    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Sharing Promising
    Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human Capital Planning
    Can Improve Management of Growing Workload (23-JUN-08,
    GAO-08-589).

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by
    title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, promotes equal
    opportunity in the workplace and enforces federal laws that
    prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
    color, religion, national origin, age, and disability. As the
    nation's primary enforcer of civil rights employment laws, EEOC
    investigates charges of employment discrimination from the
    public, litigates major cases, and reaches out to federal
    agencies and the public to educate and prevent discrimination.
    EEOC serves every industry, every segment of the population, and
    every part of the country. While its core mission has not changed
    since the agency was established more than 40 years ago, EEOC
    continues to face a range of new challenges in the 21st century,
    including long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics,
    and rapid advances in technology. The federal government overall
    faces significant human capital challenges, including a
    retirement wave that will lead to the loss of leadership and
    institutional knowledge at all levels. EEOC is not immune from
    this trend. EEOC estimates that within 4 years, all of its
    current senior executives and senior managers will be retirement
    eligible, if they have not already retired by that time.
    Moreover, between 2000 and 2007, EEOC lost nearly one-quarter of
    its full-time-equivalent staff, from approximately 2,850 to about
    2,150. In view of EEOC's human capital management challenges and
    the growing demand for its services, we examined (1) national
    trends in EEOC's private sector enforcement workload and the
    factors that contribute to them, (2) how EEOC offices manage
    their workload, and (3) EEOC actions to address its future
    workforce needs.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-589
        ACCNO:   A82490
      TITLE:     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Sharing
    Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human
    Capital Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload
         DATE:   06/23/2008
      SUBJECT:   Agency missions
    	     Employees
    	     Employment
    	     Employment discrimination
    	     Employment opportunities
    	     Fair employment programs
    	     Human capital
    	     Human capital management
    	     Human capital planning
    	     Human capital policies
    	     Internal controls
    	     Performance measures
    	     Policy evaluation
    	     Private sector practices
    	     Program management
    	     Staff utilization
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Work measurement

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-08-589

    This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
    of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
    attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
    the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
    descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
    end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
    but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
    version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
    replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
    your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
    document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

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

    United States Government Accountability Office:
    GAO:

    Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate:

    June 2008:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

    Sharing Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human
    Capital Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload:

    GAO-08-589:

    Contents:

    Letter:

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

    Appendix II: GAO Briefing to Congressional Staff on June 12, 2008:

    Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission:

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

    [End of section]

    United States Government Accountability Office:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    June 23, 2008:

    The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski:
    Chairman:
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
    Committee on Appropriations:
    United States Senate:

    Dear Madam Chairman:

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by title
    VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, promotes equal opportunity in the
    workplace and enforces federal laws that prohibit employment
    discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national
    origin, age, and disability. As the nation's primary enforcer of civil
    rights employment laws, EEOC investigates charges of employment
    discrimination from the public, litigates major cases, and reaches out
    to federal agencies and the public to educate and prevent
    discrimination. EEOC serves every industry, every segment of the
    population, and every part of the country. While its core mission has
    not changed since the agency was established more than 40 years ago,
    EEOC continues to face a range of new challenges in the 21st century,
    including long-term fiscal constraints, changing demographics, and
    rapid advances in technology.

    The federal government overall faces significant human capital
    challenges, including a retirement wave that will lead to the loss of
    leadership and institutional knowledge at all levels. EEOC is not
    immune from this trend. EEOC estimates that within 4 years, all of its
    current senior executives and senior managers will be retirement
    eligible, if they have not already retired by that time. Moreover,
    between 2000 and 2007, EEOC lost nearly one-quarter of its full-time-
    equivalent staff, from approximately 2,850 to about 2,150. In view of
    EEOC's human capital management challenges and the growing demand for
    its services, we examined (1) national trends in EEOC's private sector
    enforcement workload and the factors that contribute to them, (2) how
    EEOC offices manage their workload, and (3) EEOC actions to address its
    future workforce needs.

    We limited our review to EEOC's private sector enforcement program,
    which represents the majority of the agency's workload.[Footnote 1] To
    address our three objectives, we analyzed administrative and personnel
    data from EEOC's data systems; interviewed investigators, attorneys,
    and administrative staff on-site at six EEOC offices; administered a
    data collection instrument to the Office of Human Resources; reviewed
    relevant documentation about EEOC's strategic and human capital
    planning process; and discussed that planning process with senior
    agency officials at EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C. Specifically,
    we analyzed (1) data from fiscal years 2004 through 2007 from EEOC's
    Integrated Mission System database, which maintains information on
    private sector charges of employment discrimination, and (2) personnel
    data on investigator staffing levels from EEOC's Office of Human
    Resources. We assessed the reliability of these data and found them to
    be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We visited
    EEOC offices in Atlanta, Baltimore, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Philadelphia,
    and Seattle to collect information from a range of staff on EEOC's
    private sector enforcement program. We selected offices on the basis of
    a number of criteria, including geographic location, recent changes to
    office structure, and varying performance levels. A more detailed
    explanation of our methodology can be found in appendix I of this
    report. We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to June
    2008, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
    to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
    basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
    We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
    our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

    On June 12, 2008, we briefed your office on the results of our analysis
    (see app. II). This report formally conveys information provided during
    that briefing. In summary, we reported the following findings about
    EEOC's private sector enforcement program:

    * Multiple factors contribute to EEOC's growing private sector
    enforcement workload. Over the last 4 years, EEOC's private sector
    workload has increased by 10 percent. Factors that have contributed to
    the growing workload include the growth in the number of new
    discrimination charges, which have become increasingly resource
    intensive, and a decrease in the number of investigators. Over the same
    period, the number of total charges handled per investigator increased
    by 22 percent, the average number of days taken to close a charge
    increased by 34 days, and the number of open charges at the end of the
    fiscal year increased by 82 percent. EEOC's mediations and lawsuits for
    its private sector charges showed modest increases over the last 4
    years.

    * While offices vary significantly in their ability to manage workload
    in a timely manner, promising management practices have not been
    identified. In 2007, the average number of days taken to close a
    charge, the percentage of charges closed, and the average number of
    total charges handled per investigator varied significantly by office.
    At the same time, we found that key measures--such as the average
    number of total charges per investigator and the percentage of new
    resource-intensive charges--are not correlated with an office's ability
    to manage workload in a timely manner. With varying levels of success,
    the EEOC offices we visited use a variety of techniques to manage their
    workload. However, EEOC lacks a systematic process to identify
    promising management practices.

    * Although EEOC has taken some actions to address future workforce
    needs, these actions do not fully address leading principles for
    effective strategic workforce planning. Specifically, EEOC's efforts to
    develop, communicate, and implement a strategic human capital plan are
    incomplete after 4 years. In addition, the critical skills that are
    necessary to achieve EEOC's current and future programmatic results
    have not been assessed, and current strategies to address gaps and
    sustain critical skills are not based on identified skill gaps.
    Furthermore, building support, such as with technology, for EEOC's
    workforce planning strategies has posed challenges for the agency.
    Finally, EEOC's progress toward achieving its human capital goals is
    not directly measurable or linked to its programmatic results.

    In conclusion, EEOC's mandate to promote equal opportunity in the
    workplace and enforce federal employment antidiscrimination laws could
    be compromised if EEOC cannot keep pace with its growing private sector
    workload. EEOC could identify processes used by those offices that
    achieve quality outcomes while resolving cases in a timely manner
    despite the burden of heavy workloads. Such promising practices could
    be used to help other offices meet EEOC's performance goals. In
    addition, EEOC could make better use of the strategic planning
    processes to develop a strategic human capital plan that addresses gaps
    in knowledge, skills, and abilities in its current and future
    workforce.

    To help improve EEOC's ability to meet its current and future needs for
    a critically skilled workforce, we are recommending that the Chair of
    EEOC take the following two actions:

    * develop criteria for identifying offices that ensure quality outcomes
    in a timely manner and evaluate and share promising practices across
    the agency and:

    * finalize the strategic human capital plan, on the basis of skills and
    competencies assessments, and develop an implementation plan for the
    strategies identified in the plan with stakeholder input that
    identifies necessary resources, responsible parties, timelines for
    completion, and milestones to measure progress.

    We provided a draft of this report to EEOC for comment. EEOC stated
    that our report concludes that the agency's ability to manage its
    private sector workload declined between fiscal years 2004 and 2007.
    Our report does not draw this conclusion; rather, it describes national
    trends in its private sector enforcement program and identifies factors
    that contribute to them. We conclude that EEOC's mission could be
    compromised if the agency cannot keep pace with its growing workload.
    With regard to our recommendation that it develop criteria for
    identifying and sharing promising practices across the agency, EEOC
    stated that it currently has a mechanism to do so. However, we found
    that EEOC's technical reviews do not systematically inquire about or
    identify promising practices, based on our assessment of the review
    protocol. Moreover, during our site visits to EEOC field offices,
    managers in three field offices we spoke with noted a lack of
    involvement in the systematic and agencywide sharing of promising
    practices. EEOC did not fully address our second recommendation, but
    stated that it anticipates that its strategic human capital plan will
    be submitted to the Chair by the end of fiscal year 2008. EEOC also
    noted that it conducts both workforce analysis and planning as part of
    its annual budget process and as a component of program management. We
    found that it does not approach workforce planning strategically--based
    on mission needs, customer expectations, workload, and workforce--or
    systematically. Furthermore, we found that EEOC's draft strategic human
    capital plan does not currently integrate workforce data with workload
    data. We stand by our recommendation that the plan be finalized, on the
    basis of skills and competencies assessments, and that EEOC develop an
    implementation plan for the strategies it has identified that includes
    stakeholder input and identifies necessary resources, responsible
    parties, timelines for completion, and milestones to measure progress.

    EEOC commented on several additional findings in the draft report.
    Although EEOC agreed with our characterization of the agency's
    challenges, it raised concerns about our calculation of mission-
    critical staff. Yet our analysis is based on the mission-critical
    occupations identified in EEOC's draft strategic human capital plan
    that are part of its private sector enforcement program. EEOC also
    stated that we do not significantly acknowledge the impact of the
    reduction in staff on EEOC's ability to manage its workload. Our report
    finds that the decline in the number of investigators from fiscal years
    2004 to 2007 is a contributing factor to EEOC's growing private sector
    workload. EEOC said we should not ignore the relationship between
    charge inventory and staffing. We did not. In fact, our analysis of
    EEOC's data shows no correlation between an office's ability to close
    charges within 180 days or fewer and the average number of total
    charges handled by an investigator. Further, EEOC questioned our
    exclusion of other criteria that could have been assessed, such as the
    size of the office, geographic areas served, and staff time devoted to
    intake. We selected the most critical factors to examine, based on our
    interviews with staff in six EEOC field offices. As part of its
    workload/workforce analysis, EEOC can study the potential impact of the
    additional factors it has identified on an ongoing basis. Finally, EEOC
    stated that in describing the variety of techniques EEOC offices use to
    manage workload, our report minimizes the effectiveness of EEOC's
    charge categorization process as a tool for workload management. We
    disagree with this assertion; we refer to this process throughout the
    report (see slides 8, 9, and 25). The full text of EEOC's comments
    appears in appendix III. EEOC also provided technical comments that we
    incorporated as appropriate.

    We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
    committees, the Chair of EEOC, and other interested parties. We will
    also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
    report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
    http://www.gao.gov].

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
    contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our
    Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
    the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions
    to this report are listed in appendix IV.

    Sincerely yours,

    Signed by:

    George A. Scott:
    Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

    [End of section]

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

    We limited our review to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
    (EEOC) private sector enforcement program, which represents the
    majority of the agency's workload. EEOC is also responsible for
    coordinating the federal government's employment nondiscrimination
    effort and provides guidance, outreach, and technical assistance to
    federal agencies. Federal sector complaint procedures require federal
    agencies to conduct initial investigations of complaints filed by their
    employees or applicants. Upon completion of agency investigations, or
    if an agency dismisses a complaint, EEOC may conduct hearings and hear
    appropriate appeals. In fiscal year 2007, EEOC's federal sector program
    received about 7,900 requests for hearings and 5,200 requests for
    appeals, when compared with more than 85,000 private sector charges of
    employment discrimination it received that year.

    To examine national trends in EEOC's private sector enforcement
    workload and the factors that contribute to them, we analyzed (1) data
    from fiscal years 2004 to 2007 from EEOC's Integrated Mission System
    (IMS) database, which includes information on private sector charges of
    employment discrimination, and (2) personnel data from EEOC's Office of
    Human Resources. To analyze EEOC's workload from 2004 to 2007, we
    limited our data set to charges that closed on or after October 1,
    2002, or were an active part of EEOC's workload as of October 1, 2002.
    This enabled us to track and report on charges that originated prior to
    fiscal year 2004 but were not closed until or after 2004. We excluded
    from our analysis charges that are investigated by state and local
    agencies, which raise claims under state and local laws prohibiting
    employment discrimination in addition to the federal laws enforced by
    EEOC.[Footnote 2] However, we included those charges that returned from
    these agencies to EEOC and therefore became part of EEOC's workload.
    Specifically, we analyzed data from two of the five support
    capabilities available through the IMS system--the IMS Private Sector
    and IMS Litigation components. We assessed the reliability of the IMS
    data by:

    * performing electronic testing of required data elements;

    * reviewing existing information about these data and the system that
    produced them, and:

    * interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data.

    In addition, we compared the IMS data with other published agency
    documentation, when available, to determine data consistency and
    reasonableness. When we found obvious discrepancies in our analysis of
    the data, such as missing data or highly inconsistent results based on
    prior published information, we brought them to the attention of the
    agency for corrective action or to determine a resolution. We also made
    adjustments, where appropriate, to our analyses on the basis of
    consultations with the agency. In addition, we analyzed EEOC's
    personnel data from the Office of Human Resources on investigator
    staffing levels from fiscal years 2004 to 2007. We assessed the
    reliability of the personnel data by examining the data elements
    provided for missing data or obvious errors and interviewing agency
    officials knowledgeable about these data and the system that produced
    them. Similarly, when we found obvious errors or discrepancies, we
    returned to the agency for corrective action. On the basis of these
    efforts, we determined that the administrative and personnel data were
    sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

    To describe how EEOC offices manage their workload, we examined IMS
    data at the office level, conducted site visits with six EEOC offices,
    interviewed agency officials in EEOC headquarters, and reviewed related
    documentation on EEOC's periodic reviews of field offices.
    Specifically, we analyzed a variety of performance indicators by
    office--including the agency's timeliness performance measure--in
    fiscal year 2007 using data from the IMS system. In addition, we
    conducted analyses to determine whether potential correlations exist
    between two key measures identified by EEOC and an office's ability to
    close charges within 180 days or fewer. To describe the various
    techniques EEOC offices use to manage their workload, we conducted site
    visits and semistructured interviews with a range of EEOC staff,
    including investigators, attorneys, administrative staff, and
    management, in six offices--Atlanta, Baltimore, Las Vegas, Milwaukee,
    Philadelphia, and Seattle. We selected these offices on the basis of a
    number of criteria, including recent changes to office structure,
    varying performance levels, and geographic diversity. In each office,
    we interviewed employees about their experiences with EEOC's private
    sector enforcement program and, specifically, the management of
    workload with the resources available. We also interviewed agency
    officials from the Office of Field Programs in Washington, D.C., about
    best practices in its private sector enforcement program and reviewed
    related documentation from reviews of various field offices.

    To examine EEOC actions to address its future workforce needs, we
    reviewed relevant documentation about EEOC's strategic and human
    capital planning processes and discussed the planning process with
    senior agency officials in Washington, D.C. Specifically, we reviewed
    available information on EEOC's agencywide strategic plan, strategic
    human capital plan, private sector enforcement workload projections,
    and budget documents. In addition, we administered a data collection
    instrument to the Office of Human Resources to collect information on
    strategic workforce planning, recruitment and hiring, and training and
    reviewed the related documentation provided by agency officials to
    support their responses. We conducted interviews with EEOC
    Commissioners, including the Chair of the Commission, as well as
    officials representing various EEOC offices--including the Office of
    General Counsel; Office of Field Programs; Office of Human Resources;
    Office of Research, Information, and Planning; Office of Chief
    Financial Officer and Administrative Services; and Office of Inspector
    General. We also drew on GAO's prior work on key principles for
    effective strategic workforce planning and examined the extent to which
    EEOC's actions conform to leading principles.

    We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to June 2008, in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
    standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
    the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.

    [End of section]

    Appendix II: GAO Briefing to Congressional Staff on June 12, 2008:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
    Sharing Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human
    Capital Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload:

    Briefing to Congressional Staff:

    June 12, 2008:

    Introduction:

    Created in 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
    promotes equal opportunity in the workplace and enforces federal laws
    that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
    color, religion, national origin, age, and disability.

    The federal government faces human capital challenges, including a
    retirement wave that will lead to the loss of leadership and
    institutional knowledge at all levels. In 2006, the Office of Personnel
    Management reported that approximately 60 percent of the government�s
    1.6 million white-collar employees and 90 percent of about 6,000
    federal executives will be eligible for retirement over the next 10
    years.

    EEOC also faces human capital challenges. It estimates that, by 2012,
    all of its current senior executives and senior managers will be
    retirement eligible, if they have not already retired by that time.

    * EEOC�s Office of Inspector General has recently identified the
    strategic management of human capital as a significant challenge facing
    the agency and is currently undertaking a review of EEOC�s human
    capital management.

    Research Objectives:

    In view of EEOC�s human capital management challenges and the growing
    demand for its services, we were asked to examine the following:

    1. national trends in EEOC�s private sector enforcement workload and
    factors that contribute to them;

    2. how EEOC offices manage their workload, and;

    3. EEOC actions to address its future workforce needs.

    Scope and Methodology:

    We limited our review to EEOC�s private sector enforcement program,
    which represents the majority of EEOC�s workload.

    For objectives 1 and 2,we analyzed data from fiscal years 2004 to 2007
    from EEOC�s Integrated Mission System database, which maintains
    information on private sector charges of employment discrimination, and
    EEOC�s Office of Human Resources. We determined that these data were
    sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

    We also interviewed a range of staff in EEOC offices in Atlanta,
    Baltimore, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Seattle on EEOC�s
    private sector enforcement program.

    For objective 3, we obtained responses on human capital planning
    efforts from a data collection instrument we administered to the Office
    of Human Resources, and reviewed corroborating information.

    We also reviewed relevant documentation about EEOC�s strategic and
    human capital planning process and discussed the planning process with
    senior agency officials at EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C.

    Our work was performed from July 2007 to June 2008 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Summary of Key Findings:

    Multiple factors�including the growth in the number of new employment
    discrimination charges, which have become increasingly resource
    intensive, and a decline in the number of investigators�contributed to
    EEOC�s growing private sector workload.

    While offices vary significantly in their ability to manage workload in
    a timely manner, promising management practices have not been
    identified.

    Although EEOC has taken some actions to address future workforce needs,
    these actions do not fully address leading principles for effective
    strategic workforce planning.

    Background:

    EEOC�s Private Sector Enforcement Program and Mission-Critical Staff:

    EEOC investigates charges of employment discrimination from the public,
    litigates major cases, and reaches out to the public to help educate it
    and prevent such discrimination. [Footnote 3]

    EEOC has identified staff positions�including investigators, mediators,
    and trial attorneys�that are critical to fulfilling its mission and
    provide these direct services to the public.

    These mission-critical staff comprise about half of the agency�s
    workforce and are stationed across EEOC�s 53 offices.

    Figure: EEOC�s 53 Offices Are Located in 15 Districts:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a map of the United States depicting the 15 EEOC
    districts, the district offices, and additional offices. The district
    offices listed are:
    Atlanta, GA;
    Birmingham, AL;
    Charlotte, NC;
    Chicago, IL;
    Dallas, TX;
    Houston, TX;
    Indianapolis, IN;
    Los Angeles, CA;
    Miami, FL;
    Memphis, TN;
    New York, NY;
    Philadelphia, PA;
    Phoenix, AZ;
    San Francisco, CA;
    St. Louis, MO.

    Source: GAO, EEOC, and MapArt.

    [End of figure]

    Prioritizing and Processing Private Charges of Employment
    Discrimination:

    Individuals may initiate the discrimination complaint process of filing
    a charge by providing initial information in person, by telephone or
    mail. While individuals can provide initial intake information on the
    Web, they cannot currently file a charge electronically.

    EEOC prioritizes charges to devote the greatest resources to those
    whose initial evidence suggests a violation of law and categorizes them
    accordingly. [Footnote 4]
    * Charges may be dismissed at any point if, in the agency's judgment,
    further investigation will not establish a violation of the law.

    Employers may resolve charges early in the process through settlement
    or mediation, both informal and voluntary processes. If mediation is
    not successful, a charge is returned to the field office enforcement
    unit for investigation.

    EEOC will attempt conciliation, where evidence has established that
    discrimination has occurred, and if unsuccessful, may decide to
    litigate cases in federal court.

    Figure: Prioritizing and Processing Private Charges of Employment
    Discrimination:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a flowchart depicting the following information:

    Charge A:
    * Investigation(Generally occurs);
    * Determination of Findings (Generally occurs);
    * Litigation (Occurs when the agency is unable to mediate or conciliate
    the charge).

    Charge B:
    * Mediation(Generally occurs);
    * Investigation(Generally occurs);
    * Determination of Findings(Generally occurs);
    * Litigation (Occurs when the agency is unable to mediate or conciliate
    the charge).

    Charge C:
    * Early Dismissal (Generally occurs).

    Source: GAO and EEOC.

    Note: A and B charges�where the initial evidence suggests a violation
    of law or where additional information is needed�are generally more
    resource intensive than C charges, and move through investigation
    and/or mediation. With C charges, the agency may not have jurisdiction
    or the charges may be unsupported, and the charges may be suitable for
    early dismissal.

    [End of figure]

    Status of EEOC�s Recent Restructuring Efforts:

    In recent years, EEOC began implementing major initiatives in an effort
    to reposition itself to better serve the public.

    Table:

    Initiative: Established national call center to respond to inquiries
    from the public (2005);
    Current status: In August 2007, Commission voted to replace contracted
    call center with in-house telephone answering team. Contracted call
    center ceased operation in December 2007. EEOC has since hired and
    trained more than 60 staff for its in-house team, located in 15 EEOC
    offices, to answer calls and assist the public.

    Initiative: Repositioned field structure (2005);
    Current status: Repositioning, effective January 2006:[A]
    * consolidated 23 districts into 15 districts and;
    * added 2 new field office locations.

    Initiative: Restructuring headquarters�operations (current);
    Current status: In 2007, a workgroup consisting of headquarters and
    field personnel was formed to provide recommendations to the EEOC
    Chair, with a focus on streamlining, eliminating redundancies, and
    enhancing efficiency.

    [A] GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but
    Agency Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic
    Consideration of Advisory Panel�s Recommendations,GAO-06-10
    (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 2005).

    [End of table]

    High-Performing Organizations Require Transformations in People,
    Processes, and Technology:

    GAO has previously reported that the federal government faces a range
    of new challenges in the 21st century, including long-term fiscal
    challenges, an aging and more diverse population, and rapid advances in
    technology.[Footnote 5]

    Building a high-performing organization that is results-oriented and
    meets the needs of clients and customers during a time of rapid change
    requires fundamental transformations in the management of:
    * people;
    * processes, and;
    * technology.

    Leading Strategic Workforce Planning Principles:

    Strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning
    an organization�s human capital program with its current and emerging
    mission and programmatic goals and (2) developing long-term strategies
    for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic
    goals. [Footnote 6]

    GAO�s Leading Strategic Workforce Planning Principles:
    * Involve top management, employees, and other stakeholders in
    developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce
    plan;
    * Determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to
    achieve future programmatic results;
    * Develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in critical
    skills and competencies that need attention;
    * Build the capability needed to address administrative, educational,
    and other requirements important to support workforce strategies;
    * Monitor and evaluate the agency�s progress toward its human capital
    goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward
    achieving programmatic goals.

    Figure: Strategic Workforce Planning Process:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is an illustration consisting of a continual loop of
    processes as follows:

    Build capability to support workforce strategies:

    Set strategic direction:
    Workforce gap analysis (Involvement of management and employees);
    Workforce strategies to fill the gaps (Involvement of management and
    employees);
    Evaluation of and revisions to strategies (Involvement of management
    and employees);
    Return to first step.

    Source: GAO.

    [End of figure]

    Objective 1: National Trends and Contributing Factors:

    Multiple Factors Contribute to EEOC�s Growing Private Sector Workload:

    Overview:

    Over the last 4 years, EEOC�s private sector workload has increased by
    10 percent.

    Multiple factors that contribute to the growing workload include the
    growth in number of new charges, which have become increasingly
    resource intensive, and a decline in investigative staff.

    At the same time, the:
    * average number of total charges per investigator increased by 22
    percent;
    * average time to close charges increased by 34 days, and;
    * number of open charges at the end of the fiscal year increased by 82
    percent.

    EEOC�s mediations and lawsuits for its private sector charges showed
    modest increases over the last 4 years.

    For Fiscal Years 2004 through 2007, EEOC�s Private Sector Workload
    Increased by 10 Percent.

    Table: Total charges nationwide, by fiscal year:

    Fiscal year: 2004;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 115,593.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 111,282.

    Fiscal year: 2006;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 114,668.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 127,710.

    Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

    Note: The total number of charges includes new charges that are opened
    in each fiscal year and existing charges that were opened in previous
    years.

    [End of table]

    Multiple Factors Have Contributed to Growing Workload: New Charges of
    Employment Discrimination Have Risen:

    Table: New charges, by fiscal year:

    Fiscal year: 2004;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 83,118.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 78,790.

    Fiscal year: 2006;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 78,872.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 85,509.

    Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

    [End of table]

    Multiple Factors Have Contributed to Growing Workload: New Charges Have
    Become Increasingly Resource Intensive:

    For fiscal years 2004 through 2007, A and B charges increased from 83
    to 90 percent of all new charges, while C charges fell from 16 to 10
    percent. According to EEOC officials and investigators, A and B
    charges�where the initial evidence suggests a violation of law or where
    additional information is needed�are more resource intensive than C
    charges.

    Since 2006, the agency has increased emphasis on its systemic program.
    This program investigates and litigates alleged discrimination with a
    broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic
    location. EEOC officials told us that these charges are substantially
    more resource intensive than individual charges of employment
    discrimination.

    Multiple Factors Have Contributed to Growing Workload: Investigative
    Staff That Handle Private Sector Charges Decreased 9 Percent over the
    Last 4 Years:

    Figure: Total number of nonsupervisory investigators, by fiscal year:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:

    Fiscal year: 2004;
    Number of investigators: 734.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Number of investigators: 701.

    Fiscal year: 2006;
    Number of investigators: 629.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Number of investigators: 666.

    Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

    Note: These figures include all nonsupervisory investigators.

    [End of figure]

    Over the Last 4 Years, the Average Number of Total Charges per
    Investigator Has Increased by 22 Percent:

    Figure: Total charges per investigator, by fiscal year:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:

    Fiscal year: 2004;
    Number of total charges: 157.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Number of total charges: 159.

    Fiscal year: 2006;
    Number of total charges: 182.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Number of total charges: 192.

    Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

    [End of figure]

    Table: For 2004 through 2007, the Average Time Taken to Close a Charge
    Rose by 34 days:

    Fiscal year: 2004;
    Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 171;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 67%.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 184;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 66%.

    Fiscal year: 2006;
    Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 200;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 61%.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Average number of calendar days to process a charge: 205;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 calendar days[A]: 56%.

    Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

    [A] EEOC has a performance measure to resolve a specific percentage of
    charges within 180 days, which was 65 percent in 2004 and increased to
    72 percent in 2007.

    [End of table]

    The Number of Open Charges at the End of the Fiscal Year Has Grown 82
    Percent over the Last 4 Years:

    Figure: Number of open charges at the end of the fiscal year:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:

    Fiscal year: 2004;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 30,389.

    Fiscal year: 2005;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 33,962.

    Fiscal year: 2006;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 40,275.

    Fiscal year: 2007;
    Number of charges (in thousands): 55,232.

    Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

    Note: As the number of charges that remain open have increased over the
    last 4 years, the percentage of charges closed by the end of the year
    declined by 17 percentage points.

    [End of figure]

    EEOC�s Mediations and Lawsuits for Its Private Sector Charges Showed
    Modest Increases over the Last 4 Years:

    From 2004 to 2007, mediations increased by 5 percent to about 12,050
    held in 2007.

    However, as a share of workload over the last 4 years, mediations were
    relatively stable and represented:
    * 22 percent of all new charges eligible for mediation [Footnote 7]
    and;
    * 11 percent of total closed charges.

    At the same time, the number of lawsuits�which is comprised of new
    suits and those that are carried over from previous fiscal
    years�increased by 3 percent.

    In 2007, EEOC had 930 cases in litigation.

    [End of Objective 1]

    Objective 2: How EEOC Offices Manage Workload:

    While Offices Vary Significantly in Their Ability to Manage Workload in
    a Timely Manner, Promising Management Practices Have Not Been
    Identified:

    Overview:

    * Average time taken to close charges, percentage of charges closed,
    and the average number of total charges per investigator varied
    significantly by office in 2007.

    * Key measures�such as the average number of total charges per
    investigator and the percentage of new resource-intensive charges�are
    not correlated with an office�s ability to manage workload in a timely
    manner.

    * With varying levels of success, the EEOC offices we visited use a
    variety of techniques to manage their workload.

    * EEOC lacks a systematic process to identify promising management
    practices.

    Table: Average Time Taken to Close a Charge, Percentage of Charges
    Closed, and Number of Charges per Investigator Significantly Varied by
    Office in 2007:

    National Average:
    Average number of total charges per investigator: 192;
    Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 90%;
    Percentage of charges closed: 57%;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 56%;
    Number of days taken to close a charge: 205.

    Office low:
    Average number of total charges per investigator: 125;
    Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 66%;
    Percentage of charges closed: 26%;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 30%;
    Number of days taken to close a charge: 92.

    Office high:
    Average number of total charges per investigator: 622;
    Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 99%;
    Percentage of charges closed: 74%;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 90%;
    Number of days taken to close a charge: 310.

    Difference between office low and office high:
    Average number of total charges per investigator: 497;
    Percentage of new charges that are resource intensive: 33%;
    Percentage of charges closed: 48%;
    Percentage of charges closed within 180 Days[A]: 60%;
    Number of days taken to close a charge: 218.

    Source: GAO analysis of EEOC data.

    [A] EEOC�s performance measure for the timely resolution of private
    sector charges in 2007 was to close 72 percent of charges within 180
    days or fewer; five offices came within 3 percentage points of this
    goal and one office exceeded the goal.

    [End of table]

    Key Measures Are Not Correlated with an Office�s Ability to Manage
    Workload in a Timely Manner:

    EEOC has reported that declining numbers of staff and growing numbers
    of new charges have affected its ability to meet the performance goal
    of closing 72 percent of charges within 180 days or fewer.

    According to EEOC officials, resource-intensive charges influence their
    ability to manage workload in a timely manner.

    However, we found that an office�s ability to close charges within 180
    days or fewer is not correlated to the:
    * average number of total charges handled per investigator or;
    * percentage of new charges that are resource intensive.

    With Varying Levels of Success, EEOC Offices Use a Variety of
    Techniques to Manage Their Workload:

    EEOC offices we visited vary in terms of their ability to close charges
    within 180 days or fewer, and use a variety of practices to manage
    their workload.

    Examples of practices that differ throughout the charge process include
    the management of the following:

    * Initial Screening of Charges:
    - The Atlanta office emphasizes that all charges that individuals wish
    to file should be accepted.
    - The Milwaukee office focuses on screening during the intake process.

    * Charge Inventory:
    - In the Atlanta office, all charges are assigned to investigators, and
    their supervisors are required to send status reports on their aged
    inventory to management.
    - In the Seattle office, charges are held, pending assignment, on the
    basis of investigator workload.
    - In the Baltimore office, investigators rely on internal milestones to
    track charges.
    - In the Las Vegas office, charges have been transferred to the San
    Diego and Honolulu offices to reduce the pressure from a large
    workload.

    * Systemic Charges[Footnote 8]:
    - In the Atlanta office, two investigators are assigned exclusively to
    class and systemic charges.
    - In the Baltimore and Milwaukee offices, systemic charges are
    distributed among investigators.

    EEOC Lacks a Systematic Process to Identify Promising Management
    Practices:

    EEOC has conducted surveys of its investigative staff to identify
    techniques that high performers use to succeed in their work. �EEOC has
    not conducted a survey since 1996.

    EEOC conducts technical reviews of select offices�policies and
    practices to ensure compliance with agency standards.
    - Technical reviews include assessments of broad functional areas as
    well as quality reviews of investigative files.
    - Investigative file reviews are designed, in part, to ensure that work
    is not completed quickly at the expense of quality results.
    - EEOC officials said that in some cases they will identify required
    processes that are not consistently applied among offices and, as a
    result, they will update policies and procedures to improve compliance.
    - However, EEOC does not use these reviews to systematically identify
    promising practices for managing workload.

    According to EEOC officials, employees have opportunities to share
    information about policies and practices during regularly scheduled
    meetings, and other mechanisms, such as internal Web pages.

    [End of Objective 2]

    Objective 3: How EEOC Actions Address Workforce Planning Principles:

    EEOC�s Actions to Meet Future Workforce Needs Do Not Fully Address
    Leading Strategic Workforce Planning Principles:

    Overview:

    Although the agency has taken some actions, these steps do not fully
    address key principles for effective strategic workforce planning.

    Specifically:
    * EEOC�s efforts to develop, communicate, and implement a strategic
    human capital plan are incomplete after 4 years.
    * Critical skills needed to achieve current and future programmatic
    results have not been assessed.
    * Current strategies to address gaps and sustain critical skills are
    not based on identified skill gaps.
    * Building support for workforce planning strategies has posed
    challenges.
    * Progress toward human capital goals is not directly measurable or
    linked to programmatic results.

    Efforts to Develop, Communicate, and Implement a Strategic Human
    Capital Plan Are Incomplete after 4 Years:

    Figure: Strategic Workforce Planning Process:

    [See PDF for image]

    This figure is an illustration consisting of a continual loop of
    processes as follows:

    Build capability to support workforce strategies:

    Set strategic direction:
    Workforce gap analysis (Involvement of management and employees);
    Workforce strategies to fill the gaps (Involvement of management and
    employees);
    Evaluation of and revisions to strategies (Involvement of management
    and employees);
    Return to first step.

    Source: GAO.

    [End of figure]

    Involvement of management and employees:

    * Draft plan does not integrate workforce with workload data or
    establish clear link to achieving agencywide performance measures;

    * Input from top leadership�Commission Chair�not yet incorporated;

    * Input from District Directors not yet incorporated, although their
    buy-in is critical for adoption and implementation;

    * Draft plan lacks implementation component that identifies necessary
    resources, responsible party for implementing strategies, and time
    frame for completion.

    Critical Skills Needed to Achieve Current and Future Programmatic
    Results Have Not Been Assessed:

    Workforce gap analysis:

    * Core competencies for mission-critical positions developed but not
    used to assess skills of current employees;

    * Workforce planning not approached strategically�based on mission
    needs, customer expectations, workload, and workforce�or
    systematically;

    * Employee positions were revised in the field without an assessment of
    work processes or position structures to maximize productivity and
    efficiency;

    * GAO has reported on the value of planning for future human capital
    needs from multiple scenarios instead of a single view of the future.
    [Footnote 9]

    Current Strategies to Address Gaps and Sustain Critical Skills Are Not
    Based on Identified Skills Gaps:

    Workforce strategies to fill the gaps:

    * Workforce strategies, such as training and rotational assignments,
    not based on an assessment of the skills of current employees;

    * Workforce strategies not targeted most effectively because workforce
    planning efforts between the Office of Human Resources and individual
    program offices are not effectively integrated.

    Building Support for Workforce Planning Strategies Has Posed
    Challenges:

    Build capability to support workforce strategies:

    * Information technology: Lack of adequate support left key workforce
    planning software purchased to analyze the workforce, determine
    staffing needs, and integrate workload and financial data unusable,
    according to an EEOC official;

    * Internal structure: Lack of Commission approval has stalled efforts
    necessary for funding workforce planning activities, according to
    senior EEOC officials;
    - Commission approval necessary for the obligation of funds that exceed
    $100,000.

    Progress Toward Human Capital Goals Is Not Directly Measurable or
    Linked to Programmatic Results:

    Evaluation of and revisions to strategies:

    * Draft human capital plan lacks specific measures or milestones for
    achieving outcomes, so progress is not measurable;

    * Revised strategic plan overview lacks management objective and
    measures related to achieving human capital outcomes, so progress is
    not measurable;

    * Training and development efforts lack measures to assess
    contributions toward individual mastery of learning and achieving
    agency goals.

    [End of Objective 3]

    Conclusions:

    EEOC�s mandate to promote equal opportunity in the workplace and
    enforce federal employment antidiscrimination laws could be compromised
    if EEOC cannot keep pace with its growing private sector workload.

    * EEOC could identify processes used by those offices that achieve
    quality outcomes while resolving cases in a timely manner despite the
    burden of heavy workloads. Such promising practices could be used to
    help other offices meet EEOC�s performance goals.

    * EEOC could make better use of the strategic planning processes to
    develop a human capital plan that addresses gaps in knowledge, skills,
    and abilities in its current and future workforce.

    Recommendations:

    To improve EEOC�s ability to meet its current and future needs for a
    critically skilled workforce, we recommend that the Chair of EEOC take
    the following two actions:

    * develop criteria for identifying offices that ensure quality outcomes
    in a timely manner and evaluate and share promising practices across
    the agency and;

    * finalize the strategic human capital plan, on the basis of skills and
    competencies assessments, and develop an implementation plan for the
    strategies identified in the plan with stakeholder input that
    identifies necessary resources, responsible parties, timelines for
    completion, and milestones to measure progress.

    Related GAO Products:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Actions Taken, but Agency
    Restructuring Efforts Could Benefit from a More Systematic
    Consideration of Advisory Panel�s Recommendations. [hyperlink,
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-10]. Washington, D.C.: October
    28, 2005.

    Equal Employment Opportunity: The Policy Framework in the Federal
    Workplace and the Roles of EEOC and OPM. [hyperlink,
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-195]. Washington, D.C.: April
    29, 2005.

    Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
    Planning. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39].
    Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.

    Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in
    Managing Their Workforces. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
    bin/getrpt?GAO-03-2]. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2002.

    Equal Employment Opportunity: Discrimination Complaint Caseloads and
    Underlying Causes Require EEOC's Sustained Attention. [hyperlink,
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-00-104]. Washington, D.C.:
    March 29, 2000.

    Equal Employment Opportunity: Complaint Caseloads Rising, with Effects
    of New Regulations on Future Trends Unclear. [hyperlink,
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-99-128]. Washington, D.C.:
    August 16, 1999.

    EEOC: Burgeoning Workload Calls for New Approaches. [hyperlink,
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-95-170]. Washington, D.C.:
    May 23, 1995.

    EEOC: An Overview. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-
    HRD-93-30]. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 1993.

    [End of section]

    Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission:

    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
    Office of the Chair:
    Washington, DC 20507:

    June 9, 2008:
    George A. Scott, Director:
    Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    Dear Mr. Scott:

    Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on GAO Report GAO-
    08-589 entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Sharing
    Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human Capital
    Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload." As the title
    suggests, the report addresses EEOC's growing private sector charge
    activity (between fiscal years 2004-2007) with a critical analysis of
    EEOC's human capital management challenges and the growing demand for
    its services.

    The report concludes that EEOC's ability to manage its workload
    (private sector enforcement representing the majority of the agency's
    workload) has declined over the 4-year review period (2004-2007). It
    correctly states that, while its core mission has not changed since the
    agency was established more than 40 years ago, EEOC continues to face a
    range of new challenges in the 21st Century, including long-term fiscal
    constraints, changing demographics, and rapid advances in technology.
    At the same time, the report notes, the federal government overall
    faces significant human capital challenges, including a retirement wave
    that will lead to the loss of leadership and institutional knowledge at
    all levels, and that the EEOC is not immune from this trend.

    The report points out that between 2000 and 2007, EEOC lost nearly one
    quarter of its full-time-equivalent staff, from approximately 2,850 to
    about 2,150. Although the GAO report states that about half of the
    agency's workforce is comprised of mission-critical staff, citing
    investigators, mediators, and trial attorneys stationed across EEOC's
    53 offices, in fact the number of mission-critical positions comprise a
    portion substantially greater than one-half the agency's workforce. As
    such, EEOC is compelled to point out that, notwithstanding efforts to
    balance its workload and workforce, GAO does not significantly
    acknowledge the impact of reduction in staff on EEOC's ability to
    manage its workload.

    Staffing expenditures continue to comprise about 70% of the agency's
    total budget (EEOC currently spends about 2% more on staffing than it
    did five years ago). EEOC investigator numbers, however, have dwindled
    over the 4-year review period (2004-2007). Had EEOC been able to
    maintain its investigative staff at the 2004 level (734 investigators)
    with an average productivity of rate of 105 charges per year per
    investigator, the agency's workload at the end of 2007 would have been
    33,602 instead of 55,232. While the GAO study proposes, but then
    dismisses any correlation between factors it suggests (average
    workload, percentage of high-resource charges, or percentage of 180-day
    closures) and inventory, we believe the correlation between inventory
    and staffing cannot be ignored.

    Another major point of the report with which EEOC takes issue is the
    conclusion that EEOC does not have a mechanism for finding and sharing
    promising practices among its many offices. During the study, EEOC
    shared with GAO the summaries of the reviews that EEOC conducts of its
    field offices. The reviews cover the spectrum of field office
    processing, including both private and federal sector cases, and looks
    at intake, case management, mediation, and all other aspects of the
    administrative process. EEOC has at least two meetings each year for
    all District Directors during which a particular focus is placed on
    promising practices. EEOC believes that is has a significant mechanism
    for identifying promising practices and a methodology for communicating
    those practices and testing them in our field offices.

    Some other salient points concerning the report's findings warrant
    comment. Among them are the varying levels of success to which EEOC
    offices use a variety of techniques to manage the growing workload. It
    appears that GAO minimizes the effectiveness of EEOC's Priority Charge
    Handling Procedures (PCHP) and more specifically, the charge
    categorization process - which is the single most effective tool that
    EEOC has in its workload management arsenal. While offices may use
    other procedures and techniques to augment PCHP to address specific
    issues in each office, we believe greater recognition should be given
    to EEOC's effective use of the PCHP.

    Additionally, GAO notes that there is no correlation between an
    office's ability to resolve charges within 180 days and the average
    investigator workload or percentage of resource intensive charges.
    However, to limit the assessment to only these two factors omits other
    criteria that could have been assessed. Notably, they are: the size of
    the office both in terms of type (District, Field, Area or Local) and
    the geographic areas served, the size of the investigator staff in
    comparison to the complement of managers to supervise and oversee the
    process, the size of the mediation unit, the investigators available
    (taking into account those who are on extended leave, military
    deployment or in training status) or the amount of staff time devoted
    to the intake process.

    On another point in the report's conclusions, EEOC challenges the
    statement that "[the agency] could identify processes used by those
    offices that achieve quality outcomes while resolving cases in a time
    manner despite the burden of heavy workloads. Such promising practices
    could be used to help other offices meet EEOC's performance goals."
    This conclusion ignores the efforts that EEOC is making on a regular
    basis to enhance office processes and practices to address its workload
    processing. Additionally, the claim is silent on the fundamental crisis
    facing EEOC in addressing its private sector workload, namely:
    reduction in workforce while simultaneously facing a record growth in
    the rate of receipts and charge inventory.

    Lastly, while the report concludes that EEOC has not fully implemented
    a strategic human capital plan, it is important to point out that the
    agency conducts both workforce analysis and workforce planning as a
    part of the annual budget process as well as a part of program
    management. As a basis for hiring and retention, EEOC requires mission-
    critical employees to possess the critical skills necessary for
    successful resolution of private sector charges.

    EEOC has undertaken, but has not yet completed, the competency analyses
    of mission critical occupations using the format established by OPM
    through the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
    (HCAAF) for President Management Agenda (PMA) scored agencies. Our
    preliminary results from the work done for the investigator occupation
    have reinforced the basic knowledge, skills and abilities that we
    currently require for those positions. We anticipate that our strategic
    human capital plan will be submitted to the Chair by the end of FY
    2008.

    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

    Signed by:
    Anthony J. Kaminski:
    Chief Operating Officer:

    [End of section]

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

    GAO Contact:

    George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov:

    Staff Acknowledgments:

    In addition to the contact named above, Bill Keller (Assistant
    Director), Avani Locke, Paul Kazemersky, Rachael Schacherer, Jean
    McSween, Jerome Sandau, Susannah Compton, Anthony Lofaro, Kate Walker,
    and James Rebbe made key contributions to this report.

    [End of section]

    Footnotes:

    [1] EEOC is also responsible for coordinating the federal government's
    employment nondiscrimination effort and provides guidance, outreach,
    and technical assistance to federal agencies. Federal sector complaint
    procedures require federal agencies to conduct initial investigations
    of complaints filed by their employees or applicants. Upon completion
    of agency investigations, or if an agency dismisses a complaint, EEOC
    may conduct hearings and hear appropriate appeals.

    [2] EEOC contracts with these agencies, known as Fair Employment
    Practice Agencies, to investigate and resolve charges through work-
    sharing agreements to avoid duplication in processing.

    [3] EEOC enforces the following federal statutes: Title VII of the
    Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
    Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title I and Title V of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 through 505 of the
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In addition, EEOC coordinates federal equal
    employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

    [4] EEOC began implementing priority charge handling procedures in
    1995.

    [5] GAO, Comptroller General�s Forum: High-Performing Organizations:
    Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the
    21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO-04-343SP (Washington,
    D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).

    [6] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
    Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

    [7] Generally, only charges designated as category B are eligible for
    mediation.

    [8] Individual EEOC districts are required to develop plans to help
    ensure that EEOC is identifying and investigating systemic
    discrimination in a coordinated, strategic, effective agencywide
    manner.

    [9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39].

    [End of section]

    GAO's Mission:

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

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
    cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
    weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
    posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
    and select "E-mail Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone:

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

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

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

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

    Contact:

    Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

    Congressional Relations:

    Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4400:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    Public Affairs:

    Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
    (202) 512-4800:
    U.S. Government Accountability Office:
    441 G Street NW, Room 7149:

    *** End of document. ***