Department of Education: Efforts by the Office for Civil Rights to
Resolve Asian-American Complaints (Letter Report, 12/11/95,
GAO/HEHS-96-23).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Education's Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) handling of discrimination
cases involving Asian-Americans who applied to or were enrolled in
postsecondary schools, focusing on: (1) whether OCR followed established
policies and procedures in conducting complaint investigations; (2) a
comparison of the timeliness and outcomes of complaint investigations
and compliance reviews for fiscal years 1988 through 1995 involving
Asian-Americans and other minority groups; (3) whether recent OCR
administrative changes improved its performance and resolution of
complaint investigations and compliance reviews.

GAO found that: (1) OCR generally followed its established policies and
procedures in the 13 cases reviewed, but 7 of the 11 resolved cases
exceeded OCR time frames for resolution and OCR official case files did
not adequately reflect headquarters actions; (2) although its staffing
levels and other resources remained stable while discrimination
complaints increased, OCR averaged less than 180 days in revolving most
of its general workload; (3) OCR usually took more time on average to
resolve Asian-American cases than other minority cases; (4) the longer
resolution periods for Asian-American cases were partially due to the
high percentage of cases involving admission issues and greater number
of violations per case, which took longer and more resources to resolve;
(5) the resolution of Asian-American cases resulted in more corrective
actions and changes made by postsecondary schools; (6) OCR has initiated
administrative changes to improve its performance and resolution of
complaints and compliance reviews which include setting priorities,
revising procedures to respond more flexibly to complaints and reduce
unnecessary documentation, increasing its use of personal computers and
networks to track cases, and redeploying staff to improve productivity;
and (7) although OCR has reduced its case backlog, it is too soon tell
if these administrative changes will significantly improve OCR handling
of complaint investigations and compliance reviews over the long term.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-96-23
     TITLE:  Department of Education: Efforts by the Office for Civil 
             Rights to Resolve Asian-American Complaints
      DATE:  12/11/95
   SUBJECT:  Investigations by federal agencies
             Civil rights
             Minorities
             Colleges/universities
             Racial discrimination
             Computer networks
             Agency proceedings
             Higher education
             Human resources utilization

             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Honorable
Dana Rohrabacher, House of Representatives

December 1995

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - EFFORTS
BY THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS TO
RESOLVE ASIAN-AMERICAN COMPLAINTS

GAO/HEHS-96-23

Asian-American Cases at Education's OCR

(104766)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CRM - Case Resolution Manual
  CUNY - City University of New York
  GRE - Graduate Record Examination
  LAP - licensed practical nurse to registered nurse articulation
     program
  LEOP - Legal Education Opportunity Program
  LOF - letter of findings
  LSAT - Law School Admission Test
  MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  OCR - Office for Civil Rights
  SAT - Scholastic Aptitude Test
  UC - University of California
  UCLA - University of California at Los Angeles

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-257759

December 11, 1995

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Rohrabacher: 

As with many other federal agencies and departments responsible for
enforcing civil rights and equal employment opportunity laws, over
the last several years the discrimination complaint workload of the
U.S.  Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has
increased, but its staffing has remained level.  In the early 1990s,
compared with the 1980s, generally, the number of compliance reviews
decreased and the average time to resolve complaint investigations
and complete compliance reviews increased.  Because of this, concerns
have been raised about how effectively OCR carries out its
responsibilities. 

On the basis of these concerns, you requested that we examine OCR's
complaint investigations and compliance reviews of discrimination
cases involving Asian-Americans who applied for or were enrolled in
postsecondary schools, such as colleges and universities.\1

Specifically, you asked us to determine the following: 

  For 13 specific cases, did Education's OCR follow established
     policies and procedures, particularly with respect to timeliness
     and recordkeeping, in conducting complaint investigations and
     compliance reviews involving Asian-Americans? 

  For fiscal years 1988-95, how did the timeliness and outcomes of
     complaint investigations and compliance reviews involving
     Asian-Americans compare with the timeliness and outcomes of
     those involving other minority groups? 

  Have recent administrative changes implemented by OCR improved its
     operations in conducting and resolving complaint investigations
     and completing compliance reviews? 

To address these issues, we studied pertinent laws, documents,
reports, policies, and records in OCR headquarters and in two OCR
regional offices.  We also obtained information during interviews
with OCR officials on interpretations and explanations of the
documents we obtained.  Our study was limited to OCR activities
related to complaint investigations and compliance reviews in
postsecondary schools that involved title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.  However, for fiscal year 1988 through June 30, 1995, we
analyzed the timeliness and outcomes of all the closed investigations
and reviews.  See appendix I for details on our scope and
methodology. 


--------------------
\1 In this report, we sometimes shorten the term postsecondary
schools to schools. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Eleven of the 13 cases we were asked to review have been resolved and
2 remain open.  OCR generally followed its established policies and
procedures in these selected cases, except for its time frames.  Of
the 13 cases, 4 were closed within its time frames.  In seven cases,
OCR took at least 26 months.  For these seven cases, we could not
rely solely on the official case files to understand the reasons for
the delays because the official case files did not always reflect
actions in OCR headquarters.  Therefore, we also had to rely on OCR
officials for explanations of what had occurred. 

Overall, OCR has resolved complaints and completed compliance reviews
on average in less than 180 days--its benchmark for assessing
timeliness.  Generally, OCR took more time, on average, to resolve
cases involving Asian-Americans than it took for cases involving
other minority groups.  This longer resolution period may be
explained in part by the relatively high percentage of investigations
and reviews involving Asian-Americans that included admissions
issues, which usually take OCR more time to resolve than other
issues.  Furthermore, OCR found relatively more violations in
Asian-Americans' cases than in those of other minority groups, and
the findings resulted in comparatively more corrective actions and
changes by postsecondary schools. 

To OCR's credit, it has initiated administrative changes to improve
the timeliness, documentation, and quality of all investigations and
reviews.  These changes include increasing the use of technology to
track and manage active cases and deploying its staff differently to
improve productivity.  Partly as a result of these changes, OCR's
inventory of cases over 180 days old has decreased.  It is too soon,
however, to determine whether these changes will significantly
improve OCR's handling of investigations and reviews over the long
term. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The U.S.  Department of Education's OCR is a law enforcement agency. 
Its primary responsibility is to ensure that recipients of federal
financial assistance do not discriminate--on the basis of race,
color, national origin, sex, disability, or age--against students,
faculty, or other individuals in educational programs and activities. 
OCR is responsible for enforcing the following federal civil rights
laws as they relate to schools at all levels: 

  title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
     discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin;

  title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits
     discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and
     activities;

  section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits
     discrimination on the basis of disability;

  the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits discrimination
     on the basis of age; and

  title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which
     prohibits public entities from discriminating on the basis of
     disability. 

The civil rights laws OCR enforces extend to a wide range of
recipients of federal funds.  These recipients include all state
education and rehabilitation agencies as well as nearly every school
district and postsecondary school; thousands of proprietary schools,
libraries, museums, and correctional facilities; and other
institutions that receive federal financial assistance from
Education. 

To ensure equal opportunity in the nation's schools, OCR carries out
its civil rights responsibilities through a variety of compliance
activities.  OCR's principal activity is the resolution of
discrimination complaints.  Most of OCR's staff resources are devoted
to such activities as processing, conciliating, and investigating
complaints.  In an effort to ensure that recipients of federal
financial assistance meet their civil rights compliance
responsibilities, OCR also conducts compliance reviews, monitors
corrective action plans, and provides technical assistance. 

Compliance reviews differ from complaint investigations in that they
are initiated by OCR; they usually cover broader issues; and they
affect significantly larger numbers of individuals.  OCR selects
review sites on the basis of information from various sources that
indicates potential compliance problems, including survey data and
information provided by complainants, interest groups, the media, and
the general public. 

In fiscal year 1995, OCR's staff ceiling was 833 full-time-equivalent
positions and its total funding level was $58.2 million.  During
fiscal year 1994, about 5,300 complaints were filed with OCR.  Of
these, 27 percent were filed against postsecondary schools. 

Until fiscal year 1994, the number of compliance reviews that OCR was
able to conduct was inversely related to the number of complaints
received and the workload engendered.  Because OCR's complaint
workload increased from fiscal years 1988 to 1993, the number of
compliance reviews OCR initiated declined from 247 in fiscal year
1988 to 138, 32, 41, 77, and 101 in succeeding years. 

During fiscal year 1994, OCR started 153 compliance reviews, with
about 25 percent directed at postsecondary schools.  Of the 153, 62
percent involved race or national origin issues; 17 percent involved
gender issues; 8 percent involved disability and other issues; 7
percent involved other issues; and 6 percent involved solely
disability issues.  In fiscal year 1995, OCR started about 100
compliance reviews. 


   OCR'S OFFICIAL FILES LACK
   COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION FOR 13
   CASES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Our review of the 13 identified cases was hampered by the absence of
complete documentation in OCR's official case files.  OCR has
policies in place delineating the documents that should be included
in the official case files in the regional offices.  OCR had no
similar policies with regard to the official case files in
headquarters.  Actions that took place in headquarters were not
always documented and included in regional case files.  According to
OCR officials, records pertaining to headquarters activity for these
13 cases were maintained in a chronological filing system--rather
than a case file system--that suited the needs of headquarters staff. 
The lack of documentation hindered our ability to determine the
reasons for delays in completing complaint investigations and
compliance reviews. 

Generally, while the 13 cases were in the OCR regional offices, the
official case files were relatively complete, with documents
periodically updated to describe investigation and review activities
and the results of these efforts.  When an investigation or review
reached the point at which OCR headquarters became actively involved,
however, the official regional files were seldom updated with
pertinent notations or documents.  Furthermore, official case files
were not developed or maintained in OCR headquarters.  As a result,
we could not trace the full chronology of events for these cases by
examining case files.  In addition, even when the official case files
were updated with documents, we could not always determine what
decisions were made or why extended delays occurred because the
documents often did not include such information.  Because of such
gaps in knowledge, the full chronology of many of the cases could not
be developed.  (See app.  II for a brief description of each of the
13 cases; see table II.1 for a summary of the 13 cases.)

Eleven of the 13 cases involved Asian-American men and women; one was
a complaint by a white woman; and another was a complaint by a white
man.  In addition, several of the cases, although focusing primarily
on Asian-Americans or Asian-Indians, also dealt with other minority
groups. 

In analyzing how these 13 cases were investigated and resolved, we
found that OCR generally followed its established policies and
procedures.  But OCR did not always meet timeliness standards, which
is discussed in detail in appendix II.  As of September 1995, two
complaint investigations remained open.  Of the 13 cases, only 4 were
closed within OCR's time frames.  The cases that took the most time
to complete were admissions compliance reviews, which generally
involve complex issues and take more resources to complete, or
complaints that dealt with complicated or controversial issues, such
as admissions or race-targeted financial aid. 

Two admissions cases demonstrate the demands that individual cases
can make on resources because of the volume of data that must be
gathered and analyzed:  (1) the compliance review of the University
of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) undergraduate schools concerning
discrimination against Asian-Americans and the affirmative action
program, and (2) the complaint investigation of the University of
California at Berkeley undergraduate programs concerning
discrimination against white students.  Both cases involved premier
schools of the University of California system.  The two schools
enroll, between them, 67,000 students annually.  Both investigations
entailed several site visits, comprehensive statistical analyses of
data for tens of thousands of applicants, and extensive interviewing
and reviews of applicant files.  Both schools completely changed
their admissions processes during the course of the investigations,
necessitating additional extensive investigation. 

The same regional office that conducted both investigations also
completed, during the same time, a compliance review involving
admission to the UCLA graduate schools.  To complete that review, the
regional office investigated, in detail, 40 individual admissions
programs; reviewed 2,000 applicant files; and interviewed more than
200 witnesses.  The demands of class admissions cases, such as these,
impose unique challenges. 


   OCR TOOK MORE TIME TO RESPOND
   TO ASIAN-AMERICAN CASES BUT
   FOUND MORE VIOLATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

During fiscal years 1988 to 1994, OCR's overall workload, as well as
that for complaints under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
increased.  During this period, OCR resolved complaints and completed
compliance reviews in less than 180 days on average.  OCR does not
have a standard definition of an "overage" case, but it uses 180 days
as a benchmark for assessing timeliness.  However, the average time
to resolve complaints and complete compliance reviews concerning
Asian-Americans in postsecondary schools generally was longer than
the averages for cases concerning other minority groups.  For
complaint investigations, Asian-American cases took longer to
complete, on average, than those for any other minority group.  For
compliance reviews, only cases involving class actions (cases
affecting groups of students) and multiple title VI issues (one
complaint alleging multiple issues, namely race and national origin)
took more time, on average, to complete than Asian-American cases. 
Data indicated that this occurred partly because (1) Asian-Americans
were involved with admissions cases more often than other minority
groups and (2) admissions cases generally require more resources and
time to complete than other types of cases.  In addition, according
to the data, OCR's investigations and reviews involving
Asian-Americans resulted in relatively more violation findings
leading to remedial action or changes by postsecondary schools. 

In providing the information and statistics concerning these
complaint investigations and compliance reviews, OCR cautioned that
the data do not represent the various factors that may affect case
resolution.  These factors include the volume of data that must be
collected and data analyses that must be conducted; the scope,
complexity, and number of issues in a case; and the availability of
information needed to resolve the issues.  The statistical profile
also does not reflect the extent to which any average may be unduly
influenced by a single case of unusual duration. 


      COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS
      USUALLY TOOK LONGER TO
      RESOLVE FOR ASIAN-AMERICANS
      THAN FOR OTHER MINORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

For fiscal years 1988-94, OCR completed 1,511 complaint
investigations in an average of 128 days each (see table III.1).  The
114 cases involving Asian-Americans took an average of 175 days to
complete.  In contrast, the 931 cases involving African-Americans
averaged 125 days to complete, and the 165 cases involving Hispanics
averaged 137 days to complete.  The 106 cases for minority whites
(those from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East)
averaged 98 days to complete. 

During fiscal years 1988-94, 248 of the 1,511 complaint
investigations were admissions cases; that is, the complaints
involved allegations that people applying for admission to
postsecondary schools were turned down for discriminatory reasons. 
The 248 admissions cases, on average, took longer to
complete--specifically, 174 days--OCR officials said and the
statistics documented.  The 40 admissions cases involving
Asian-Americans took 297 days, on average, to complete.  The 115
admissions cases involving African-Americans took 129 days, on
average, to complete.  The 31 admissions cases involving Hispanics
took 276 days, on average, to complete.  During this period, OCR took
an average of 119 days to resolve 1,263 non-admissions complaints. 
The average time needed to resolve Asian-American non-admissions
complaints was 108 days; this was quicker than the averages for
complaints involving African-Americans, 125 days, and "others," 127
days.  On the other hand, Hispanics' non-admissions complaints
averaged 105 days to resolve, while minority whites' complaints
averaged 83 days. 

The average time to complete complaint investigations involving
Asian-Americans increased during fiscal year 1994, when OCR took an
average of 304 days to complete 24 investigations.  Of these, eight
were admissions cases, which took an average of 602 days to complete. 
The average time to complete complaint investigations involving
admissions issues was higher for all minority groups than for
investigations that did not involve admissions issues. 

We examined these data further to determine the extent to which the
OCR investigations found violations and resulted in benefits to the
complaining party or in changes by postsecondary schools to remedy
violations.  OCR data included four categories as benefiting the
complainant or resulting in changes by the postsecondary schools: 
(1) remedial action agreed to by the complainant, the school, and
OCR; (2) remedial action completed by the school; (3) complaint
withdrawn by the complainant with changes made by the school; and (4)
administrative closure by OCR after changes were made by the school. 
We found that of the total 1,511 cases, 214 (14 percent) resulted in
findings supporting the complainants' allegations or resulting in
changes.  However, for admissions cases, 58 of the 248 (23 percent)
resulted in benefits or changes; while for non-admissions cases, 156
of 1,263 cases (12 percent) resulted in benefits or changes. 

We also examined these data according to minority groups; 22 of the
114 complaints (19 percent) filed by Asian-Americans resulted in
benefits or changes (see table III.2).  This was the highest
percentage for any minority group.  Furthermore, 16 of the 40 (40
percent) admissions cases involving Asian-Americans resulted in
benefits to the complainant or changes made by the postsecondary
school.  This was also the highest percentage of any minority group. 

In summary, during fiscal years 1988-94, OCR took more time, on
average, to complete complaint investigations for Asian-Americans
than for cases involving other minority groups.  At the same time,
Asian-Americans filed a higher percentage of complaints involving
admissions issues than other minority groups; these complaints
resulted in benefits to the complainant or changes by the
postsecondary schools in a higher percentage of cases than for other
minority groups. 

During the first 9 months of fiscal year 1995--that is, from October
1, 1994, to June 30, 1995--OCR completed a total of 258 complaint
investigations; the average time needed to resolve these cases was
121 days.  Of these, 13 involved Asian-Americans and took an average
of 302 days to complete.  One case that took 1,776 days to complete
skewed the average.  In contrast, the 154 complaints filed by
African-Americans took an average of 111 days to complete and the 37
complaints filed by Hispanics, 84 days. 

Of the 258 complaint investigations in the first 9 months of fiscal
year 1995, 36 resulted in benefits to the complainant and averaged
264 days to complete.  Seven of these were admissions cases; the
other 29 were not.  The 222 complaint investigations that did not
result in benefits to the complainant took an average of 98 days to
complete.  Of the 13 Asian-American cases, 3 were admissions cases
that resulted in benefits to the complainants.  These took 73, 151,
and 1,776 days to complete.  The 10 other Asian-American cases that
did not result in benefits to complainants took an average of 192
days to complete.  See table III.3 for a complete summary, by
minority group, of the complaints investigated from
October 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. 


      OCR CONDUCTED FEW COMPLIANCE
      REVIEWS THAT FOCUSED ON
      ASIAN-AMERICANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

For fiscal years 1988-94, OCR completed 58 compliance reviews,
averaging 174 days each.  The four cases involving Asian-Americans
took 195 days, on average, to complete.  The 23 compliance reviews
involving African-Americans took 120 days, on average, to complete. 
The 23 compliance reviews involving class actions, however, took an
average of 223 days to complete; those involving multiple title VI
issues, 213 days.  (See table III.4.)

Of the 58 compliance reviews completed, 39 involved admissions
issues.  For Asian-Americans, of the four reviews, three were
admissions cases.  For African-Americans, 16 of 23 reviews were
admissions cases, and 14 of 23 class action compliance reviews were
admissions cases.  As with complaint investigations, the compliance
reviews involving admissions issues generally took more time, on
average, to complete than the reviews involving other issues.  During
fiscal years 1988-94, 67 percent of the compliance reviews completed
involved admissions issues; therefore, the average time to complete
these compliance reviews significantly affected the average time to
complete all compliance reviews. 

We examined these data further to determine the extent to which the
OCR compliance reviews found violations and resulted in remedial
action to benefit affected minority groups or changes by the
postsecondary schools to remedy violations.  For compliance reviews,
OCR only had two categories to track these results:  (1) remedial
action agreed to by the schools and OCR and (2) administrative
closure, with changes made by the schools. 

As shown in table III.5, 28 of the 58 completed compliance reviews
resulted in remedial action or changes made by the postsecondary
schools after violations were found.  (Of the 28, only 2 were
administrative closures--1 Hispanic case and 1 class action case.) Of
the 39 admissions reviews, over 56 percent resulted in remedial
action or change; of the 19 non-admissions reviews, about 32 percent
resulted in remedial action or change.  Of the four compliance
reviews involving Asian-Americans, three resulted in remedial action
or change; these three reviews involved admissions issues.  For
Hispanics, the two completed reviews, one of which was an admissions
case, resulted in remedial action or change.  More importantly, a
high percentage of all minority groups appeared to benefit from the
compliance reviews OCR conducted--especially when the focus of a
review involved admissions issues. 

During fiscal year 1994, OCR completed four compliance reviews. 
Three of these involved African-Americans and one was a class action
case.  None of the four involved Asian-Americans.  The average time
to complete the four reviews was 178 days.  The one review involving
African-Americans that led to remedial action or change by the school
took 438 days to complete. 

During the first 9 months of fiscal year 1995--that is, from October
1, 1994, to June 30, 1995--OCR completed 11 compliance reviews; all
of these involved admissions issues, averaging 245 days each to
complete.  None focused on Asian-Americans; six involved
African-Americans; three involved class actions; and two involved
multiple title VI issues.  Five of the reviews resulted in benefits
to minority groups or changes by schools.  These five reviews took an
average of 257 days to complete. 


      "OVERAGE" INVESTIGATIONS AND
      REVIEWS HAVE DECREASED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

OCR considers cases that are open for 180 days or more to be
"overage," that is, to have taken too much time to complete.  We
compared overage data for both complaint investigations and
compliance reviews as of May 21, 1993, when the current Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights assumed her position; as of September 30,
1994; and as of June 30, 1995. 

From May 1993 to September 1994, the number of pending complaint
investigations over 180 days old declined from 167 to 122 (27
percent).  In addition, the number of investigations over 500 days
old declined from 77 to 34, which significantly decreased the average
age of these long-term cases (see table III.6).  According to OCR
data, by June 30, 1995, the number of overage complaint
investigations had declined to 100.  Of these, 26 were over 500 days
old.  Of the 167 overage complaints that were pending in May 1993, 15
remained pending as of June 30, 1995. 

From May 1993 to September 1994, the number of overage compliance
reviews increased from 10 to 18.  We could not determine why this
increase occurred, but it may have resulted from the increased number
of compliance reviews that OCR initiated during the 1990s. 
Specifically, in 1990, OCR started 32 compliance reviews.  In fiscal
years 1991- 94, the number of such reviews increased to 41, 77, 101,
and 153, respectively. 

As shown in table III.7, as of September 30, 1994, of the 18 pending
compliance reviews, 14 had been open for less than 600 days and 6 of
these were less than 300 days old.  As of June 30, 1995, the number
of pending compliance reviews was 14 and 4 of these had been open for
less than 300 days. 


   OCR HAS IMPLEMENTED CHANGES TO
   IMPROVE OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

During fiscal years 1994 and 1995, OCR implemented several
administrative changes to (1) improve its operations overall and (2)
revise the planning and conduct of complaint investigations and
compliance reviews as well as the documentation required in the
official files.  These changes included revising procedures to
minimize preparing unnecessary documents during investigations and
reviews, delegating more authority to the regional offices for
decisions on most kinds of cases, and tracking and managing active
cases to help ensure that they are completed in a timely and
efficient manner. 

In its fiscal year 1994 annual report, which was sent to the Congress
in April 1995, OCR stated that to further improve operations it has
initiated or implemented several other changes under four broad
categories:  (1) setting priorities, (2) reengineering the approach
to respond to individual discrimination complaints, (3) improving
technology, and (4) initiating innovative approaches to deploy OCR
staff to increase efficiency and effectiveness.  It is too soon,
however, to determine whether the changes implemented and planned
will significantly improve the timeliness, documentation, and quality
of OCR's operations over the long term. 


      ATTENTION FOCUSED ON SETTING
      PRIORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

According to OCR, by focusing attention on setting priorities, it
will improve timeliness and maximize the impact of available
resources on civil rights in schools.  To ensure that it addresses
the most acute problems of discrimination, OCR will consider as broad
a range of information as practical in setting priorities. 

OCR also stated that it will devote more resources to helping
schools--as well as students and parents--learn to solve the problem
of securing equal access to quality education; it will also focus on
systemic education reform, which enables communities throughout the
nation to understand, commit to, and implement strategies that
provide opportunities for all to learn. 

Finally, by October 1, 1995, OCR planned to have its revised
strategic plan developed, OCR officials said.  Under this plan, OCR
will move from using a reactive system--almost exclusively responding
to complaints--to using a balanced enforcement approach--proactively
targeting resources for maximum impact.  To implement this approach,
beginning in fiscal year 1996, OCR will work to ensure that 40
percent of its resources are dedicated to proactive measures,
including priority policy development, high-impact compliance
reviews, and targeted technical assistance. 


      CHANGES TO HOW COMPLAINTS
      ARE RESOLVED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

OCR has stated that it has fundamentally reengineered its approach to
responding to individual complaints of discrimination.  These changes
move OCR from a required investigative approach to a flexible
resolution approach.  This approach is described in OCR's updated
Case Resolution Manual (CRM) issued in November 1994. 

CRM expanded the reasons for closing complaints and reduced paperwork
by no longer requiring for each case an investigative plan,
investigative report, and letter of findings (LOF).  CRM introduced
the concept of a case resolution letter to inform complainants of
OCR's determinations and provided that LOFs be issued only in limited
circumstances; that is, in cases in which (1) a violation is found
and negotiation is unsuccessful, (2) a no-violation LOF would serve
an important policy function, or (3) a no-violation LOF would have
the value of setting a precedent.  The revised procedures also
require OCR to inform affected parties in complaint cases every 60
days of the status of the cases. 

All regional employees have received case resolution training based
on the new approach.  According to OCR officials, preliminary data
show improvement in case resolution timeliness and, anecdotally, in
customer satisfaction.  Under the new approach, OCR expects to
resolve more discrimination complaints with fewer staff. 


      IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY USED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

When OCR's mainframe-based case-tracking system proved inflexible for
the new case resolution process, a team created a personal-computer-
based system.  Users and developers continue to work together to
perfect the system and ensure that needed data are provided quickly
and efficiently to line staff, managers, and external users. 

Two additional technology initiatives were started in fiscal year
1994: 

  to network and provide electronic communication among all of OCR's
     regional offices and

  to provide on-line access to critical case-resolution resources
     through an OCR electronic library. 

As of September 1995, of OCR's 10 regional offices, 6 were on line
and linked with OCR headquarters as part of the electronic network. 
OCR officials plan to have all regional offices on the network by the
end of fiscal year 1996.  For the staff linked through the network,
OCR policies, survey information, and case-processing data are
available electronically.  In addition, these OCR staff can
communicate with each other electronically.  Eventually, OCR
officials said, the public will also have access, as appropriate, to
the information on the network. 


      PLANS TO IMPROVE USE OF
      STAFF
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.4

OCR has developed plans to redeploy staff to improve productivity. 
In this regard, OCR's goals are to deliver a stronger civil rights
enforcement program; focus energy on internal and external customer
service; reduce formal layers of review; and assign the maximum
number of staff to program activities (as an element of this plan,
OCR will have at least one-third of the headquarters staff assigned
to case resolution activities). 

In October 1993, employees in Region II (New York) began a pilot
program to improve the region's operations and service to customers. 
The structure in Region II had been a long-standing OCR example of a
traditional hierarchial structure.  Under the pilot, Region II
reorganized its staff into teams to carry out OCR's assigned
responsibilities. 

According to OCR, this new organizational structure takes full
advantage of the teamwork approach and eliminates most levels of
review.  The traditional regional structure involved eight or more
review levels.  The new structure envisions teams handling most of
the work of the office, with only a few select documents being
forwarded to the regional director level of review.  OCR stated that
the new approach emphasizes service, support, teamwork, and
collegiality, within the boundaries of focused leadership, and it
deemphasizes review and control approaches to management. 

OCR reported that Region II had accomplished major changes through
its new approach of using teams.  OCR established criteria for
measuring success in terms of efficiency, quality of work products,
and improved morale.  The data collected on a pilot group and a
control group showed major improvements in these areas, OCR reported. 
For example, the new teams approach reduced the average number of
days to resolve a complaint from 169 days to 129 days, a 24 percent
improvement, according to OCR. 

All offices started moving toward a team-based structure in September
1994.  In June 1995, OCR Region VII (Kansas City) announced it had
reorganized its staff into case resolution teams, similar to those in
Region II, and thereby changed the way in which complaint
investigations and compliance reviews are planned and conducted.  OCR
expects all regional offices and the headquarters office to
reorganize similarly by January 1996. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

With respect to the specific cases involving Asian-Americans we were
asked to review, OCR's investigations of the 11 closed cases appear
to be consistent with the policies and procedures in effect at that
time, except for timeliness.  However, because OCR's official case
files did not always record activities that took place in
headquarters, we relied in part on OCR officials' explanations of
delays. 

OCR generally took longer to resolve these specific cases as well as
other cases involving Asian-Americans than it took to resolve cases
involving other minority groups.  This can be explained by the
relatively large number of time-consuming admissions cases,
violations, and corrective actions associated with Asian-American
cases. 

Recent administrative changes initiated by OCR appear to be at least
partly responsible for improvements in OCR's timeliness in resolving
cases.  However, the changes have not been in place long enough for
us to assess their long-term impact on the timeliness, documentation,
and quality of OCR's investigations and compliance reviews. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of
Education provided written comments on a draft of this report (see
app.  IV).  She stated that OCR's recordkeeping procedures required
that case files be maintained in the regional offices and include
documents related to the investigation or review.  She added that
these established procedures did not require that the regional files
include documentation of all case activity at headquarters. 
According to the Assistant Secretary, records pertaining to
headquarters activity for the 13 cases we reviewed were maintained in
a chronological filing system--rather than a case file system--that
suited the needs of OCR headquarters staff.  She stated that these
records describing headquarters activity on the 13 cases were
available in the chronological filing system during our review. 

We found that the established OCR recordkeeping procedures regarding
the regional offices were as described by the Assistant Secretary and
the 13 case files we reviewed were generally complete in describing
case activities until OCR headquarters became involved.  At
headquarters, however, activities involving the cases, like
teleconferences and data analysis, are not captured in the
chronological files.  Moreover, while documents on individual cases
may be filed chronologically, the documents do not usually explain
the delays.  As a result, we had to rely on oral statements by OCR
headquarters staff for most of the information on the chronology of
events while the cases were being worked on at OCR headquarters. 
When provided with documents relating to OCR headquarters activities,
decisions, or guidance, we considered the information in our
analysis. 

The Assistant Secretary generally agreed with the section of the
draft report that compared the timeliness and outcomes of cases
involving Asian-Americans with the timeliness and outcomes of cases
involving other racial groups.  She pointed out that a few individual
cases that took a long time to resolve could unduly skew the results
of our statistical analysis of case-processing times.  She also asked
us to qualify parts of our report to show that OCR cases involving
Asian-Americans did not always take the most time to resolve or
complete and to highlight that generally for Asian-American cases,
OCR found more violations which led to remedial action by
postsecondary schools and benefits to the complainants.  We revised
our report, as necessary, to reflect the Assistant Secretary's
comments and concerns. 

In her comments, the Assistant Secretary stated that OCR initiated
the numerous administrative changes discussed in our report to
improve overall operations generally as well as case processing
specifically.  She noted that OCR data show that since the
administrative changes were undertaken, the number and percentage of
cases for all levels of education pending over 180 days have
decreased, not only those for postsecondary schools.  She also
provided statistical evidence covering fiscal years 1990-94 to show
that as a result of the administrative changes, even though the total
number of complaints received and compliance reviews started have
both increased, OCR has resolved greater numbers of both and in a
more timely manner than in the past.  Because our review focused only
on complaint investigations and compliance reviews under title VI of
the Civil Rights Act involving postsecondary schools, we did not
revise our report to include these data on OCR's overall operations. 

The Assistant Secretary also provided technical comments on specific
statements and facts included in our draft report, and where
appropriate we used the information to clarify and update our report. 

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 7 days from its issue date.  At
that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. 
We will make copies available to others on request. 

This report was prepared under the direction of Larry Horinko,
Assistant Director, (202) 512-7001; Susan Poling, Assistant General
Counsel, and Laurel Rabin, Communications Analyst, also contributed
to the report. 

Sincerely yours,

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

For our overall timeliness examination, we analyzed computer files of
all OCR complaint investigations and compliance reviews closed from
October 1, 1987, through June 30, 1995, that focused on allegations
of discrimination at postsecondary schools (colleges and
universities) under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  We
also studied OCR's Investigation Procedures Manual, which was in
effect from June 1987 until November 1993.  The manual describes the
procedures OCR staff are expected to follow in an investigation,
including time frames for completion and the documents and records to
be produced.  The manual covers most case-related activities but is
not intended to cover all the circumstances that could arise in the
investigation of a case.  Specific sections were updated
periodically, as necessary. 

The Investigation Procedures Manual was replaced on November 30,
1993, by the Complaint Resolution Manual, which changed many of the
procedures and documents to be produced.  We studied the Complaint
Resolution Manual as well as OCR's updated Case Resolution Manual
issued in November 1994.  We also studied relevant policy documents
concerning major court decisions as well as admissions and
affirmative action issues in postsecondary schools. 

Finally, we examined the official case files, compiled and maintained
by OCR's regional offices, for 13 specific cases.  We did this to
determine the chronology of events while the cases were being
processed, whether delays occurred during the investigations and
reviews, and whether the decisions and resolutions of certain cases
had a basis in policy and law.  We did not substitute our judgment
for OCR's.  For these 13 cases, OCR headquarters officials said no
official case files had been established in headquarters, so little
documentation was available when the cases were sent to OCR
headquarters for additional statistical analyses, legal review, or
management review.  As a result, we were unable to obtain or develop
a complete chronology of events for some cases after they left the
regional offices; instead, we had to rely on explanations by OCR
headquarters officials as to what delays occurred and which issues
were under review. 

To determine the timeliness and outcomes of OCR's complaint
investigations and compliance reviews for Asian-Americans as compared
with other minority groups, we obtained data tapes and printed
reports from OCR covering fiscal years 1988 through 1995.  These
tapes summarized the data according to minority groups or other
categories of cases, such as class action and multiple title VI
cases.  Our study included closed and pending cases for each fiscal
year and presence or absence of violations of nondiscrimination laws
for the closed cases.  We used this information to determine the
cases that resulted in (1) benefits to complainants or minority
groups or (2) changes by postsecondary schools to their affirmative
action programs or to their policies and procedures to remedy
violations. 

OCR headquarters officials provided us with various manuals,
policies, and procedures, which had been developed from May 1993
through June 1995, after the current Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights was appointed.  She changed many administrative practices
affecting how OCR carries out its complaint investigations and
compliance reviews.  Some of these policies and procedures have been
implemented; others are still in the planning stages.  To determine
whether the administrative changes would improve OCR operations in
conducting complaint investigations and compliance reviews, we
studied the documents provided and considered the explanations of OCR
officials. 

Our work was conducted from March 1994 to August 1995 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


DESCRIPTIONS OF 13 SPECIFIC CASES
========================================================== Appendix II

This appendix includes brief descriptions and chronologies of the 13
cases that Representative Rohrabacher asked us to review and, to the
extent that information was available, why OCR's investigations and
reviews were delayed.  The information presented is based on
available documentation in OCR case files and comments and
explanations made by OCR officials.  The type of case, the date the
complaint investigation or compliance review was opened, and the date
a letter of findings (LOF) was issued or the case was closed or
whether the case was still pending are given in
table II.1. 



                         Table II.1
          
                    Summary of 13 Cases

                                          LOF,
                                       closure  Total time
              Type of         Date    date, or  to respond
University    case          opened     pending    (months)
------------  ----------  --------  ----------  ----------
UC Berkeley   Compliance      7/90       9/92\          26
 Boalt Hall    review
 Law School
UCLA          Compliance      1/88      8/93\a          67
 graduate      review
 schools
UCLA          Compliance      1/88        9/95          92
 undergradua   review
 te schools
City          Complaint       6/92        1/93           7
 University
 of New York
Santa Clara   Complaint      12/92        2/93           3
 University
UC San Diego  Complaint      10/91        3/94          29
University    Complaint      10/92        1/94         4\b
 of Texas
 Law School
UC Berkeley   Complaint       5/88        2/94          69
 School of
 Optometry
University    Complaint       7/92        3/93         3\b
 of Hawaii
UC Davis      Complaint      11/91        3/94          28
 Medical
 School
UC Berkeley   Complaint       5/89     Pending
 undergradua
 te schools
University    2               4/91      8/94\d          40
 of            complaint      7/92     Pending
 Wisconsin     s\c
 Madison Law
 School
Massachusett  Complaint       8/92        4/94          20
 s Institute
 of
 Technology
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The university agreed to change some policies and procedures after
OCR found violations during its investigations; OCR monitoring
continues. 

\b Time frames were tolled for these cases because of pending
litigation. 

\c Both filed by same person. 

\d One allegation is still under investigation by OCR. 

In addition, this appendix provides information on specific issues: 
(1) the circumstances that caused OCR to revise its findings of
discrimination 3 years after the original LOF was issued in regard to
the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) graduate
mathematics program (case
no.  09-89-6004); (2) whether OCR followed established policies and
procedures in reaching its no-violation decision regarding the
University of California (UC) at San Diego case (case no. 
09-92-2002); and (3) whether OCR's decision to administratively close
the Santa Clara University School of Law case (case no.  09-93-2027)
was consistent with established policy.  In conducting the case file
reviews, we focused our attention on whether OCR's decisions were
based on law and policy, but we did not substitute our judgment for
that of OCR. 

We also provide information on our review of the other cases that
were administratively closed and whether OCR followed its policies
and procedures with regard to time frames. 


   UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT
   BERKELEY, BOALT HALL (CASE NO. 
   10-90-6001)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

On October 19, 1989, Representative Rohrabacher, Representative
Gingrich, and Mr.  Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the Republican Research
Committee, wrote to the Department of Justice about the admissions
program at Boalt Hall, the law school of the University of California
at Berkeley; Justice referred this letter to OCR on October 26, 1989. 
OCR provided its report on the case to the requesters on April 4,
1990, and informed them that OCR would conduct a compliance review
based on the information collected.  According to an OCR regional
official, this case involved complicated legal issues with a
race-based waiting list and preliminary documents raised serious
questions about compliance. 

The OCR regional office conducted its review and submitted to OCR
headquarters a draft investigative report and draft LOF in November
1990.  The regional office case file did not document events from the
November 1990 submission to headquarters to the signing of the
voluntary compliance and settlement agreement on September 25, 1992. 
From November 1990 to 1992, headquarters had concerns about the
statistical analyses and there were numerous discussions about all
aspects of the case.  OCR officials stated that the region began
settlement negotiations in January 1992.  OCR officials also stated
that during this time Boalt Hall was in transition with a newly
appointed dean.  As a result, it was 26 months from when the
compliance review was initiated until the voluntary compliance and
settlement agreement was signed.  OCR's procedures at that time
stated that an LOF should be issued within 90 calendar days from the
date of the first site visit. 

Since November 1990, Boalt Hall has (1) revised its admissions and
waiting list procedures and (2) submitted required annual reports to
OCR describing how these changes have been implemented.  After
receiving the third annual report in November 1994, OCR declared that
Boalt Hall was in compliance and OCR monitoring and activities would
cease. 


   UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS
   ANGELES GRADUATE SCHOOLS (CASE
   NO.  09-89-6004)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

In January 1988, OCR regional staff began a compliance review of
admissions practices of all 84 departments with graduate programs at
the UCLA.  UCLA was targeted because preliminary information
indicated that although UCLA had a large number of Asian-American
applicants, the overall admission rate for Asian-Americans was lower
than the overall rate for whites in many programs and because the
Department of Justice had received a number of inquiries concerning
the University of California system. 

Each graduate department had its own admissions policy.  After
obtaining preliminary information and analyzing computerized data on
all departments, OCR targeted 40 departments for in-depth file
reviews based on statistical analysis of admission rates and grade
point averages, and other possible indicators of discrimination. 
From the beginning, data collection was a problem because not all
departments had retained 3 years of admissions data. 

OCR headquarters officials were involved in the decisions on the
scope and approach of the compliance review from the start.  OCR
officials stated that OCR had not previously undertaken an admissions
review comparable in magnitude to the UCLA admissions review, and a
number of approaches and means of resolution were explored during the
review.  Documents indicate that throughout this review, many
differences had to be worked out between OCR headquarters and OCR
regional staff.  These differences included the targeting of
departments, the comparison of Asian-American and white admissions,
and whether violations were found during the investigation of the 40
different admissions programs targeted for in-depth review. 

OCR's first site visit was in April 1989, more than a year after it
informed UCLA that it would be initiating a compliance review. 
During that year, OCR set out the scope of the review, identified the
information UCLA had available, and identified how admissions
decisions were made for individual graduate programs.  OCR officials
noted that the review was extensive and included a review of 84
graduate programs, not just the Mathematics Department eventually
cited. 

In its LOF of October 1, 1990, OCR found UCLA in violation of title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of its admissions
practices for the graduate Mathematics Department.\2 In particular,
OCR found that the department had discriminated against five
Asian-American applicants who, if provided equal treatment under
admissions standards articulated by the department, should have been
accepted.  OCR deemed UCLA's three different explanations of
admissions decisions given over more than a year to be pretext for
discrimination. 

UCLA disagreed with OCR's findings.  UCLA asserted that OCR (l)
misunderstood the department's initial evaluation rating system,
which was just a recommendation to the vice-chair, and (2) failed to
interview the vice-chair who actually made the admissions decisions
but was on sabbatical when OCR first visited the Mathematics
Department in 1989 and 1990.  UCLA expanded the statistical analysis
and produced statistics showing no difference in admission rates for
whites and Asian-Americans for numerical applications when they were
grouped with ratings of "3.0 and above" and "below 3.0." OCR had
limited its comparison to a group of whites who had been admitted and
a group of Asian-Americans who had been denied admission.  In UCLA's
expanded group comparison, UCLA showed that there were 22 white
applicants in the same rating range (that is, ratings of 2.4 and
above) as the three OCR-identified Asian-Americans who were denied
admission based on the use of the same criteria.  UCLA maintained
that three admitted whites in that group had substantially higher
academic qualifications than the three rejected Asian-Americans OCR
identified. 

OCR based its violation LOF partially on the fact that the different
explanations by UCLA officials regarding admissions decisions were a
pretext for discrimination.  Just days before the LOF was issued, OCR
officials learned that the vice-chair who had actually made the
admissions decisions had not been interviewed; UCLA's first and
second explanations concerning admissions to the Mathematics
Department program were provided by officials who knew little about
the actual admissions criteria used.  OCR interviewed the vice-chair
before the LOF was issued, but found that his explanations could not
fully account for all admissions decisions.  OCR issued the LOF
without bringing its concerns to UCLA's attention for further
explanation.  Later investigation showed that OCR staff placed great
importance on the numerical ratings developed by the Mathematics
Department's Admissions and Support Committee.  But, in fact,
admissions committee members would rate candidates as "admit Ph.D."
despite numerical ratings below that required for admission to the
department. 

The regional office continued its negotiations with UCLA and
conducted a post-LOF site visit, including examination of the
admissions files, on February 27, 1991, 4 months after the LOF was
issued.  This review of the files was more comprehensive than any
prior review.  In particular, the review was expanded to consider
unsuccessful white applicants and successful Asian-American
applicants. 

OCR found that the admissions decisions were cumulative in nature,
with various objective and subjective factors weighed against each
other by the vice-chair.  OCR also found that overall undergraduate
grade point average was of little or no consequence, although it was
used in the ratings.  The grade point average for math courses was
pertinent, and grades received in particular math courses were very
important.  The applicant's "statement of purpose" was also important
because the department rejected applicants who suggested that their
ultimate career goals were outside math.  In addition, applicants
from less renowned schools were at a competitive disadvantage.  They
needed strong letters of recommendation from professors known to UCLA
faculty. 

The supplemental investigation showed that OCR had not fully
understood the criteria it was given by UCLA officials in September
1990.  For example, one of the criteria given was that an applicant's
stated interest in applied mathematics would enhance the applicant's
position.  The October 1990 LOF stated that OCR's examination of
files had not verified this criterion.  However, during the
supplemental examination, OCR discovered that the boost was not for
all candidates interested in applied math, but only for certain
subareas, particularly for applicants in computational fluid dynamics
and those already working in the defense industry.  Also, the
supplemental examination found that master's degree applicants were
not held to the same standard as Ph.D.  applicants by the department. 

The regional office found at the outset that it had received the
wrong information from university and Mathematics Department
officials.  In reexamining files and expanding the examination to
files of lower ranked Asian-Americans admitted, OCR found that lower
ranked Asian-Americans also benefited from the application of
subjective admissions criteria.  Further review showed only two
possible examples of discrimination.  Both of these involved students
within the range of white applicants admitted and white applicants
rejected.  Both cases of possible discrimination were vulnerable to
being rejected, one because the applicant had a lower quantitative
Graduate Record Examination (GRE) score by a substantial degree than
anyone admitted and the other because the applicant had a combination
of low GRE scores, a degree from an unknown school, and a stated
interest in obtaining a certified public accountant license, a career
goal outside mathematics. 

The regional office submitted a revised investigative report to
headquarters on July 23, 1991, in which it concluded that UCLA's
Mathematics Department was not in violation of title VI and
recommended the withdrawal of the violation LOF.\3 On December 26,
1991, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy concurred and
suggested revisions of the draft investigative report to the regional
office.  The next 20 months were spent by the regional office and
headquarters exchanging drafts of the revised LOF. 

On August 8, 1993, OCR issued a revised LOF concerning the
Mathematics Department.  It stated that because of new evidence, OCR
had revised its original findings and no violation had been found to
have occurred.  However, OCR required the Mathematics Department to
keep records of its admissions decisions for the 1994-95 academic
year. 

Under its required time frames, OCR should have issued its LOF within
90 days of the first site visit and initiated formal enforcement
action within 180 days.  However, OCR did not issue its LOF until 18
months after its first site visit in April 1989 and never initiated
formal enforcement action. 


--------------------
\2 OCR found UCLA to be in compliance with title VI in 75 of the 84
graduate programs examined.  For eight programs in which insufficient
data were available to OCR to determine compliance, UCLA agreed to
maintain additional records for 3 years to enable OCR to make a
determination of whether its admissions decisions for these eight
programs are in compliance with title VI.  OCR continues to monitor
these programs. 

\3 We asked the regional office and headquarters staff if a violation
LOF had ever been previously withdrawn.  The San Francisco Regional
Office had never done it before.  Headquarters staff indicated that
they knew of two instances, one in 1985 and another in 1988, both
dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability and the
definition of a qualified individual with disabilities. 


   UCLA UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS
   (CASE NO.  09-89-6004)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

This compliance review was initiated for UCLA's undergraduate schools
in January 1988 because of the same factors taken into account in
initiating the compliance review of UCLA's graduate programs (see the
previous case).  OCR headquarters was involved in this review from
the start. 

During this review, OCR had continuing problems obtaining usable data
from the university.  For example, OCR originally requested 5 years
of admissions data, but UCLA could only provide data for 2 years. 
The data tapes UCLA provided were not compatible with OCR's system. 
Although the statistical analyses division in OCR headquarters first
became involved with the university's data in 1989, it could not
complete its work until early 1993.  According to OCR, data analysis
was hindered because (1) UCLA originally sent hard copy, which proved
insufficient, instead of computer tapes; (2) UCLA objected to
providing certain data; and (3) the data could not be interpreted
without obtaining the master files from UCLA and identifying and
sorting the codes and variables.  Because of the enormous number of
admissions applications processed each year by UCLA, the data were
extensive and time-consuming to analyze. 

After the OCR regional office completed its site work in April 1989
and drafted its investigative report, UCLA changed its admissions
policy but did not inform OCR immediately.  OCR then reinterviewed
university officials and prepared a revised draft investigative
report.  UCLA again changed its admissions policy in 1990.  As a
result, OCR had to request updated data from UCLA for 2 additional
academic years.  Because of the various factors affecting this case,
the investigative plan for this review was not made final until
January 1990--2 years after the review started. 

From January 1990 through late 1993, OCR undertook investigative
work, statistical analyses, and legal analyses in both the region and
headquarters.  In November 1993, a draft investigative report on the
UCLA School of Letters and Science was prepared, but it was never
made final or sent.  In February 1994, OCR sent a letter to UCLA
requesting additional data, but UCLA did not provide the data within
the time frames set out by OCR.  OCR ultimately determined that
additional data and analysis were not needed to reach a resolution of
the case.  In August 1994, the region sent a draft LOF to OCR
headquarters for review. 

In September 1995, OCR issued a no-violation LOF to close the case. 
OCR found that UCLA had not (1) established quotas or admissions
limits for Asian-American applicants or (2) discriminated against
Asian-American applicants.  OCR also determined that UCLA's
affirmative action plan complied with title VI.  From the date the
case was opened in January 1988 until it was closed in September
1995, 92 months elapsed, making this the lengthiest of the 13 cases
that Representative Rohrabacher asked us to review. 


   CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK,
   YORK COLLEGE (CASE NO. 
   02-92-2084)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

A white woman alleged in May 1992 that the City University of New
York (CUNY), York College discriminated against her on the basis of
race because she was denied admission to the licensed practical nurse
to registered nurse articulation program (referred to as the LAP
program).  The LAP program is part of the Collegiate Service and
Technology Entry Program, a New York State program authorized by law
to increase the enrollment and retention of economically
disadvantaged or minority students in programs that lead to
professional licensure and employment in scientific, technical,
health, and health-related professions.  By law, eligibility is
limited to New York State residents who meet those qualifications. 
Also, a potential applicant seeking enrollment in the LAP program
must meet several requirements dealing with licensure, testing,
nursing experience, and basic skills; the applicant must also be
either from a designated minority group (African-American, Hispanic,
Native American, or Alaskan native) or meet the economic eligibility
criteria. 

OCR's investigation, begun in June 1992, revealed that the
complainant contacted the college in early May 1992 and requested
information about the LAP program.  The complainant later contacted
the LAP program director and was informed of the admissions criteria. 
After talking to the complainant, the program director determined
that she was not eligible economically or under the minority
criterion.  OCR's investigation showed that the complainant did not
submit a written application. 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows for consideration of
race in admissions policies and programs when race is not the sole
criterion.  Admissions programs in which economic disadvantage and
race are two of the possible criteria for admission have been held
valid under title VI.  Accordingly, OCR found that CUNY was in
compliance with federal law with respect to the issue. 

All work on this case was done by OCR Region II (New York) staff; and
although the case was open from June 1992 until January 1993--about 7
months--it had been "tolled" from July 29, 1992, until October 8,
1992, while OCR waited for CUNY to provide detailed admissions data. 
That is, the case was kept open, but the time frames were suspended
pending the delivery of the requested data.  OCR met its time frames
for this case in accordance with its Investigative Procedures Manual. 


   SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY (CASE
   NO.  09-93-2027)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5

Representative Rohrabacher filed this complaint in December 1992
based primarily on an article in a San Jose, California, newspaper in
May 1991.  Representative Rohrabacher's complaint referred to a
commentary, written by the dean of Santa Clara's Law School, and
alleged that the admissions standards for the 1990 entering law
school class were substantially different for different races. 
Representative Rohrabacher alleged that the law school appeared to
have a track system of admissions that insulated some applicants, on
the basis of race, from competition with other applicants. 

OCR acknowledged receiving the complaint letter on December 16, 1992,
and asked Representative Rohrabacher to provide additional
information about the alleged discrimination; OCR noted that the
complaint would be closed in 45 days if additional information was
not provided.  None was provided, and OCR subsequently closed the
case administratively, that is, without investigation, on February
19, 1993. 

Before closing the case, OCR reviewed the news item Representative
Rohrabacher had attached for facts to support his statements that (1)
the admissions standards substantially differed for different races
and (2) Santa Clara has, in effect, a track system that insulates
some applicants from competing with others.  OCR noted that the
article reported the grade point averages and Law School Admission
Test (LSAT) scores in which composite scores for two minority groups
were lower than those for the class as a whole.  OCR found that those
statistics did not provide sufficient basis for it to identify an
issue of discrimination under the laws OCR enforces.  OCR issued a
policy interpretation that explains that affirmative action programs
in admissions cannot have set-asides based on race or ethnicity. 
However, OCR also stated that race could be used as a "plus" factor
in admissions processes and that nothing in the article gives
evidence of a quota system, a track system, or a cap by group. 

OCR also followed its Investigative Procedures Manual section
I.A.4(a), which listed the elements of a "complete complaint." A
complete complaint includes (1) description of the discrimination
alleged to have occurred, (2) some indication of the factual bases
for a complainant's belief that the discrimination has occurred, and
(3) sufficient detail to enable OCR to identify the issues raised
under the laws it enforces.  OCR did not find the news item to
contain sufficient detailed information. 

OCR officials did not communicate with Representative Rohrabacher or
his staff, other than through these two letters, and received no
additional information concerning this complaint, according to OCR
officials. 


   UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN
   DIEGO (CASE NO.  09-92-2002)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6

Representative Rohrabacher filed this complaint in October 1991 with
OCR, partly on the basis of a San Diego newspaper article dealing
with eight Filipino-American high school students from California who
had problems gaining admission to UC San Diego. 

Representative Rohrabacher charged that it appeared that about 40
percent of the places in the freshman class were reserved for
applicants of certain races, while applicants of other races,
including Filipino-Americans, were excluded from competing for those
places.  He added that this seemed to be a quota based on race that
illegally discriminated against Filipino-Americans and possibly
applicants from other races. 

OCR began its investigation in October 1991 and followed its standard
investigative procedures, including time frames found in its
Investigative Procedures Manual, in acknowledging the letter,
developing an investigative plan, conducting its investigation, and
drafting its investigative report.\4

On April 3, 1992, the draft investigative report was submitted to
headquarters for review.  Although headquarters review was not
standard practice at that time, the cover note from the regional
director indicates that the issues raised in the complaint involved
OCR's fiscal year 1991 national enforcement strategy issues.  In
addition, admissions questions dealing with affirmative action are
more sensitive than most other issues, according to the note. 

The policy unit at headquarters prepared a memorandum on the
investigative report and forwarded the case to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy on July 17, 1992.  The regional office
chronological file indicates some conversations between headquarters
and regional staff in August 1992, but there is no other record of
actions on the case until April 1993.  The case file was apparently
"lost" in the Deputy Assistant Secretary's office for 10 months, from
summer 1992 to April 1993, OCR headquarters staff stated.\5 The OCR
tracking system at that time assigned deadlines until cases reached
the Assistant Secretary's or Deputy Assistant Secretary's office but
did not track cases or assign deadlines in those offices. 

After the case resurfaced in April 1993, the policy unit again
reviewed it and drafted another memorandum, but no further progress
occurred until November 1993, when headquarters staff provided oral
comments to the regional office on the draft investigative report
during a conference call.  A no-violation LOF was issued within 3
months, but that was almost 2 years after the investigative report
was sent to headquarters from the regional office.  From the time the
case was first submitted to headquarters in April 1992 until the LOF
was issued, more than 23 months had elapsed:  about 3 months was
attributable to the regional office and 20 months to headquarters. 
But OCR's Investigative Procedures Manual at that time stated that
the LOF should be issued within 135 calendar days. 

OCR's investigation found no evidence that the university's
admissions system used for fall 1991 operated as a quota system, nor
did it find that the university reserved 40 percent of its places for
students of a particular race or national origin.  OCR found that one
aspect of the appeals process used in the admissions system in 1991
was inconsistent with OCR's policy interpretation because the appeals
process was not narrowly tailored.  However, the university had
already modified this admission appeals process before OCR completed
its investigation. 

OCR also examined whether Filipino-American students were affected by
this admissions appeals process.  It found only one student who
potentially was adversely affected.  OCR determined that this student
did not meet the minimum requirements for admission and that his
chances of success at the university were so unlikely that further
review was not warranted. 

The official file for this case included pertinent documentation from
October 1991 until April 1992, when the regional office staff did
their work.  After the case was forwarded to headquarters, few
documents were included in the files and little information was
included in the official case file to show the issues that
headquarters staff were considering. 


--------------------
\4 The investigation was tolled briefly from December 20, 1991, to
January 13, 1992, because witnesses were unavailable, but proper
documentation appears in the file of the tolling of the time frames
in accordance with the Investigative Procedures Manual. 

\5 During this time, there was also a change in administration and
President Bill Clinton had not yet appointed an Assistant Secretary
for Civil Rights.  The position of Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights remained vacant until May 1993. 


   UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL
   (CASE NO.  06-93-2005)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:7

An Asian-Indian man alleged discrimination on the basis of national
origin because the University of Texas had failed to give equal
consideration to Asian-Indian applicants, as compared with
consideration given to African-American and Hispanic applicants, in
admission to the School of Law.  The complainant had a 3.5 grade
point average in college, an LSAT score that placed him in the 68th
percentile, and had worked as an intern in the district attorney's
office in Harris County, Texas.  The complainant filed his complaint
after applying to the law school and being rejected for admission
twice. 

OCR Region VI staff initiated an investigation in November 1992 and
obtained information from the complainant and the university during
January 1993.  OCR was advised of a pending class action suit against
the university in February 1993.  OCR determined that the class
action suit involved the same issues as those in the charge filed
with OCR by this complainant even though the complainant was not a
party to the suit.  Therefore, in accordance with its Investigative
Procedures Manual section IV.B.2(b), OCR advised the complainant in
May 1993 that its investigation was being tolled until the litigation
was resolved.  That is, the case would be kept open, but the time
frames were suspended pending the outcome of litigation. 

In November 1993, OCR revised its investigative procedures.  Under
the new procedures, complaints that involve issues in pending
litigation cases are now closed and the complainant is informed that
he or she may refile the complaint following termination of the court
proceeding.  In mid-January 1994, OCR sent a letter to the
complainant informing him of the scheduled trial date and advising
him that the case was being closed.  The complainant was also
informed that he could refile his complaint within 60 days following
the termination of the court proceeding if there was no decision on
the merits or settlement of the complaint allegations.  This accords
with the revised procedures found in the Case Resolution Manual,
section I.H.5.  The complainant did not refile his complaint. 


   UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT
   BERKELEY SCHOOL OF OPTOMETRY
   (CASE NO.  10-88-2201)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:8

A Chinese-American woman filed a complaint in May 1988 against UC
Berkeley alleging that she had been discriminated against on the
basis of national origin because she had been denied admission to the
School of Optometry.  OCR Region X (Seattle) worked on the case for
about 10 months.  In March 1989, it sent a letter to the complainant,
advising her that on the basis of the evidence gathered during the
investigation, OCR did not anticipate that it could substantiate the
complainant's allegations of discrimination.  This letter was not an
LOF, and the complaint was not closed at this time.  Instead, because
of questions raised regarding the School of Optometry's affirmative
action program during the investigation, headquarters directed Region
X in July 1989 to investigate the affirmative action plan in the
School of Optometry.  Headquarters indicated Region X could either
issue a partial LOF on the individual complainant's facts or address
all issues in a single LOF.  Region X chose the latter option. 

OCR performed a statistical analysis of 1988 admissions data, but OCR
headquarters later decided to also review 1989 and 1990 admissions
data.  The region conducted an additional site investigation and
submitted a draft investigative report and LOF to headquarters on
October 9, 1991.  Headquarters conducted additional statistical
analyses, held several conference calls with the regional office, and
reviewed applicant files that it had obtained from the region.  On
January 6, 1994, headquarters returned the case to the regional
office with comments, and on February 17, 1994, the final LOF was
issued. 

OCR exceeded its established time frames for this case.  The OCR
standard in effect at the time the case was initiated was that an LOF
be completed within 105 calendar days; this investigation took about
69 months to complete.  OCR officials explained that much of the
case-processing time was associated with extensive statistical
analyses of the affirmative action issue and the issue of possible
discrimination against Asian-Americans as a class, with data covering
a 3-year period. 


   UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA
   (CASE NO.  10-92-2066)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:9

A white male veteran alleged in July 1992 that the University of
Hawaii at Manoa had discriminated against him on the basis of race by
denying him admission to its law school.  The complainant alleged
that places were set aside for particular minorities and that the
minorities admitted to the law school had lower qualifications than
the nonminorities rejected.  The complainant objected to the
university's preadmissions program, which accepts 12 students from
among disadvantaged applicants or ethnic groups underrepresented in
the Hawaii Bar for a 1-year program.  The complainant further claimed
that his "unique veteran experiences" should be considered in
offsetting his relatively low academic standing and application test
scores. 

In the course of initiating its investigation on August 13, 1992, OCR
learned that the complainant had filed suit in U.S.  District Court
in Hawaii on
July 7, 1992.  An OCR representative informed the complainant that
OCR's procedure is to defer its investigation until litigation that
concerns the same allegations is resolved.  OCR tolled the case from
August 25, 1992, until February 18, 1993. 

In January 1993, the court dismissed the case because the plaintiff
(that is, the complainant) failed to show that his rejection was the
result of the preadmissions program.  The court found that the
plaintiff simply did not meet the university's law school admissions
criteria.  His grade point average and LSAT score were below the
median, that is, far below those of other accepted applicants.  No
one, including those admitted under the preadmissions program, had an
LSAT score as low as the plaintiff's.  Furthermore, he was from a
noncompetitive school. 

Two months later, on March 11, 1993, OCR administratively closed the
case.  Under OCR's Investigative Procedures Manual, a case should be
closed if OCR (1) obtains information indicating that the issue
raised has been resolved in a manner consistent with title VI of the
Civil Rights Act and (2) determines that there are no remaining
issues appropriate for investigation.  Section IV.A.2(d) of the
manual states that cases in which the same issues involving the same
complainant have been subject to a decision by a federal court may be
closed.\6 OCR actually closed the case under section IV.A.(2)(g),
which states that if OCR obtains information indicating that the
issues raised by the complaint have been resolved, OCR should
determine if there are current issues appropriate for investigation;
if not, the case should be closed.  OCR determined that the issues
raised in the OCR complaint had been resolved in accordance with
title VI standards and that there were no outstanding issues in the
complaint that had not been addressed. 

OCR officials indicated that the case was closed because (1) the
judge determined that the complainant lacked standing because of low
LSAT scores and a poor academic record to challenge the preadmissions
program and (2) this was an individual complaint. 

Although OCR could have continued the class issue of whether the
preadmissions program violated title VI, it was not required to do
so.  The complainant had not made any specific allegation on behalf
of individuals other than himself.  OCR did not reach any conclusion
regarding whether any admissions program was legal or illegal.  OCR
officials stated that the allegations the complainant presented were
insufficient to raise a class issue by themselves or to show that a
practice existed that was discriminatory.  OCR officials stated there
were no unresolved issues appropriate for investigation. 


--------------------
\6 Section I.A.8(e)(2) could also be applicable:  It states that if
there has been a prior judicial determination covering substantially
the same issues raised in the OCR investigation, it may be
appropriate for OCR to close the case. 


   UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT
   DAVIS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE (CASE
   NO.  09-92-2015)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:10

A Chinese-American woman applied to the University of California at
Davis' medical school and was denied admission even though she had a
3.94 grade point average, had participated in many extracurricular
activities, and had received several awards.  She alleged that the
medical school discriminated against her because she was
Asian-American. 

OCR's regional office investigated the allegations from November 1991
to April 1992, drafted an investigative report, and forwarded it to
OCR headquarters for review.  From April 1992 through November 1992,
additional statistical data on admissions to the medical school were
requested and analyzed at OCR headquarters.  From November 1992 until
May 1993, there was no apparent activity in the case.  During summer
1993, another draft investigative report was prepared.  In November
1993, during a telephone conference call between OCR regional staff
and OCR headquarters officials, the final issues of this case were
worked out; shortly afterward, a draft LOF was prepared and submitted
to OCR headquarters for review in January 1994.  The LOF was issued
on March 21, 1994. 

Part of the delay in closing this case occurred because the Deputy
Assistant Secretary was concerned about the affirmative action plan
at the university; he wanted to make sure that the plan had not
influenced the university's decision to reject the complainant, OCR
headquarters officials explained.  The case file included complete
documentation and explanations of case activity from when the
complaint was filed until November 1992.  However, the official case
file, which is kept in the regional office, included no other
documents until the no-violation LOF was issued in March 1994. 

OCR exceeded the established time frames for this case.  The standard
in effect at the time the case was initiated was that an LOF be
completed within 135 calendar days; this investigation took about 28
months to complete.  OCR officials noted that much of the length of
this case is attributable to the complexities and sensitivity of the
affirmative action issues and the extensive statistical analysis that
was conducted. 


   UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT
   BERKELEY UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS
   (CASE NO.  09-89-2099)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:11

A journalist filed complaints during 1989 with OCR about UC Berkeley,
Harvard, and UCLA; each was a separate OCR case.  OCR was already
investigating admissions programs at Harvard and UCLA.  In the
Berkeley case, the complainant charged that too many underrepresented
minorities, Asian-Indians, and Filipinos were being admitted to UC
Berkeley and too few qualified Asian-Americans and whites were being
admitted.  He criticized the university's affirmative action program. 
He also alleged that underrepresented minority students were being
segregated into the UCLA and UC Berkeley campuses and away from the
other UC campuses. 

Originally, the investigation initiated in May 1989 was to cover the
academic years beginning in 1987, 1988, and 1989.  As time went by,
however, additional years were added to the investigation because the
university changed its admissions policies and OCR's preliminary
findings were no longer current.  According to OCR, obtaining usable
data from the university was also a problem throughout the
investigation.  Over time, OCR conducted 10 site visits. 

In addition to the on-site work done by the OCR regional staff, the
OCR headquarters surveys and statistical support branch, beginning in
August 1991, analyzed university data on several occasions and issued
two reports summarizing its work.  The case file showed no activity
on the case from August 1993 until July 1994. 

In July 1994, OCR requested more data from the university.  In
October 1994, OCR wrote a follow-up letter to the university again
requesting data.  As of September 1995, this case was still open. 
OCR officials told us that substantive changes occurred in the
admissions policy in 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994.  OCR conducted
additional on-site interviews to obtain clarification of the
admissions changes taking place. 


   UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN AT
   MADISON (CASE NOS.  05-91-2062
   AND 05-92-2155)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:12

An Asian-Indian man filed two complaints with OCR after being denied
admission to the University of Wisconsin at Madison's Law School in
1991 and 1992.  He alleged that the university had discriminated
against him and other Asian-American applicants for its Legal
Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) because other minority groups
were automatically eligible whereas Asian-Americans were not.  LEOP
offered special admissions and need-contingent, race-targeted
financial aid. 

The case file for the first complaint included data that were
obtained during OCR's investigation from April 1991 to March 1992. 
This investigation was still in progress when the second complaint
was filed in July 1992.  The case file for the second complaint
included data obtained during OCR's investigation from July 1992 to
October 1992.  No documents appeared in the case file from October
1992 until August 1994. 

On August 11, 1994, OCR issued a closeout letter to the complainant,
which broke down the two complaints into three issues:  (1)
complainant was denied admission to law school in February 1991
because of race, national origin, and retaliation; (2) complainant
was denied admission to law school in February 1992 because of race,
national origin, and retaliation; and (3) LEOP denied Asian-Americans
automatic consideration for financial aid and admission.  In the
letter, OCR stated that it had found insufficient evidence to support
the first two individual allegations but that it would make a
separate determination on the third allegation, which is a class
issue. 

OCR officials said that these cases were delayed because they dealt
with race-targeted financial aid issues, which OCR was in the process
of reexamining.  OCR headquarters officials explained that the OCR
regional office was directed to hold its LOF until the policy
statement was issued.  This directive was later communicated orally,
so no documents were included in the case files, an official said. 
Although OCR conducted part of the investigation in 1991 and 1992,
OCR waited until the policy statement on race-targeted financial aid
became effective in May 1994 to finalize its investigation. 

The LOF on the first two allegations was issued less than 3 months
after the policy guidance took effect.  The class issue has taken
more time.  OCR decided that additional facts were needed to
determine if LEOP complied with title VI in light of the new
guidance.  In March 1995, OCR requested more data from the university
on the class issue, and in July and August 1995, the university
submitted additional data.  As of September 1995, the case was still
open. 


   MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
   TECHNOLOGY (CASE NO. 
   01-92-8083)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:13

An Asian-American man filed a complaint on behalf of his son,
alleging that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
discriminated against Asian-Americans by admitting less qualified
applicants from other races and nationalities.  The complainant cited
a newspaper article that reported how five poor Hispanic students
from Texas had been accepted by MIT and provided details of their
high school grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores.  The
complainant also contended that Asian-Americans as a class were
treated differently in the admissions process and believed that MIT
had set a quota on the number of Asian-Americans that would be
accepted. 

Beginning in June 1993, OCR investigated the complaint through
reviewing pertinent documents and records and interviewing various
involved parties.  OCR found no violations and issued its LOF on
April 22, 1994.  OCR exceeded the established time frames for this
case.  The standard in effect at the time the case was initiated was
that an LOF be completed within 135 calendar days of when a complete
complaint was filed; this investigation took about 18 months to
complete. 

The case file did not include information to explain (1) the delay
between when the complaint was filed and when the investigation began
and (2) the reasons it took so long to complete the investigation and
issue the LOF.  OCR officials told us that some of the delay in
initiating the investigation was attributable to the region's efforts
to coordinate the investigation of this case with other admissions
cases that had been filed in Region I (Boston) and Region II (New
York).  Officials also told us that the investigation needed to be
carefully planned to avoid the extraordinary consumption of resources
that a similar investigation at Harvard University had entailed. 


COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS AND
COMPLIANCE REVIEWS:  RESPONSE
TIMES, BENEFITS, AND CHANGES, BY
MINORITY GROUP
========================================================= Appendix III



                        Table III.1
          
          Average Time of Complaint Investigations
                Resolved, by Minority Group

                   (Fiscal years 1988-94)

                                        Minori
              Asian-  African-              ty
            American  American  Hispan  whites  Othe  Tota
                   s         s     ics      \a    rs     l
----------  --------  --------  ------  ------  ----  ----
Complaint investigations resolved
----------------------------------------------------------
Admissions        40       115      31      21    41   248
Non-              74       816     134      85   154  1,26
 admissions                                              3
==========================================================
Total            114       931     165     106   195  1,51
                                                         1

Average time (in days)
----------------------------------------------------------
Admissions       297       129     276     162   108   174
Non-             108       125     105      83   127   119
 admissions
==========================================================
Total            175       125     137      98   122   128
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Those from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East. 



                        Table III.2
          
           Complaint Investigations Resulting in
          Benefits to the Complainants or Changes,
                     by Minority Group

                   (Fiscal years 1988-94)

                                        Minori
              Asian-  African-              ty
            American  American  Hispan  whites  Othe  Tota
                   s         s     ics      \a    rs     l
----------  --------  --------  ------  ------  ----  ----
In numbers
----------------------------------------------------------
Admissions        40       115      31      21    41   248
 cases
 resolved
Non-              74       816     134      85   154  1,26
 admissions                                              3
 cases
 resolved
==========================================================
Total            114       931     165     106   195  1,51
                                                         1
Admissions        16        23       5       6     8    58
 cases
 with
 benefits
 to
 complaina
 nt or
 changes
 by school
Non-               6       111      17       9    13   156
 admissions
 cases
 with
 benefits
 to
 complaina
 nt or
 changes
 by school
Total             22       134      22      15    21   214
 cases
 with
 benefits
 to
 complaina
 nt or
 changes
 by school

In percent
----------------------------------------------------------
Benefits          40        20      16      29    20    23
 and
 changes
 of
 admission
 cases
 resolved
Benefits           8        14      13      11     8    12
 and
 changes
 of non-
 admission
 s cases
 resolved
==========================================================
Total             19        14      13      14    11    14
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Those from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East. 



                                       Table III.3
                         
                            Title VI Complaint Investigations
                               Resolved, by Minority Group

                           (October 1, 1994, to June 30, 1995)


                No   Average  No   Average        Average         Average         Average
Minority group   .      time   .      time  No.      time   No.      time   No.      time
--------------  --  --------  --  --------  ---  --------  ----  --------  ----  --------
Asian-           3       667   0         0    0         0    10       192    13       302
 Americans
Hispanics        1        84   1        38    6       199    29        62    37        84
American         2       193   0         0    2       118     3        29     7       101
 Indians
African-         1        28  22        88   16       212   115       102   154       111
 Americans
Class actions    0         0   1        70    0         0     2        66     3        67
Whites           0         0  13       125    1       587     5        61    19       132
Minority         0         0   4       157    3        93    11        91    18       106
 whites\a
Multiple title   0         0   0         0    1     1,301     6       106     7       277
 VI\b
=========================================================================================
Total            7       357  41       105   29       241   181        97   258       121
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Those from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Middle East. 

\b Multiple title VI cases are those that include more than one title
VI issue, that is, one case may include allegations about both race
and national origin discrimination. 



                        Table III.4
          
             Average Time of Compliance Reviews
                Completed, by Minority Group

                   (Fiscal years 1988-94)

                      Africa                  Multip
              Asian-      n-           Class      le
              Americ  Americ  Hispan  action   title  Tota
                 ans     ans     ics       s      VI     l
------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ----
Compliance reviews completed
----------------------------------------------------------
Admissions         3      16       1      14       5    39
 cases
Non-               1       7       1       9       1    19
 admissions
 cases
==========================================================
Total              4      23       2      23       6    58

Average time in days
----------------------------------------------------------
Admissions       219     117     128     299     238   174
 cases
Non-             120     125      45     103      87   108
 admissions
 cases
==========================================================
Total            195     120      87     223     213   174
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table III.5
          
          Compliance Reviews Resulting in Benefits
               and Changes, by Minority Group

                   (Fiscal years 1988-94)

                      Africa                  Multip
              Asian-      n-           Class      le
              Americ  Americ  Hispan  action   title  Tota
                 ans     ans     ics       s      VI     l
------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ----
In numbers
----------------------------------------------------------
Admissions         3      16       1      14       5    39
Non-               1       7       1       9       1    19
 admissions
==========================================================
Total              4      23       2      23       6    58
Admissions         3      11       1       5       2    22
 cases
 resulting
 in remedy
 or change
Non-               0       3       1       2       0     6
 admission
 cases
 resulting
 in remedy
 or change
==========================================================
Total              3      14       2       7       2    28

In percent
----------------------------------------------------------
Remedy or        100      69     100      36      40    56
 change to
 admissions
Remedy or          0      43     100      22       0    32
 change to
 non-
 admissions
==========================================================
Total             75      61     100      30      33    48
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table III.6
          
           Title VI Complaint Investigations Over
                        180 Days Old

                     As of May
                           21,   As of Sept.    As of June
Days pending              1993      30, 1994      30, 1995
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
2,000+                       1             1             2
1,600-1,999                  1             6             3
1,200-1,599                 15             3             6
1,000-1,199                  7             7             3
800-999                     12             5             1
600-799                     17             6            10
500-599                     24             6             1
400-499                     15            20            12
300-399                     24            23            15
181-299                     51            45            47
==========================================================
Total                      167           122           100
----------------------------------------------------------


                        Table III.7
          
            Title VI Compliance Reviews Over 180
                          Days Old

                     As of May
                           21,   As of Sept.    As of June
Days pending              1993      30, 1994      30, 1995
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
2,000+                       0             0             2
1,600-1,999                  0             2             0
1,200-1,599                  4             1             0
1,000-1,199                  0             1             0
800-999                      0             0             2
600-799                      3             0             1
500-599                      0             5             0
400-499                      0             2             3
300-399                      2             1             2
181-299                      1             6             4
==========================================================
Total                       10            18            14
----------------------------------------------------------



(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND GAO'S EVALUATION
========================================================= Appendix III



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Education's
letter dated September 26, 1995. 


   GAO COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

1.  Our point in this section was that OCR did not have a complete
official file for every case that included documentation on all
phases of a complaint investigation or compliance review, including
actions and decisions by OCR headquarters officials.  Education, in
its comments, said that records pertaining to OCR headquarters
activity in the 13 cases were maintained in a chronological filing
system, rather than a case file system, that suited the needs of
headquarters staff.  At headquarters, however, activities involving
these cases, like teleconferences and data analysis, are not captured
in the chronological files.  Moreover, while documents on individual
cases may be filed chronologically, the documents did not usually
explain delays.  As a result, we had to rely on oral statements by
OCR headquarters staff for much of the information on the chronology
of events while the cases were worked on in OCR headquarters. 

2.  We acknowledged that for some cases, documents prepared by OCR
headquarters were sometimes included in the regional office files. 
As we reported, however, often the actions, decisions, and
deliberations that occurred in headquarters that led to the issuance
of a letter of findings or other documents reflecting OCR's official
position on an issue were not included in the case files made
available to us.  Furthermore, reasons for delays of investigations
and reviews were seldom documented at OCR headquarters; therefore, we
had to rely largely on oral statements by headquarters officials for
this information. 

3.  We agree that individual cases that took a long time to resolve
would skew OCR's average time for completing complaint investigations
and compliance reviews.  We also acknowledge that in reporting
information and statistics on OCR's timeliness in resolving its
cases, we do not fully discuss all the factors that may affect the
resolution of each case; for example, the legal complexities of a
precedent-setting case or the great amount of analysis necessary in
an admissions case.  (See pp.  6 and 9.)

4.  A paragraph discussing these data was added.  (See p.  7.)

5.  The caption on page 8 was revised. 

6.  Two sentences were added on page 9 to include additional
information. 

7.  Our review dealt only with complaint investigations and
compliance reviews in postsecondary schools that involved issues
concerning title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  There was no
need for revisions. 

8.  The report was revised.  (See p.  2.)

9.  No revision was needed. 

10.  The report was revised to include Education's comment.  (See p. 
2.)

11.  The report was revised to include updated information.  (See p. 
3.)

12.  The report was revised to include correct percentages.  (See p. 
4.)

13.  The report was revised to include updated information.  (See p. 
4.)

14.  The report was revised to include the correct definition.  (See
p.  6.)

15.  The report was revised to reflect Education's comment.  (See p. 
11.)

16.  The sentence was deleted because of updated information.  (See
p.  11.)

17.  The report was revised because of updated information.  (See p. 
12.)

18.  The report was revised to include additional information.  (See
p.  13.)

19.  The report was revised to include updated information.  (See p. 
13.)

20.  The report was revised.  (See p.  14.)

21.  The report was revised to include additional information.  (See
p.  24.)

22.  The report was revised to include additional information.  (See
p.  24.)

23.  The report was revised to include additional information.  (See
p.  28.)

24.  No revision was needed. 

25.  No revision was needed. 

26.  The report was revised.  (See p.  40.)


*** End of document. ***