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 [email protected]. 

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 [email protected]. 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 governmentï¿½s 
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. 

* EEOCï¿½s 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 EEOCï¿½s human 
capital management. 

Research Objectives: 

In view of EEOCï¿½s human capital management challenges and the growing 
demand for its services, we were asked to examine the following: 

1. national trends in EEOCï¿½s 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 EEOCï¿½s private sector enforcement program, 
which represents the majority of EEOCï¿½s workload. 

For objectives 1 and 2,we analyzed data from fiscal years 2004 to 2007 
from EEOCï¿½s Integrated Mission System database, which maintains 
information on private sector charges of employment discrimination, and 
EEOCï¿½s 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 EEOCï¿½s 
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 EEOCï¿½s 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 factorsï¿½including the growth in the number of new employment 
discrimination charges, which have become increasingly resource 
intensive, and a decline in the number of investigatorsï¿½contributed to 
EEOCï¿½s 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: 

EEOCï¿½s 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 positionsï¿½including investigators, mediators, 
and trial attorneysï¿½that are critical to fulfilling its mission and 
provide these direct services to the public. 

These mission-critical staff comprise about half of the agencyï¿½s 
workforce and are stationed across EEOCï¿½s 53 offices. 

Figure: EEOCï¿½s 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 chargesï¿½where the initial evidence suggests a violation 
of law or where additional information is neededï¿½are 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 EEOCï¿½s 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 headquartersï¿½operations (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 Panelï¿½s 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 organizationï¿½s 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] 

GAOï¿½s 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 agencyï¿½s 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 EEOCï¿½s Growing Private Sector Workload: 

Overview: 

Over the last 4 years, EEOCï¿½s 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. 

EEOCï¿½s mediations and lawsuits for its private sector charges showed 
modest increases over the last 4 years. 

For Fiscal Years 2004 through 2007, EEOCï¿½s 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 
chargesï¿½where the initial evidence suggests a violation of law or where 
additional information is neededï¿½are 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] 

EEOCï¿½s 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 lawsuitsï¿½which is comprised of new 
suits and those that are carried over from previous fiscal 
yearsï¿½increased 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 measuresï¿½such as the average number of total charges per 
investigator and the percentage of new resource-intensive chargesï¿½are 
not correlated with an officeï¿½s 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] EEOCï¿½s 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 Officeï¿½s 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 officeï¿½s 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. ï¿½EEOC has 
not conducted a survey since 1996. 

EEOC conducts technical reviews of select officesï¿½policies 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: 

EEOCï¿½s 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: 
* EEOCï¿½s 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 leadershipï¿½Commission Chairï¿½not 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 strategicallyï¿½based on mission 
needs, customer expectations, workload, and workforceï¿½or 
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: 

EEOCï¿½s 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 EEOCï¿½s 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 EEOCï¿½s 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 Panelï¿½s 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 [email protected]: 

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 Generalï¿½s 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: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 

*** End of document. ***