, state advisory committee members reported that they
participated in activities that gave them a voice in their states' civil
rights operations. For example, they reported working with the state civil
rights offices to inform them of local issues and assist in writing
proposed legislation, giving testimony to state legislatures, and training
state and local officials on current civil rights issues. In responding to
our survey, one chairman reported that on the basis of work conducted by
the state advisory committee, he testified before his state's Joint House
and Senate Committee on several minority issues, including racial
harassment in schools and discrimination in hiring. Another advisory
committee chair wrote that following a report the committee issued on
hiring practices and appointments to state commissions and boards, the
governor committed to improving state practices and asked the committee
for assistance in identifying minorities to serve on state boards and
commissions.

State advisory committee members also reported being well connected to
their local communities because of their professions. Those we interviewed
included a state legislator, several university professors and lawyers, a
director of a county Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office, the
administrator of the regional office of a federal agency, and a church
minister-roles that allowed them to influence civil rights issues in their
communities. (See appendix VII for a summary of the profiles of state
advisory committee members as listed in their most recently approved
charters. To view the details by state of all 51 committee membership
profiles, see an electronic supplement at
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-551SP. )

Consistent with the requirements in FACA, state advisory committees that
do not have an approved charter cannot meet or conduct any business.
However, as of February 2006, 38 of the 51 state advisory committees did
not have an approved charter, and 13 of them had not had an approved
charter for at least 2 years. Only 13 state advisory committees currently
have approved charters as of February 2006, and their charters are due to
expire late in 2006. (See table 1.)

Table 1: Charter Expiration Dates for State Advisory Committees, as of February
                                      2006

               Year of charter expiration Number of states States

13 CA, DE, IO, MI, MS, MO, NJ, NC, PA, SC, UT, WI, WY

AL, AZ, AR, DC, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, NE, NE, NY, 23 OK,
OR, TN, TX, VA, WV

                                 2005 2 CT, MN

Subtotal-number of states without approved charters 38

2006a                           13 AK, CO, HI, ME, MT, NV, NM, ND, OH, RI, 
                                      SD, VT, WA                              
Subtotal--number of states with    
approved charters               13 

                                    Total 51

Changes in Membership Criteria Have Delayed Charter Renewal

Source: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

a

These charters will expire in either September or December 2006.

The primary reason for the current delays in renewing the state advisory
committees' charters is that the Commission recently initiated significant
changes in the criteria for membership in the state advisory committees.
In addition, the Commission chose to cancel pending applications for
renewal until members could be chosen to serve on the rechartered
committees that reflect the new membership criteria, further delaying the
process of establishing active new charters for the committees. The new
membership criteria were first proposed as a regulatory change in November
2005. As of February 2006, one portion of the criteria had been
incorporated in a new regulation for the Commission; the remaining
criteria had not been finalized. 30

The proposed new membership criteria are substantially different from the
previous criteria and could result in major changes in state advisory
committee membership. First, the Commission's new policy requiring
nondiscrimination in the selection of committee members was published in
February 2006 as a new regulation. It supersedes the Commission's previous
regulation requiring the membership of each state advisory

30

On February 17, 2006, the Commission published its final rule on state
advisory committee membership, which excised all of the specific
information that had been mentioned in the proposed criteria. (See 71 Fed.
Reg. 8483.) This final rule states simply that advisory committees shall
generally consist of at least 11 members serving fixed terms who are
appointed and removed by the Commission. It further states that no person
shall be denied the opportunity to serve based on race, age, sex,
religion, national origin, or disability. Other criteria will be
delineated in the Commission's administrative manual.

committee to reflect and be representative of the state's population. It
also replaced a 1990 administrative policy that required minority group
membership to be no less than 40 percent or more than 65 percent of the
state advisory committee. Secondly, the proposed new criteria would
require the Commission to consider selecting members with more academic
technical skills, such as knowledge of law and statistical analysis,
instead of having general skills and a diversity of experience and
knowledge from business, labor, and other perspectives. Finally, the
proposed new criteria would require each advisory committee to include
"members of both political parties." If adopted, this will replace the
previous regulation requiring the committees to reflect the political
affiliation proportional to the demographics. In addition, the criteria do
not refer to members who are politically independent, although
independents currently make up about one-quarter of the committees'
membership. See table 2 for a comparison of the previous and proposed new
criteria. 31

Table 2: Comparison of the Previous and Proposed New Criteria for State Advisory
                              Committee Membership

                    Previous criteria Proposed new criteria

                             Diversitya Diversityc

Membership shall be reflective of the different ethnic, racial, and No
person is to be denied an opportunity to serve on a state religious
communities within each state, and the membership shall advisory committee
because of race, age, sex, religion, national also be representative with
respect to sex, political affiliation, age, origin, or disability. The
Commission shall encourage membership and disability status. on the state
advisory committee to be broadly diverse.

              Political representationb Political representationd

The membership should reflect the bipartisan character of the Each
committee should have members of both political parties. Commission.

                             Knowledgeb Knowledged

Skills to facilitate the work of the Commission. The handbook also notes
that a broad cross-section of representation should be based on other
factors such as business and labor. This diversity gives the committees
the benefit of a wide range of knowledge, experience, and perspective on
many subjects, which should also help ensure that advice will be given
serious consideration.

Consideration of experiences, including, but not limited to, social
science research, legal research and analysis, and statistical analysis;
professional expertise and attainment; demonstrated interest in civil
rights issues of color, race, religion, sex, age, disability, and national
origin and in voting rights.

                           Term lengthb Term lengthd

Members are appointed for a 2-year term with no limit defined for 10 years
or five 2-year terms. the number of 2-year terms that could be served.

       Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights documents.

31

The criteria proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be
detailed in forthcoming Administrative Instructions. See 70 Fed. Reg. 8483
(Feb. 17, Nov. 2006).

Page 25 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

a

45 C.F.R. 703.5 (2005).

b

The Commission's State Advisory Committee Handbook.

71 Fed. Reg. 8483 (Feb.17, 2006).

d

This criterion was proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued on
Nov. 4, 2005. 70 Fed. Reg. 67129. The Commission has announced that it
will be included in the new Administrative Instructions. See 71 Fed. Reg.
8483 (Feb.17, 2006).

The proposed new criteria require both political parties to be
represented, and FACA requires that federal advisory membership be fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to
be performed. 32 However, it is not yet clear how the Commission intends
to achieve this balance. According to the Staff Director, having one
person of a minority party on an 11-member state advisory committee would
meet a new criterion for each committee to have members of both political
parties.

According to the Commission's Chair, the new membership criteria were
developed in order to, among other things, move away from racially and
ethnically based representation toward greater diversity in expertise and
ideas. For example, according to the Staff Director, the proposed new
membership criteria are intended to increase the diversity of skills among
committee members. One reason for this is that because of the shortage of
staff in the regional offices, the Commission is considering having state
advisory committee members contribute to the writing of reports
themselves, a course of action that, in the view of the Staff Director,
would require committee members to have the expertise needed for such an
undertaking. In addition, according to the Chair, limiting members' terms
to 10 years or five 2-year terms will promote the selection of more new
members with new ideas. 33

The Commission received several objections to its decision to suspend the
charter approval process until the membership criteria had been finalized.
In July 2005, the chairs of 32 state advisory committees sent a letter to
the Commission Chair requesting that pending charter applications be
approved and stating that there was no justification for not approving

32

See 5 U.S.C. App. 5(b)(2) and(c).

33

While the previous membership criteria defined a term as 2 years (the
length of the charter), there was no mention of how many 2-year terms
could be served, and members were commonly reappointed for many terms. For
example, 22 percent of the chairs who responded to our survey reported
that they had served on the committee for more than 20 years.

Page 26 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Some Committees Have Continued to Operate without Charters

charters pending policy formulation. During a Commission meeting in August
2005, at which this issue was raised, one Commissioner made a similar
proposal, adding that this would also allow the Commissioners more time to
consider whether to change the membership criteria. However, the majority
of the Commissioners voted not to extend the state advisory committees'
charters or conditionally approve charter renewal applications that had
already been filed.

Although, under FACA, state advisory committees that do not have an
approved charter cannot meet or conduct any business, we found that- both
in the past and recently-the committees have continued their activities
while their applications for renewal were being considered. In the past,
many state advisory committees continued working without a charter,
according to agency officials we interviewed. Until recently, when we
questioned the Commission about the current delays in approving the
committees' charters, we found that state advisory committees in several
states have routinely continued their work and meetings. For example,
representatives of two advisory committees told us that they generally
operate normally, except for the actual publishing of reports, when they
do not have an approved charter. However, in December 2005, after the
Commission consulted with its solicitor, the Staff Director informed the
state advisory committees that holding meetings and engaging in other
activities were not permissible under FACA in the absence of a charter.

               State Advisory Committee Activities Have Declined

Since 2000, the number of state advisory committee reports that have been
published has declined considerably, partly because limited funding has
contributed to a reduction in regional staff, travel, and other committee
activities, and also because of the Commission's delays in approving state
advisory committee reports. According to the Commission's policy, state
advisory committees should complete one project every 2 years if funding
and staffing permit. With 51 state advisory committees, committee reports
have been the mainstay of the Commission's publications, and state
advisory committees have produced 200 of the 254 Commission reports
published since 1980. In the past 5 years, the committees have produced 38
reports. As shown in figure 1, since 2001, the number of reports issued by
the state advisory committees each year has steadily declined.

    Declines in Regional Staff Have Limited the Committees' Activities

 Figure 1: Number of Reports Issued by State Advisory Committees, 2000 to 2005

Over the years-especially in the past 15 years-the number of staff in the
regional offices has declined considerably because of office closures,
attrition, and voluntary separations. According to Commission officials,
in 1980, there were 10 regional offices and each office had a director,
attorney, editor, and three or four civil rights analysts. In 1985, the
number of regional offices was reduced from 10 to 3, their legal functions
were moved to the national office, and the number of staff in each office
was also reduced. In 1991, the Commission opened 3 additional regional
offices, bringing the total up to 6 offices, but the number of staff in
each office continued to decline. During the most recent 5-year period, as
the agency's budget remained flat, these declines continued, with staff
decreasing from 19 staff in 2000 to 9 in 2006. Currently, each of the 6
regional offices has only 1 or 2 professional staff-a total of 9 as of
January 2006-and each regional office supports several state advisory
committees, ranging from 6 to 14 committees for each office. Furthermore,
the Commission has approved a plan to reduce the number of regional
offices to 4 offices in fiscal year 2007 because of budgetary concerns.
(See table 3.)

State Advisory Committees Also Hindered by Limits on Travel and Other
Activities

    Table 3: Number of Regional Offices and Professional Staff, 1980 to 2006

Number of Year regional offices Staffing

1980 a director, attorney, editor, and 3 or 4 civil 10 rights analysts

                  1985 3 a director and civil rights analysts

                  1991 6 a director and civil rights analysts

2006 a director and 1 civil rights analyst (in two 6 offices, one person
fills both positions)

                      2007 (proposed) 4 Not yet determined

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights information.

This decline in the number of professional regional staff affects the
ability of state advisory committees to carry out their work. The state
advisory committees depend on regional staff to arrange meetings and
hearings, conduct interviews and research, and write and process their
reports. Because federal advisory committees cannot hold a meeting without
having a designated federal official, a regional staff person must attend
every state advisory committee meeting for every state in the region. 34
In our survey of state advisory committee chairs, 75 percent of chairs who
responded reported that they were unable to hold meetings in the period
2000 to 2005 because no regional staff was available to attend. In
addition, because the work performed by regional staff on the state
advisory committee reports is extensive, it is difficult for the regional
staff to work on more than one or two reports at one time. The members of
one state advisory committee told us their regional office had established
a "take turns" policy, where the one regional analyst works with one state
advisory committee at a time. In addition, members of another state
committee said that they were not able to produce reports with critical
analyses because no regional staff with the appropriate expertise was
available to conduct the work. As a result, the committee issued a
"Statement of Concern" to the Commission, a document that does not have
the impact of a report, instead of producing the analytical report that
the committee had wanted on the issue.

The state advisory committees have also seen declines in their activities
because they have rarely been able to travel or hold meetings. For
example, of the chairs who responded to our survey, 85 percent reported

34

See 5 U.S.C. 10(e) (2000).

National Office Policies and Delays in Approving Advisory Committees'
Reports Negatively Affect their Independence

that fact-finding and reporting activities were not undertaken because of
budgetary constraints. In March 2005, the Commission told its regional
offices and state advisory committees that no funds were available for
travel, meetings, or hearings because of budget shortfalls. The agency's
annual appropriation has remained at about $9 million since 1995,
resulting in several cost reduction measures throughout the agency. In
January 2006, the Commission allowed some travel, telling state advisory
committees with approved charters that a limited number of meetings could
be held in fiscal year 2006. Since then, according to the Commission's
comments on our draft report, 10 state advisory committees conducted
meetings or briefings between February and April 2006.

In addition, regional office and advisory committee expenses cannot
currently be tracked separately from the Commission's other activities, a
fact that has made it difficult to determine the level of support provided
by the Commission. FACA requires agencies to ensure that advisory
committees have adequate staff, quarters, and funds for the committees to
conduct their business. The Commission's statute also directs the
establishment of at least one advisory committee in each state. Prior to
2002, the Commission had designated a specific portion of its budget-
generally about $2.5 million annually-for regional office and committee
activities. 35 However, since 2003, the Commission has not identified
specific funds for the regional offices and state advisory committees but,
instead, has combined their expenses with other agency expenses, according
to agency officials.

The Commission's policies require state advisory committee reports to go
through an agency approval process that could negatively affect the
committees' independence. Such policies include a requirement for the
Staff Director's approval of all state advisory committee activities and
reports. Specifically, according to the Commission's policies, the Staff
Director must approve proposals for nearly all types of state advisory
committee activities, as well as any significant changes to these
proposals. In addition, when state advisory committees send approved
reports to the national office for editorial and legal reviews, the Staff
Director's office determines whether the evidence, testimony, and research
in these reports

35

According to the Commission's policy manual, the regional offices provide
required support services to the advisory committees.

Page 30 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

support the conclusions. 36 Finally, according to Commission policy,
"under no circumstances" can state advisory committee reports "be released
to the public or forwarded to the Commissioners without the Staff
Director's approval."

In our discussions with state advisory committee members and regional
office staff, many complained about the Commission holding up or
attempting to interfere with committee products. For example, members of
several state advisory committees told us that, in the past few years,
they had sent completed reports approved by the committees to the Staff
Director's office, but the reports were not published or given to the
Commissioners and the committees were not told what happened to them.
Members of another state advisory committee told us that, because of the
long time it takes for the national office reviews and approvals, it has
taken 2 to 3 years for a report to be published. In addition, slightly
over half of the survey respondents reported that they were dissatisfied
or very dissatisfied with the national office's timeliness in approving
their reports. Some state advisory committee members told us that, at
times, the window of opportunity for making an impact has passed by the
time the national office publishes a state advisory committee report. For
example, one committee chairman stated that it took the Commission 4 years
to publish the committee's report on limited English proficiency. He noted
that "When it was released, the information was so stale as to render our
effort meaningless..." Another state committee chair commented that
issuing reports so late is "an exercise in hindsight." This is not a new
problem. In 1986, in response to concerns about delays in the issuance of
state advisory committee reports, among other things, Congress held
hearings on the subject. We testified on the decline in the number of
state advisory committee reports and noted that the Commission had
released two committee reports in 1985 but not as official Commission
documents. 37

In February 2006, the Commission changed its policy for the Commissioners'
review of state advisory committee reports. According to

36

The Office of the Staff Director makes this determination on a checklist
that regional offices use for transmitting committee reports to the
national office, and this checklist contains a question on whether the
report's evidence, testimony, and research support the conclusions as well
as other questions on the report's balance.

37

GAO, The Operations of the United States Commission on Civil Rights,
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25, 1986).

Page 31 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

    The Current Commission Has Not Generally Sought Input from the State
    Advisory Committees on Its Work or Operations

the new policy, Commissioners will receive all state advisory committee
reports, but will no longer be asked to vote to accept or reject the
reports, as they had done in the past. The intention in making this change
was to allow the public access to the state advisory committees' work
without necessarily conveying the impression that the Commission endorses
their findings. However, the new policy leaves in place the role of the
Staff Director (or his designee) in ensuring the reports' adherence to the
Commission's procedural and legal criteria for state advisory committees.
Reports that have satisfied these criteria will be printed with a
disclaimer stating: "The views expressed in this report and the findings
and recommendations contained herein are those of a majority of the
members of the state advisory committee and do not necessarily represent
the views of the Commission, its individual members, or the policies of
the United States government." According to two Commissioners in their
comments on our draft report, the Commission will be reviewing project
procedures for state advisory committee products as it did previously for
national office products.

Until recently, the current Commission officials have not generally
considered the views of the state advisory committees when planning future
national office work. For example, in developing the agency's new draft
5-year strategic plan, the Commission did not solicit the perspective of
the state advisory committees on their role in accomplishing the agency's
strategic goals. As of January 2006, the state advisory committees had not
been involved in developing the agency's draft strategic plan, although
they are key stakeholders in accomplishing the Commission's goals. The
first draft of the strategic plan that was submitted for stakeholder
review in October 2005 scarcely mentioned the role of the state advisory
committees, despite their statutory role or their many contributions to
the Commission's work over time. The congressional staff who reviewed the
draft plan asked the Commission to include more information on the role of
the state advisory committees in the plan, among other comments. Although
the Commission obtained the perspectives of two regional directors who
participated in a working group on the strategic plan, the Commission did
not solicit the views of state advisory committee members. According to
the Staff Director, the Commission is now working to include goals that
incorporate the role of the state advisory committees in its strategic
plan, including obtaining the views of the state advisory committees on
the Commission's goals and their role in accomplishing these goals. In
February 2006, the Staff Director solicited the input of the state
advisory committees in identifying possible topics for the Commission's
2008 statutory report.

The Commission has also not generally obtained the views of the state
advisory committees when making organizational changes that directly
affect the committees. For example, when the Staff Director proposed in
April 2005 to close two regional offices in fiscal year 2006 as part of a
larger plan to reduce agency expenses, the Commissioners approved the
proposed closures without obtaining any input from the state advisory
committees on how closures would affect their ability to conduct their
work. 38 In addition, according to the Chairman of the Commission, the
state advisory committees did not participate in the development of the
new criteria for state committee membership until after the criteria had
been proposed. After receiving comments on the Commission's failure to
consult with the state advisory committees from several members of
Congress, outside civil rights organizations, and others, the Staff
Director held a meeting by conference call with all of the regional
directors to discuss the proposed membership criteria and proposed office
closures. However, in January 2006, the Staff Director reported that he
had sought the perspectives of state advisory committee members in the 13
states with active charters on whether to ask Congress to extend the terms
of the charters and the chairs to 4 years instead of the current 2 years.
The Commission received comments on the proposed request from about half
of the active committees. According to the Staff Director, most of them
agreed with the proposal to extend the terms of the committees' charters
and the chairs to 4 years.

Another indication of the Commission's failure to involve the state
advisory committees in its planning and decision-making efforts is its
poor communication with the committees. For example, when the Staff
Director and Commissioners agreed to close two of the regional offices,
they did not inform the regional directors, who are the liaisons to the
state advisory committees, until 3 days later, according a regional
director. Instead, two regional directors learned about the decision from
sources outside the Commission, including the local newspaper. In
addition, only 22 percent of state committee chairs who responded to our
survey reported that they were satisfied with the quality of their
communication with the national office. Furthermore, several state
committee members we interviewed told us that there should be more
communication between the state advisory committees and the Commission and
that they believed that the Commission did not understand the role of the
committees. More specifically, members told us that they thought the
Commission could

The planned closures were later postponed to fiscal year 2007.

                                  Conclusions

make more effective and efficient use of the advisory committees if they
knew what issues the Commission saw as priorities and how they could
contribute to the Commission's vision and goals. For example, several
state advisory committee members said they thought joint reports prepared
by more than one committee would be more efficient and allow the
Commission to obtain more comprehensive views on a particular issue. In
our survey, respondents identified several civil rights issues they had in
common, such as housing, education, and employment for immigrants and
various elements of the justice system.

The Commission has not provided for independent oversight of its policies
and practices for state advisory committees, despite the long-standing
nature of many of the issues we identified regarding the Commission's lack
of consultation and communication with the state advisory committees,
delays in renewing charter applications, and lack of timeliness and other
issues in approving state advisory committee reports. Obtaining the
services of an Inspector General, as we recommended in our 2004 report,
could provide this oversight.

Without having policies in place for ensuring the objectivity of its
reports, briefings, and hearings, the Commission cannot provide adequate
assurance that it is achieving its mission as an independent, bipartisan
fact-finding agency by informing often controversial debates over civil
rights issues for the public's benefit. It is therefore important for the
Commission's credibility that its Commissioners and Staff Director base
their work on sound criteria and that the Commission's reports and other
products include varying perspectives so as to be recognized as fair and
impartial. The Commission's briefings and hearings also run the risk of
appearing biased, rather than objective, in the absence of a policy for
identifying and selecting speakers and witnesses who can bring to bear a
range of perspectives and expertise. Furthermore, by using an external
reviewer for its reports without having a process for considering the use
of such reviewers, the Commission risks introducing one-sided commentary
on its products and is not availing itself of an important avenue for
helping to ensure the objectivity of its analyses. The absence of such
policies leaves the Commission less accountable to the public for its
decisions related to its reports. Moreover, its credibility and
independence could be compromised by the failure to engage all of the
Commissioners in its decisions and to document substantive decisions made
outside of public view.

As the eyes and ears of the Commission, the state advisory committees are
critical to the work of the Commission. However, a variety of problems
inhibit them from successfully carrying out their important function.
These include continued delays in renewing charters as well as declines in
regional staff and other forms of support for the state advisory
committees. The Commission's budgeting practices make it difficult to
gauge the level of funding provided to the committees in order to use this
information to analyze trends, such as the comparison of funding for
reports for the national office versus the advisory committees and to make
decisions about priorities. Furthermore, the potential impact and
usefulness of state advisory committee reports can be significantly
reduced if they are not reviewed and issued speedily or if the
Commission's review policies constrain the reports' direction or findings.
The Commission also cuts the line of communication on important civil
rights issues from the local level to the national level if it does not
seek the perspectives of state advisory committees in planning its work,
determining long-term goals and strategies, or making organizational
decisions that directly affect the committees. However, despite the
longstanding nature of many of these issues, the Commission has not
obtained independent oversight by an Inspector General of its policies and
practices for state advisory committees. In a time of large budget
deficits and fiscal constraints, addressing these issues would allow the
Commission to better leverage its resources by drawing upon this
nationwide network of volunteers who could enrich the national perspective
on civil rights and allow for more informed decisions by the President and
Congress.

(1) In order to better ensure the quality of the Commission's national

  Recommendations for

                     office products, the Commission should

  Executive Action

     o require that its written products consider varied and opposing
       perspectives, and that the process for achieving this be well
       documented;
     o develop a process for using external reviewers that includes criteria
       for determining when to use external reviewers, identifying a range of
       appropriate reviewers, and ensuring that the selection process is
       impartial and transparent to the Commissioners and the public; and
          * include criteria for Commissioner and Staff Director reviews of
            national office reports-from project proposal through final
            draft-in its policies and require substantive decisions and
            changes to be documented.
          * (2) In order to ensure that relevant information and perspectives
            are covered in a comprehensive manner during briefings and
            hearings, the Commission should
          * require that the selection of speakers for briefings and
            witnesses for hearings include balanced, varied, and opposing
            perspectives, and that this process be well documented.
          * (3) In order to ensure that the Commission can provide advice to
            Congress and make the most effective use of the state advisory
            committees, it should
     o develop and implement a formal process for approving state advisory
       committee charters with specific timetables to ensure their approval
       in a timely manner and for appointing and seating advisory committee
       members promptly after charter approval;
     o renew its practice of separately identifying funds for the regional
       offices and state advisory committees to better evaluate the adequacy
       of funding for supporting the committees, given budgetary constraints;
     o establish required time frames for Staff Director reviews in order to
       ensure that state advisory committee reports are published in a timely
       manner; and
          * integrate the state advisory committees' mission and work in its
            strategic planning and decision-making processes, including
            articulating how the national office will use the state advisory
            committees' findings on state and local civil rights issues to
            inform the Commission's national goals and strategies.
          * (4) In order to ensure that the Commission's processes are well
            documented and its policies are followed, the Commission should
     o establish an external accountability mechanism, such as seeking the
       services of an existing Inspector General from another agency.

We provided the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights with a draft of this

report for review and comment. In the agency's response, the Staff
Director did not comment on our conclusions or recommendations but instead
described actions the Commission had taken to improve its management and
financial controls, the operations of the state advisory

Page 36 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

committees, the role of the Commissioners, and internal review procedures
for its reports and briefings. We had already discussed most of these
actions in our report, and we added information on recent state advisory
committee activities that the Staff Director provided in his comments.
While many of these actions are positive steps, they do not address the
matters upon which we based our recommendations, such as the Commission's
lack of a process for using external reviewers for its national office
reports. Therefore, we continue to believe that further actions are
needed. Our recommendations identify the specific steps we believe should
be taken to strengthen the quality of the Commission's products and make
better use of its state advisory committees. The Staff Director's comments
are contained in appendix II.

Although we did not solicit comments from the Commissioners, the Staff
Director provided them with an opportunity to respond to our draft report,
and three of the seven Commissioners provided us with comments. 39

One Commissioner agreed with the contents of the draft report. In his
letter, he stated that the report's findings and recommendations provide a
framework for improving the Commission's procedures and enhancing the
credibility, balance, and transparency of the Commission's work. He also
noted that, although the Commission had implemented many of the
recommendations in our previous reports, it has not updated its strategic
plan nor retained the services of an Inspector General as we recommended
in 2004 and in this report.

The Vice Chair and one Commissioner strongly disagreed with the draft
report's approach, tone, and conclusions and asserted in their joint
letter that the report was biased and unbalanced. We believe that our
report is balanced and unbiased. As described in our scope and
methodology, we designed and conducted this engagement in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. The Commissioners' major
concerns included the following:

o  The Commissioners stated that it was misleading for us to criticize the
Commission's reports for their lack of objectivity. This view appears to
emanate from a misunderstanding of our audit objectives. It was not

The Commissioner who wrote a letter agreeing with our report is a
Republican. Of the two Commissioners who wrote a joint letter disagreeing
with our report, one is a Republican and one is an Independent, although
she was appointed to the Commission as a Republican in 2001 but changed
her party affiliation to Independent in December 2004.

Page 37 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

within the scope of our study to assess the objectivity of the
Commission's reports. As noted in the report objectives, our purpose was
to analyze the Commission's policies for ensuring the quality, including
objectivity, of its reports and other products. When we discussed specific
Commission reports or briefings, we did so to illustrate issues that arose
when the Commission did not have written policies, not to provide an
assessment of the content of individual products.

     o The Commissioners asserted that the draft report was biased because we
       did not interview all of the Commissioners. Our evaluation focused on
       assessing the adequacy of the Commission's policies and the role of
       the state advisory committees and was not contingent upon obtaining
       the views of every Commissioner about these policies or the
       committees' role. Therefore, we disagree with the Commissioners'
       assertion that, because we did not interview all of the Commissioners,
       the report is biased in its assumptions and conclusions.
     o The Commissioners stated that our finding that the Commission did not
       include the state advisory committee members in its strategic planning
       process was an unwarranted attack. We do not agree with this
       characterization. Our recommendation is intended to provide a
       constructive suggestion for improving the Commission's strategic
       planning. At the time of our review, Commission officials told us and
       the congressional committees that provide oversight of the Commission
       that they did not solicit the input of the state advisory members in
       developing its draft strategic plan. In addition, our report
       recognizes that the draft strategic plan had not yet been completed.
       To the extent that the final plan includes the perspectives of and
       better defines the role of the state advisory committees, it will be a
       more complete plan. This is the basis for our recommendation.
     o Finally, the Commissioners stated that the report did not sufficiently
       acknowledge the significant policy and other changes made by the
       Commission and that the previous leadership of the Commission was
       responsible for many of the issues discussed in our report. We
       acknowledged throughout the report the current leadership's changes to
       the Commission's reporting and state advisory committee policies. Our
       findings and conclusions are based on the policies and operations of
       the current Commission, including the new policies.

Comments from the three Commissioners and our responses are contained in
appendixes III and IV. We incorporated clarifications and updates in the
report as appropriate.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of the report. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. It will be available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-9889 or at [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VIII.

Robert E. Robertson

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Survey of State Advisory Committees

Our objectives in this study were to assess (1) the adequacy of the
Commission's policies for ensuring the quality of its products and (2) the
role of the state advisory committees in contributing to the Commission's
work. To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevant
statutes, regulations, and administrative policies of the Commission;
transcripts and minutes of Commission meetings; and recent Commission and
state advisory committee reports. We interviewed Commission staff,
including the Staff Director, and three Commissioners- the Chair, one
Republican member, and one Democrat. We also attended monthly meetings of
the Commission, including briefings.

In addition, to analyze the quality assurance policies for its products,
we reviewed the Commission's administrative policies for its reports,
briefings, and hearings. We also reviewed the policies used by the
National Academies of Sciences and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
to ensure the quality of their products and guidance from the Office of
Management and Budget on ensuring the quality and objectivity of
information disseminated by federal agencies, in addition to considering
GAO's own policies. We also interviewed officials from the Academies and
CBO. In addition, we reviewed the Commission's files for a selection of
recent national and state advisory committee reports and interviewed
national and regional office staff.

In addition, we conducted site visits to all six regional offices, where
we interviewed regional staff to determine the support they provide to the
committees. To analyze the state advisory committees' role in
accomplishing the Commission's fact-finding and reporting mission, we
conducted a survey of the 51 committee chairs and we received responses to
this survey from state advisory committee chairs and former chairs in 36
states. We conducted site visits to all 6 regional offices, where we
interviewed regional staff to determine the support they provide to the
state advisory committees. We also interviewed the state advisory
committee chairs and members in 11 states to understand how they operate
and their experiences with the Commission's national and regional offices.
We interviewed officials at the General Services Administration who
administered the Federal Advisory Committee Act and reviewed related
documentation. In addition, we reviewed the most recently approved state
advisory committee charters, interviewed Commission officials who work
with the regional offices, and reviewed state advisory committee
regulations and policies. We conducted our work from April 2005 to March
2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

One of our methods for determining the adequacy of the Commission's
policies and the role of the state advisory committees was to survey the
chairs or former chairs of each state advisory committee. 1 We sent a
questionnaire to all state advisory committee chairs in each state,
including the chair of the District of Columbia's committee. We conducted
the survey from July 7, 2005, through August 31, 2005. We received
responses from state advisory committee chairs and former chairs in 36
states.

To prepare the questionnaire, we asked knowledgeable officials from the
state advisory committees and survey professionals to comment on the
questionnaire, and we pretested the questionnaire to ensure that the
questions were clear and unambiguous, terminology was used correctly, it
did not place an undue burden on the respondents, the information was
feasible to obtain, and it was comprehensive and unbiased. We pretested
the questionnaire with state advisory committee chairs in a geographically
diverse group of states by means of telephone and face-to-face interviews.
On the basis of the feedback from these pretests, we made changes to the
content and format of the questionnaire.

The questionnaire asked a combination of open- and close-ended questions
about each state advisory committee and the activities it had undertaken
in the previous 5 years. The questionnaire also asked the chairs to
comment on their experiences working with the Commission's regional and
national offices.

To ensure an adequate and appropriate response to our questionnaire, we
sent an e-mail in advance to establish the correct respondent. We also
sent two reminder letters and followed up with telephone calls to those
who had not yet responded. All respondents who had not sent in a survey
after approximately 4 weeks were telephoned by GAO and asked to
participate. The majority of respondents completed the survey
electronically but some faxed copies of their answers to GAO. In these
cases, the faxed responses were entered into a database by contractors
hired by GAO. Quality assurance steps were taken to ensure the accuracy of
the data entry.

Because the Commission was unable to provide us with a current list of all
of the state advisory committee chairs, we obtained the list from one of
the state advisory committee chairs.

Page 41 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Appendix I: Objectives,
Scope, and Methodology

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources
of information that are available to respondents, or in how the data are
entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted
variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of
the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize
these nonsampling errors. For example, social science survey specialists
designed the questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff with subject
matter expertise. Then, the draft questionnaire was pretested with a
number of state officials to ensure that the questions were relevant,
clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. When the data were analyzed, a
second, independent analyst checked all computer programs. In several
cases, we contacted respondents to clarify their responses to the
questions, but we did not otherwise independently verify the information
they provided.

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner Braceras and
GAO's Response

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

                                 See comment 2.

                                 See comment 3.

                                 See comment 4.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

                                 See comment 5.

                                 See comment 6.

                                 See comment 7.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

                                 See comment 8.

                                 See comment 9.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

                                See comment 10.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

                                See comment 11.

                                See comment 12.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

                                See comment 13.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

1. The Commissioners stated that the report does not acknowledge the
significant changes that have taken place at the agency and its efforts
Comments at reform. To the contrary, the report acknowledged numerous

changes to the Commission's reporting and state advisory committee
policies by the current leadership. For example, we noted that, after the
arrival of new leadership, the Commission began to reevaluate its policies
on product development and state advisory committee matters and, in
discussing the Commission's quality assurance policies for its products,
we reported on the increased involvement of the Commissioners in product
development, describing it as a "significant improvement over previous
Commission policy." In addition, we devoted a considerable portion of two
appendixes to the Commission's process for developing and approving
national and state advisory committee products, including policy changes.
With regard to the state advisory committees, we similarly analyzed the
Commission's policy changes to the committees' membership criteria and
publication of state advisory committee reports.

1. The Commissioners asserted that it was misleading for us to criticize
       the Commission's reports because they lack objectivity. This view
       appears to emanate from a misunderstanding of our audit objectives. It
       was not within the scope of our study to analyze the objectivity of
       the Commission's reports. As noted in our report, our purpose was to
       analyze the Commission's policies for ensuring the quality of its
       reports and other products. When we discussed specific Commission
       reports or briefings, we did so to illustrate issues that arose when
       the Commission did not have written policies, not to assess the
       content of individual reports. We observed that the Commission lacks
       several policies for its product development that could help ensure
       the objectivity of its reports and briefings. We focused especially on
       policies that other organizations, such as the National Academies, the
       Congressional Budget Office, and GAO, consider important to ensuring
       the quality of their reports and other products.
2. Our evaluation focused on assessing the adequacy of the Commission's
       policies and the role of the state advisory committees. Our assessment
       was not contingent upon obtaining the views of every Commissioner
       about these policies or the committees' role. Therefore, we disagree
       with the Commissioners' assertion that, because we did not interview
       all of the Commissioners, the report is biased in its assumptions and
       conclusions.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

1. The Commissioners stated that we did not define the term "objectivity"
       in criticizing the Commission's work. We added a definition of
       objectivity to our report.
2. We disagree with the Commissioner's statements regarding our review of
       the Commission's statutory reports. First, the scope of our report did
       not include a review of the pending 2006 report on the reauthorization
       of the Voting Rights Act. Second, in discussing the 2005 statutory
       report on Adarand, we noted that the project was originally approved
       in 2003 under the previous leadership. However, we also noted that the
       current leadership had a significant hand in revising the direction of
       the research questions that were sent to federal agencies to obtain
       information for the report. The current Commission also approved an
       outline for the Adarand report and had several opportunities to
       comment on the draft report. Furthermore, contrary to the
       Commissioners' statement, the current Commission proposed and approved
       the October 2005 briefing on the Voting Rights Act, not the previous
       leadership. This briefing was the subject of our discussion on the
       Commission's speaker selection policies. In appendix V of our report,
       we referred to, but did not otherwise discuss, the Commission's
       pending 2006 statutory report on the Voting Rights Act.
3. Our report acknowledges the new policy on the Commissioners' role in
       reviewing state advisory committee reports and publication
       requirements that was approved in February 2006. We added a note to
       our report acknowledging that the Commission will be reviewing its
       project approval procedures for state advisory committee products as
       it did previously for national office products.
4. As noted earlier, we did not review the content of either national
       office reports or individual state advisory committee reports to
       assess their quality. However, if the Commissioners have major
       concerns about the quality of the state advisory committee reports,
       they should take a hard look at the committees' adherence to the
       Commission's quality assurance policies for these reports.
5. In our report, we did not state that the process for the state
       advisory committees' operations should become the model for the
       national office. However, we did examine the Commission's policies for
       ensuring the quality of its products and found that the Commission has
       some policies governing the committees' work that are more
       comprehensive than those for national office products.

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

1. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the content or
       quality of the chapters and other material that were removed from the
       draft Adarand report, we continue to believe that the manner in which
       they were removed is of concern. For example, although the current
       Commission voted to approve a report outline in April 2005 that
       reflected a range of perspectives, the removal of several sections of
       the draft report shifted the balance towards one perspective. In
       addition, there was no documentation of the basis for this decision.
       Afterwards, two Commissioners said that they were unaware of the
       changes until after the decision had been made, and one of them
       abstained during the Commission's final vote because he objected to
       how these changes had been made, even though he said that he agreed
       with the content of the report.
2. We disagree with the Commissioners' assertion that its new procedural
       policies for briefings will necessarily provide balance and a variety
       of perspectives to its briefing panels. The new policy requires the
       Commissioners to approve briefing topics and panel of speakers at
       least one month in advance of the briefing. However, as we reported,
       this new policy does not require that briefing panels be balanced or
       include a variety of perspectives.
3. In their comments, the Commissioners stated that we criticized the
       inclusion of political parties in the membership criteria for state
       advisory committee members, but this is incorrect. In our report, we
       described the previous and proposed membership criteria, both of which
       included members' political affiliation. Because the proposed criteria
       call for each committee to have members of "both" political parties,
       we also expressed uncertainty about how the Commission would consider
       candidates who are politically independent and how it would ensure
       balance in the points of view represented, as required under FACA.
4. According to the Commissioners, our report repeatedly refers to the
       state advisory committees as the "eyes and ears" of the Commission.
       This description of the state advisory committees' role is not our
       term. Rather it appears in the Commission's State Advisory Committee
       Handbook and in the Commission's October 2005 and December 2005 draft
       strategic plans developed under the current leadership.
5. The Commissioners also stated that our finding that the Commission did
       not include the state advisory committee members in its strategic
       planning process was a "ludicrous and unwarranted attack." We disagree
       with this characterization. Our recommendation is intended

Appendix III: Comments from Vice Chair Thernstrom and Commissioner
Braceras and GAO's Response

to provide a constructive suggestion for improving the Commission's
strategic planning process. At the time of our review, Commission
officials told us and the staff of the congressional committees that
provide oversight of the Commission that they did not solicit the input of
the state advisory committee members in developing the draft strategic
plan. In addition, our report recognized that the draft strategic plan had
not been completed. If the final plan includes the perspectives of the
state advisory committees and better defines their role, it will be a more
complete plan. This is the basis for our recommendation.

Appendix IV: Comments from Commissioner Kirsanow, U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights Appendix V: The Commission's Policies and Process for Developing and
Approving National Office Products

In addition to its general policies on quality assurance, Commission
policy also requires four independent reviews of its draft products to
ensure the accuracy and adequacy of the information in them. These reviews
include the following:

1. Editorial review: 1 The purpose of this review is to determine the
       adequacy and accuracy of the substantive information in the draft
       document, according to the Administrative Manual. This includes
       conceptual soundness, adherence to Commission policy, quality of
       research, argumentation, and documentation of major points. However,
       Commission officials we interviewed generally agreed that the
       editorial board review more often focused on issues such as
       grammatical correctness, inconsistencies, and clarity, rather than on
       substantive issues such as the adequacy of evidence. The Staff
       Director appoints the members of the editorial review, usually
       consisting of three staff members. According to the Staff Director,
       editorial reviewers should be able to provide a fresh perspective, be
       familiar with the Commission's standards and style manual, have strong
       editorial and writing skills, and should not work in the same office
       that wrote the draft product.
2. Legal sufficiency review: The purpose of this review, which is
       conducted by the Office of General Counsel, is to ensure the accurate
       interpretation and citation of legal materials and compliance with
       statutory requirements.
3. "Defame and degrade" review: The purpose of this review is to ensure
       that Commission products do not defame or degrade persons named in
       them. 2 It is performed by the Office of General Counsel concurrently
       with the legal sufficiency review. Although agencies typically require
       or have legal sufficiency reviews for their products, it is unusual
       for an agency to also review its products for their potential to
       defame or degrade individual persons.
4. Affected agency review: The purpose of this review is to provide a
       government agency or, if appropriate, a nongovernmental organization

1

Although this review is described as an Editorial Policy Review in the
Commission's policy manual, the Staff Director and others we interviewed
told us that it is not a policy review and is usually referred to as the
editorial review. Editorial reviews do not apply to transcripts of
hearings or briefings.

2

The Commission requires that a right of response be given to any person if
a Commission report tends to defame, degrade, or incriminate that person.

Page 59 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Appendix V: The
Commission's Policies and Process for Developing and Approving National
Office Products

mentioned in the draft report with pertinent sections of the draft for the
agency's review on the accuracy of the material contained in them.

The Commission's detailed procedures require the development of interim
documents such as concept papers, proposals, outlines, discovery plans,
and draft reports.

The Staff Director plays a pivotal role in approving all stages of the
products' development, including follow-up plans after a report's
issuance. However, until May 2005, the Commissioners had limited
involvement in the development of its products: Essentially, Commissioners
could approve proposals and design summaries at the beginning and approve
final reports at the end. The Commissioners' limited role was a source of
considerable concern to some Commissioners, as reported in our 2003 study.
3 This concern led to our recommendation that the Commission provide for
increased involvement of the Commissioners in planning and implementation.

In May 2005, the Commission made significant changes to its quality
assurance policies by increasing Commissioners' involvement in the
development of its national office products. Under these new policies,
Commissioners are required to review and approve Commission products at
five key stages: (1) proposal and concept paper development,

(2) background research and outline development, (3) discovery, (4) draft
report, and (5) final report stages. 4 The Commissioners' review and
approval at three of these stages are new-background research and outline
development, discovery, and draft report stages-and provide Commissioners
with considerably greater opportunities to comment on and guide the
direction of Commission products than previously. At most of these stages,
approval by the majority of the Commissioners is necessary before moving
on to the next stage. Under the new policies, the independent
reviews-editorial, legal, defame and degrade, and affected agency
reviews-occur between the Commissioners' initial and final reviews of the
draft product instead of before the Commissioners' review, as was previous
practice. The new policy does not require Commissioners'

3See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial
Oversight Needed , GAO-04-18 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).

In discovery plans, staff provide information on possible subpoenas for
hearings, document requests, and interrogatories, which are written
questions sent to federal agencies that require a written response and
documentation.

Page 60 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Appendix V: The
Commission's Policies and Process for Developing and Approving National
Office Products

votes on draft reports and final reports to occur in a public meeting. The
new policies were formally incorporated into the Commission's
administrative policy manual in January 2006. (See fig. 2.)

     Figure 2: Process for Developing and Approving National Office Reports

In May, 2005, the Commission adopted additional quality assurance policies
for national office products that provide them with greater control over
the substance of draft products: First, Commissioners can now vote to
approve substantive changes to previously approved projects and may
reassess priorities if budgetary changes occur during the year. Second,

Appendix V: The Commission's Policies and Process for Developing and
Approving National Office Products

  Policies for Briefings and Hearings

instead of having to vote on an entire draft of a final report, the
Commission may vote on sections, and only portions of the report that
receive a majority vote would become part of the final Commission
document.

The Commission also agreed to add a policy formally allowing statements of
dissent. Commissioners can submit a statement of dissent after a report
has been approved, and this dissenting statement can be integrated within
the body of the report if the Staff Director and dissenting Commissioner
agree. Before this change, there was no written Commission policy on
dissenting statements.

The new Commission policies have not been fully implemented for some
national office projects that were initiated under the previous Commission
before the new policies became effective, according to the Staff Director.
These projects include the Commission's 2005 report Federal Procurement
after Adarand (Washington, D.C.: September 2005), which satisfied the
Commission's statutory requirement for that year; its 2005 report, Funding
Federal Civil Rights Enforcement: The President's 2006 Request
(Washington, D.C.: September 2005); and its report on the Voting Rights
Act, which is planned for publication in 2006 to satisfy the Commission's
annual statutory requirement.

In May 2005, the Commissioners clarified the Commissioners' role in
approving briefings and hearings. According to the Commission's new
policies, Commissioners must approve briefing topics and the panel of
speakers for briefings at a monthly Commission meeting at least 1 month in
advance of the briefing itself. In addition, in order to hold a hearing, a
majority of the Commission or a majority of the members present at a
meeting with a quorum must vote to approve the hearing.

Commission briefings and hearings are usually part of specific national
office projects, which include distinct stages such as the concept,
proposal, and design. The Commission's Hearing Manual provides detailed
administrative and legal procedures for conducting hearings and for
posthearing activities. For example, the manual describes the process for
selecting team members to prepare for hearings and the process for
verifying hearing transcripts following hearings. The manual also notes
that the final decision to hold a hearing belongs to the Commissioners.
The Commission has not held any hearings since 2002.

Appendix VI: The Commission's Process for Developing and Approving State
Advisory Committee Products

According to the Commission's policies, the state advisory committees
provide their advice on civil rights issues by submitting committee
reports and other written products to the Commission. The Commission's
Administrative Manual and State Advisory Committee Handbook have policies
and procedures for developing and approving these state committee
products. State advisory committee members generally propose a civil
rights topic and vote to approve it for development. After regional staff
researches the topic and drafts a formal proposal, the committee votes to
approve it. The approved proposal is then forwarded to the national office
for the Staff Director's approval. Following approval of the proposal, the
regional staff conducts research, such as conducting interviews and
inviting speakers to public meetings in local communities, to help the
committee in its fact-finding process. The regional staff also writes a
draft report using interviews, background research, and transcripts of the
speakers' comments that were made at public community meetings. After the
committee reviews and votes on the draft report, the regional director
sends the approved committee report to the national office for review, a
procedure that is also followed for any dissenting statements. The state
advisory committee votes to approve the final report. The regional office
sends the final approved committee report to the Commissioners, who, under
a new policy approved in February 2006, receive all state advisory
committee reports that the Staff Director has approved as having satisfied
the procedural and legal criteria for such reports. However, the
Commissioners are not asked to accept or reject the committee reports. The
Commission also prints all state advisory committee reports that have
satisfied the criteria for such reports. (See fig. 3.)

Appendix VI: The Commission's Process for Developing and Approving State
Advisory Committee Products

Figure 3: Process for Developing and Approving State Advisory Committee
Products

        Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights policy.

Appendix VII: Summary Data on Profiles of the State Advisory Committee Members

State advisory committee charters provide, among other things,
biographical and demographic data on the members of the committees. All of
the information presented in the electronic supplement to this report
reflects the membership criteria that existed prior to the new criteria
proposed in 2005. [For detailed data by state see electronic supplement at
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-551SP .]

As shown by the state charters, state advisory committees are generally
composed of a demographically diverse group of individuals. The size of
committees varies from 11 to 26 members, though 73 percent of the
committees have between 11 and 14 members. Overall, these committees'
members are reflective of the state populations they represent, though the
committees generally rely more heavily on minority populations, such as
persons of color and religious minorities.

State advisory committees tend to have a fairly equal gender distribution,
though committee members as compared to 2000 census data are, on the
whole, older than the general population. For example, 43 percent of
Americans 18 or over are under 40 years old, whereas only 23 percent of
advisory committee members are in this age range. This trend is consistent
throughout most of the regions considered in this study. Overall, most
committee members fall into the 40-59 age range, while approximately a
fifth of members are 60 or over, a proportion that closely parallels that
of the general population.

                                Age Distribution

                              Racial Distribution

Racial minorities constitute a large percentage of state advisory
committee membership, with black members holding the most minority
committee positions. While whites constitute 72 percent of the nation's
population, white committee members hold only 35 percent of committee
positions nationwide. Black members are the second most populous
demographic on the committees, constituting 29 percent of state advisory
committees. Hispanic members also play a prominent role; 15 percent of
committee members across the nation consider themselves Hispanic, a
proportion that is comparable to that of the general adult U.S.
population. The Midwest has the largest gap in terms of parity-for
example, 32 percent of committee members are black, compared to 9 percent
of the regional adult population for blacks.

Persons with Disabilities Persons with disabilities are reasonably well
represented on the committees. While 19 percent of citizens were
identified in the census

Page 65 GAO-06-343 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Appendix VII: Summary
Data on Profiles of the State Advisory Committee Members

  Political and Religious Affiliations

nationwide as disabled, these individuals constitute approximately 16
percent of committee members. 1 However, there are wide disparities
apparent among committees-for example, while one committee has no
representatives with disabilities; several committees have 5 or 6 disabled
members.

Each committee had at least one Republican and one Democrat. However,
committee membership tended to be more Democratic than their respective
states' populations; 46 percent of members consider themselves Democrats,
in contrast to an estimated 31 percent nationwide. Independent members
also constitute a large share of the state advisory committee membership
(27 percent), a trend that is most prominent in the Northeast. Religious
affiliations also differ among regions and many committee members do not
categorize themselves as Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish. In fact, most
committee members in the western and northeastern states do not identify
with one of the three main religions, while committees in the Midwest and
South have mostly Protestant members.

                                  Occupations

State advisory committee members hold a variety of occupations, from
homemaker to university president. The most common occupations held by
committee members include professor/assistant professor, attorney at law,
and executive-level positions within nonprofit or governmental entities,
such as social services organizations or county commissions. In addition,
many committee members are elected officials, teachers, community
activists, business owners, students, or private sector employees. Many
members participated in organizations such as regional or state civil
rights organizations, which promote civil rights advancement.

1

  The nationwide population rate refers to U. S. citizens 16 to 64 years old.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Robert E. Robertson, (202) 512-9889 or [email protected].

GAO Contact

  Staff Acknowledgments

Revae E. Moran, Assistant Director, and Deborah A. Signer, Analyst in
Charge, managed all aspects of the assignment. Mary E. Roy made
significant contributions to this report and Kyle Browning also provided
key assistance in collecting data for the report. In addition, Margaret L.
Armen, Richard P. Burkard, Susan C. Bernstein, Jessica A. Lemke, Walter K.
Vance, and Monica L. Wolford provided essential legal and technical
assistance.

(130480)

  GAO's Mission

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

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov) . Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

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

  To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

  Public Affairs

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

    PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***